Boycotts on Boycotts on Boycotts

You keep using that word...

It’s a little hard to keep track of exactly who is “boycotting” what in the aftermath of baseball’s decision to move this year’s All-Star Game from Atlanta to Colorado. Of course, it starts with the election legislation recently passed in Georgia. That law’s most infamous provision bans people from giving water and food to voters waiting in line, but the actual substance of it seems less important than the fact that it was clearly motivated by far right conspiracies about last year’s election, along with a desire to limit the recent surge of Black voters in Georgia.

The strong associations with Stop the Steal and voter suppression led to calls for boycotts of Georgia-based companies that did not do enough to oppose the law. Corporate America, in the form of a group called Civic Alliance, then released a bland statement about protecting voting rights. The statement itself did not call for any particular actions, but it was characterized as a call to “boycott Georgia.” One of the signatories to that statement was MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, who then announced that baseball would be moving the All-Star Game.

Then in response to THAT, conservative activists who support the Georgia law called for boycotts of baseball, as well as Coca-Cola and other companies that issued similar statements. Georgia Republicans are now having Coke products removed from their office.

And I think that’s where things stand right now: with a boycott of a boycott over a boycott. The whole thing is, obviously, very stupid.

It’s also worth pointing out that these aren’t even really “boycotts” in any meaningful sense. It’s not a “boycott” simply because you announce you don’t like something anymore and won’t be supporting it in the future, whether you are the MLB commissioner or just a regular soda-drinking American. A boycott is a collective action aimed at a specific, concrete end. It’s noteworthy that Manfred has NOT said that baseball will move the All-Star Game back if the law is repealed, nor did he comment on the law before it was passed. Because he’s not really interested in the law, or in voting rights—he’s interested in the PR headache of hosting the league’s first post-pandemic All-Star Game in the face of public criticism and possible protests from players. Nor is it clear that conservatives “boycotting” Coca-Cola actually want anything, except for a way to publicly support a law opposed by libs.

This is worth stressing because this stuff is becoming increasingly common: Boycotts are collective actions. You cannot just ascribe some political value to a consumer choice, and then conduct your own little boycott. I hear people say shit like this all the time. They are boycotting the NFL because of concussions, or they are boycotting college sports because the players don’t get paid, or they are boycotting Amazon because of their labor practices. But if you ask them who they are boycotting with, or what it would take to call off the boycott, they don’t really have answers.

Of course, it’s totally reasonable for people to want to make ethical choices as consumers. If you don’t think it’s right to watch the NFL or shop at Amazon, then you shouldn’t do it. But don’t call that a boycott. A boycott requires organizing and politics. The historical examples of successful boycotts involve real organizations, like the Montgomery Improvement Association or the Anti-Apartment Movement, that can run concrete and deliberate campaigns to target a specific law or event. Without such a group, a “boycott” is more about the participants’ feelings than actually changing things.

It’s worth looking back on the last time the sports world got caught up in a controversy like this. In 2016, North Carolina passed HB 2, better known as the bathroom bill, since it required trans individuals to use the restrooms that corresponded to the genders assigned at birth. Just like now, the bill was seen as obviously discriminatory. Just like now, there was a huge corporate backlash to the law. Just like now, people called it a “boycott.” Instead of baseball, it was the NCAA and the NBA that threatened to move games. And in response, the North Carolina legislature repealed the law.

Success! Right? Well, no. The “repeal” was not a real repeal—cities were still forbidden from passing nondiscrimination laws. Activists within North Carolina called it “the same bill with new numbers.” But it DID successfully stem the controversy and the boycotts—the NBA and NCAA kept their events in the state.

These corporate-led “boycotts” are no more effective than people setting Nikes on fire after a Colin Kaepernick commercial; they are not real collective action. Political problems require political solutions, not a CEO merely worried about a bad headline. If you want the company you work for to effect political change, then join a fucking union.