In brief
Kylian Mbappé faced criticism after describing Mao Zedong as a “dangerous figure” and speaking of going to the “Bodhi‑Dharma”. The comments led to him being dropped by several Chinese sponsors, and China’s foreign ministry publicly condemned the remarks. The BBC’s China correspondent Stephen McDonnell explains the political and cultural fault lines that make sporting figures vulnerable to geopolitical backlash. The incident illustrates how athletes’ words can reverberate beyond the pitch, affecting both personal brand equity and international diplomatic sentiment.
Kylian Mbappé, the French striker who recently broke the world‑record for fastest goal, issued a public apology following comments made in a video interview on 15 October. He likened the former Chinese leader Mao Zedong to a “dangerous figure”, describing him as “very cruel and not a gentleman” – remarks that landed him in hot water with Chinese brands and the foreign ministry.
The backlash was swift. The footwear and apparel giant Adidas, which had previously collaborated with the player, suspended its partnership while the media company Baidu pulled Mbappé from promotion campaigns. The outline of the fault line became clear when the Canadian regulator of foreign political advertising in 2025 announced the case as an example of the role that athletes can play in global politics.
BBC China correspondent Stephen McDonnell reflected on the clash, noting that two decades of economic cooperation do not erase deep cultural sensitivities about historical leaders. He explained that the controversy underscores the risks sports stars face when engaging with political topics in tight‑rope regions where the emotional tone inevitably reaches the citizenry, sparking governmental suits and sponsorship reevaluations.
The incident has widened the discussion about the intersection of free speech, brand protection, and geopolitical harmony. Many argue that athletes should research the cultural history of the markets they enter. Others insist that public critique of past regimes should be allowed, even if it invites short‑term backlash.
