The man in the bold red “Make America Great Again” hat couldn’t have been more straightforward.
“I’m being evicted because we can’t wear Donald Trump hats in public,” he told his camera from the stands during a St. Louis City match in late July. Behind him, a security officer stood waiting, asking him to leave. The man continued, “Trump is not welcome here.”
That man, Michael Weitzel, a season ticket holder, was escorted outside the stadium gates. The security official even admitted he was a “Trumper” himself, but explained he had to follow stadium policy.
The video, calm in tone but pointed in message, spread like wildfire. Suddenly, influencers and media outlets—many of whom barely covered Major League Soccer (MLS)—were locked in on what seemed to be a one-sided crackdown on political expression. Some even framed it as a First Amendment issue—though that’s inaccurate since the First Amendment applies only to government action, and MLS is a private business.
What it really did was reignite debate over MLS’s fan code of conduct, which has placed restrictions on political displays for much of its existence. This policy has always been a magnet for controversy, and highlights one of MLS’s biggest balancing acts—trying to uphold the traditions of global soccer while also aligning with the norms of American sports leagues, even when those worlds clash.
MLS commissioner Don Garber defended the rule earlier this year, after anti-ICE banners were removed from several games—actions that triggered revolts among multiple supporters’ groups.
“We want our stadiums to be safe,” Garber said. “We don’t want displays that incite anyone, and we can’t cater to one audience while alienating another. The best way is to have the policy we have.”
This no-politics approach isn’t new. In 2015, Toronto FC staff removed “Refugees Welcome” banners. Back then, the code simply asked fans to keep the environment free from “political or inciting messages.” In 2019, the language became stricter, banning “political language and gestures.” That change gave MLS, clubs, and stadium security wide discretion to decide what counted as political—a loophole that the Independent Supporters’ Council (ISC) warned against.
Their 2019 statement stressed that human rights messages should not be misclassified as political, even if political engagement is sometimes necessary to secure those rights.
The warning proved prophetic. Later that year, MLS banned the “Iron Front” symbol—originally an anti-Nazi emblem—labeling it political. After a fan backlash, the ban was scrapped, and the policy shifted to its current form: banning campaigning, electioneering, and advocacy for or against any candidate, political party, legislative issue, or government action.
But even this wording hasn’t eliminated confusion. The Weitzel case, the anti-ICE banners, and the “Free Rumeysa” sign at a New England Revolution match all raise questions about how the rules are applied.
ACLU attorney Emerson Sykes calls the rule vague and inconsistently enforced: “The same banner might mean different things in different places. That’s why we don’t let the government police speech. MLS can—but the same pitfalls apply.”
MLS knows enforcement is tricky across 30 teams in 28 cities spanning two countries. A league insider admitted the St. Louis situation could have been handled differently, but insisted such incidents are rare exceptions. Still, with Trump’s second administration leaning toward authoritarian policies, political tensions will keep spilling into stadiums—especially for Hispanic and Latin American fans, who make up roughly 30% of MLS’s audience and have been directly targeted by ICE raids and hostile rhetoric.
In practice, MLS often judges displays by framing. “Abolish ICE” is considered a purely political statement, but “We’re not all here”—a nod to ICE’s impact on the community—is seen as acceptable. Likewise, a direct anti-Supreme Court message post-Roe v Wade would violate policy, but “Abortion is healthcare” might pass.
The priority? Risk management. Political signs can inflame already-charged crowds—especially with alcohol in play.
Sykes acknowledges both sides: “Sports can be powerful advocacy tools, but leagues aren’t political entities. They’re avoiding alienating huge swaths of fans. It’s not a political rally—it’s a sporting event.”
Interestingly, MLS stands out even among U.S. major leagues. While the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL have fan codes of conduct, few outright ban political expression league-wide. The NWSL mirrors MLS’s policy, while the WNBA doesn’t mention politics at all. In European soccer, most leagues have no such bans, and political displays can be part of club culture—though the comparison isn’t straightforward, since many clubs grew from community institutions, not corporate ventures.
Globally, FIFA and its confederations have faced similar inconsistency accusations, such as during the Qatar 2022 World Cup, when fans wearing “Free Palestine” shirts were allowed entry while others supporting Iran’s “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests were removed.
In the U.S., the lines blur too. MAGA hats are tied to a political figure but are also a social movement. ICE is a government body, but protests against it highlight documented human rights abuses.
Enforcement in MLS is a group effort—clubs, supporters, security, and the league office all have a say. Yet, the rule has led to contradictions: Israeli and Palestinian flags are banned unless tied to a player’s nationality, while the U.S. flag—representing a country deeply involved in global conflicts—is celebrated at every match with the national anthem. Fans can be removed for a hat or banner, but team owners can pour millions into political campaigns without penalty.
MLS could scrap the policy or let individual clubs decide, but that risks fan clashes in an already volatile political climate—and could draw unwanted attention from a president eager to exploit such moments. In MLS’s view, that would make games less safe and push the league further from the commercial giants of U.S. sports.
In the end, MLS appears far more concerned with protecting its brand than with protecting political expression in the stands.