Borussia Dortmund has decided to exercise total control over the social media of its midfielder Felix Nmecha following the uproar caused by a message in which he criticized the celebration of the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The decision, first reported by outlets such as Bild and confirmed in Spain by sports media, means that every post from the player that is not strictly sports-related must first be approved by the club’s communications department before being published.
This sets a serious precedent, calling into question respect for freedom of expression and opening an uncomfortable debate about how far a sports institution can go in conditioning the personal beliefs of its players.
The trigger was a post Nmecha shared on his networks:
“Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Celebrating the murder of a father of two children, a husband, and a man who peacefully defends his beliefs and values is truly evil and shows how much more we need Christ. May God have mercy and open our eyes and hearts in the name of Jesus.”
The message referred to the reaction of some progressive sectors who celebrated the assassination of Kirk, which took place on September 10 in Utah, during an event at Utah Valley University, where the Turning Point USA founder was gunned down.
Kirk, married and father of two, was one of the leading voices defending traditional values, the right to life, family, and freedom of expression. His death sparked a wave of international reactions, many of them politically charged.
Far from supporting his player’s human and moral stance, Borussia Dortmund reacted harshly. The board, led by Lars Ricken and Sebastian Kehl, informed Nmecha that from now on, any comment unrelated to football must have the club’s approval beforehand.
The institution, in a statement cited by Mundo Deportivo, claimed it “supports freedom of expression,” but argued that this control was necessary due to the reach and criticism the post generated. In other words: freedom, yes—but only within the limits of political correctness.
Under media pressure, Nmecha publicly apologized, clarifying that his intention was not to offend but to express condolences to Kirk’s family and to remind everyone that “hatred and violence will never be the solution.”
However, the apology did not stop Dortmund’s decision, which has now taken a step further into directly supervising what its players say—even in the private realm of their religious beliefs.
The underlying issue is obvious. The problem is not that a footballer talks about politics—because when they do so in line with the left, there is no backlash or censorship.
The discomfort arises when a player talks about Christ, about family values, and about the immorality of celebrating the death of a political opponent.
At a time when sports institutions pride themselves on tolerance and diversity, it is contradictory to muzzle those who profess Christian convictions.
With this measure, Borussia Dortmund undermines not only its own image but also a fundamental principle of free societies: the right of every citizen to express their beliefs.
That a footballer cannot quote a Bible verse without facing prior censorship says more about the ideological climate than about sporting reality. The message is clear: you may speak freely—so long as you do not contradict the dominant progressive narrative.
What is most serious is the complicit silence of the media and cultural left, who usually cry foul whenever the freedom of expression of their allies is restricted, but remain silent when the censored voice is a Christian’s.
Those who wave the flag of human rights should be the first to denounce the coercion Nmecha is suffering today—but ideological selectivity outweighs any real defense of freedoms.
Borussia Dortmund has crossed a dangerous line. It is not enough to control what a player does on the field; now the club also claims the right to monitor what he thinks and believes off it.
And that, beyond football, is a threat against constitutional order, against pluralism of ideas, and against human dignity.
The left may applaud this decision, but the truth is that what they celebrate today could tomorrow turn against anyone who dares to dissent.
The message is clear: in modern football, as in much of European public life, freedom exists only if it aligns with what is politically acceptable.
READ MORE:
About The Author
Read the full article here