MLB Commissioner Robert D. Manfred wants Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to believe that Major League Baseball is neutral — but the facts show otherwise.
In response to Hawley’s letter about concerns regarding San Francisco Giants players that were issued warnings after writing Bible verses on their Pride night hats, Manfred claimed the league enforces uniform policy “without regard to the substance of the messaging” — a claim that would be a lot more convincing if the league hadn’t spent years promoting left-wing causes.
The controversy began after several Giants players wrote Bible verses on their Pride night hats. The MLB subsequently issued a warning to the players, prompting Hawley to send a letter demanding the MLB answer for the discrimination.
Manfred tried to defend the league, arguing that league rules prohibit players from displaying messages on uniforms and equipment and arguing the warnings were related to policy rather than the content of the messages.
“By warning the Giants players that they may not include Bible verses on their caps in the future, MLB was not discriminating or chastising those players based on their religious beliefs; rather MLB was enforcing (with only an oral warning) a long-standing, collectively bargained rule that keeps uniforms clean and avoids controversy.” Manfred added the warning was wrong because “it was issued before we became aware of the Giants’ lapse in communication. The players were neither fined nor disciplined, nor will they ever be.”
In other words, Manfred’s argument isn’t that the Bible verses should have been permitted, it’s that the warning was issued under “wrong” circumstances because the Giants failed to properly inform the players that they could opt out of the gay gear entirely. But that explanation still leaves a glaring problem for Manfred’s neutrality claim. If the league is willing to allow pride-themed logos and messaging but not Christian messaging, then it has already abandoned any semblance of neutrality.
In fact, in trying to defend the MLB’s discrimination, Manfred acknowledged that both the Giants and Dodgers have been operating under a “grandfathered exception” allowing Pride night themed logos and apparels since 2023. That exception undermines the claim that the MLB is merely trying to keep uniforms free of messages.
Pride night is hardly the only example of the MLB being outwardly supportive of left-wing causes. MLB issued a tweet in 2020 about social justice and offered the players a “Black Lives Matter batting practice T-shirt, or a T-shirt designed or obtained by a club or its players” while also even temporarily changing its rules by “lift[ing] its cleat restrictions for the 2020 season, giving players more freedom to express themselves throughout the year. That includes the ability to use social justice messages and causes.” MLB also created a Black Lives Matter and United for Change patch that could “be affixed to the player’s sleeve.”
“Clubs are invited to stencil on the back of the mound the inverted MLB logo, with either the message ‘United for Change’ or ‘BLM,'” the MLB announced.
All of this was league-sanctioned activism and active promotion of such activism, which is why Manfred’s neutrality claim is so hard to take seriously. If MLB could make exceptions for both Black Lives Matter and Pride night but not for Christian players, then they are not neutral.
Nonetheless, Hawley touted the response as a win, claiming Manfred “admits they were wrong to threaten the Giants players over Bible verses and promises never to fine or discipline these players – or any players for their religious beliefs.”
But that’s not what Manfred said at all. Manfred simply said the Giants’ failure to communicate the opt-out policy made the warning wrong under the circumstances. But he did not suggest that players are free to add Bible verses to their uniforms in the future. In fact, the opposite was implied. According to Manfred’s reasoning, had the players been properly informed of their ability to opt out of the Pride-themed uniforms, a warning for the Bible verses would have been entirely justified.
Which brings us back to the same problem: Why does MLB make exceptions for left-wing activism while insisting that the expression of Christian faith is not permissible?
