A community of LGBTQ+ Dodgers fans has called for a boycott of Mookie Betts after he rejected a contract with Tim Cook that included a clause requiring him to post ads supporting the transgender community.
In a surprising turn of events, a segment of the Los Angeles Dodgers’ fanbase, specifically from the LGBTQ+ community, has initiated a boycott against star outfielder Mookie Betts. The controversy stems from Betts’ recent decision to reject a lucrative endorsement deal with Apple CEO Tim Cook, which reportedly included a clause mandating that Betts publicly post advertisements supporting the transgender community. The decision has sparked heated debate, highlighting the intersection of sports, personal beliefs, and corporate influence in today’s polarized cultural landscape.
The Dodgers, a franchise long celebrated for its progressive stance on inclusivity, have hosted annual LGBTQ+ Pride Nights for over a decade, often drawing both praise and criticism. These events have solidified the team’s connection with diverse communities in Los Angeles, including a significant portion of LGBTQ+ fans who view the team as a beacon of acceptance. However, Betts’ rejection of the endorsement deal has left some of these fans feeling betrayed, prompting calls for a boycott that have reverberated across social media platforms and fan forums.
Details of the proposed contract remain scarce, as neither Betts nor Cook has publicly disclosed the specifics. Sources close to the negotiations suggest that the deal was a multi-million-dollar agreement tied to Apple’s ongoing efforts to align its brand with social justice causes. The inclusion of a clause requiring Betts to post ads explicitly supporting the transgender community appears to have been the sticking point. Betts, a perennial All-Star and one of baseball’s most marketable figures, reportedly declined the offer, citing personal reasons for his decision.
The backlash from the LGBTQ+ community was swift. On platforms like X, fans expressed their disappointment, with some accusing Betts of undermining the team’s inclusive legacy. One prominent LGBTQ+ Dodgers fan group, which organizes events during Pride Night, issued a statement urging supporters to skip games where Betts is prominently featured, such as promotional nights centered around his jersey giveaways. “We’ve always seen the Dodgers as a team that stands for everyone,” the group stated. “Mookie’s decision feels like a step backward, and we can’t support that.”
However, not all fans agree with the boycott. Some argue that Betts has the right to make personal choices about endorsements without facing public backlash. On X, several users defended Betts, pointing out that forcing an athlete to align with specific social causes could set a dangerous precedent. “He’s a baseball player, not a political activist,” one user posted. Others noted Betts’ history of community involvement, including his support for youth programs and charitable causes, as evidence that his decision may not reflect broader prejudice but rather a desire to avoid being drawn into polarizing debates.
The controversy comes at a time when the Dodgers have already navigated turbulent waters regarding their outreach to the LGBTQ+ community. In 2023, the team faced significant backlash over its decision to honor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a satirical drag group, during Pride Night. After initially rescinding the invitation due to pressure from conservative groups, the Dodgers reversed course, reinviting the group and issuing an apology. That episode, which drew protests and counterprotests, underscored the delicate balance teams must strike when engaging with social issues.
Critics of the boycott argue that targeting Betts individually overlooks the complexities of corporate endorsement deals. Athletes are increasingly expected to serve as cultural ambassadors, a role that can conflict with personal beliefs or a desire to remain apolitical. Supporters of Betts point to his teammate Clayton Kershaw, who in 2023 publicly opposed the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence’s inclusion without facing similar calls for a boycott. The disparity raises questions about whether Betts is being unfairly singled out due to his high profile.
For their part, the Dodgers organization has remained silent on the issue, likely hoping to avoid further inflaming tensions. Betts, too, has not issued a public statement, though sources close to him suggest he is focused on his performance on the field, where he continues to excel. As the 2025 season progresses, the boycott’s impact remains uncertain. Will it gain traction, or will it fade as fans rally around the team’s postseason aspirations? What is clear is that this dispute has exposed the fault lines within the Dodgers’ diverse fanbase, challenging the notion that sports can remain a unifying force in an increasingly divided world. For now, the conversation continues, both in the stands and online, as fans grapple with the intersection of loyalty, identity, and personal conviction.
