The final five words of Tennys Sandgren’s 17-word Twitter bio are: “likes/rtwts are not endorsements.” It’s a line many Twitter users post as a means to insulate their employer and associates from any controversial opinions they may share, such as a distaste for the McDonald’s McRib sandwich or actually enjoying Mondays. But in Sandgren’s case, the line sits there like an attempt to say: Hey, just because I read, like and share alt-right bigotry does not mean I’m an alt-right bigot.

A week ago, few knew or cared about Tennys Sandgren’s Twitter account. Most didn’t even know who Tennys Sandgren was. But that was before the 26-year old from Tennessee, the 97th-ranked player in the world who didn’t even make it off the Challenger tour until last year, went on an improbable run to the men’s quarter-finals at the Australian Open, including a five-set victory over Dominic Thiem, the No5 player in the world. It was a feel-good story. Until some fans checked the verified Twitter account run by Tennys and immediately stopped feeling good.

Tennys Sandgren deletes tweets after denying far-right sympathies at Australian Open Read more

Sandgren’s more than 500 Twitter follows feature a who’s who of who’s hateful from the alt-right. Mike Cernovich, Ann Coulter, Dan Roodt, Tommy Robinson, Sebastian Gorka, Laura Ingraham, Don Nehlen, Iowa Congressman and overt racism aficionado Steve King. Sandgren even follows @MAGAjoe69, an account with 17 other followers outside of the tennis player and one that features a Pepe’d Donald Trump avatar. And the list – unfortunately for society in that so many of these people exist – goes on and on. Yes, to be fair, Sandgren also follows the likes of Elon Musk, Hugh Jackman and Andre Agassi, proof that curiosity about white nationalism doesn’t comprise the full spectrum of his interests.

Asked after his last match if he is a far-right sympathizer, Sandgren responded: “Who you follow on Twitter, I feel, doesn’t matter even a little bit. What information you see doesn’t dictate what you think or believe. I think it’s crazy to think that. I think it’s crazy to assume that. To say: ‘Well, he’s following X person, so he believes all the the things that this person believes.’ I think that’s ridiculous.”

Both ridiculous and crazy, Sandgren tweeted not long after the 2016 US presidential election that the evidence of “Pizzagate” – a far-right conspiracy theory that involved Hillary Clinton helping run a child sex slave operation out of a Northern Virginia pizza shop – was “sickening” and “the collective evidence is too much to ignore.” It is baffling that someone foolish enough to fall for Pizzagate can even understand tennis’ scoring system, let alone play the sport, but that’s a discussion for another time. At this time, and in the last 24 hours, Sandgren has removed the pizza tweet and nearly every other Twitter post he’s made. Yes, even his tweeted ponderance about why the media wasn’t reporting more on Hillary Clinton’s supposed ties to “spirit cooking.” Same with his “RIP @Nero” tweet, mourning the banning of alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos from Twitter in the summer of 2016, now gone forever. RIP, idiocy.

Sandgren, when pushed again by a reporter if he supported the alt-right movement said: “No, I don’t. I find some of the content interesting. But no, I don’t, not at all. As a firm Christian, I don’t support things like that. I support Christ and following him. That’s what I support.” OK. Tennis fans can choose to believe Sandgren’s brief words at the press gathering demonstrate who he really is. Or they can choose to believe that his now-deleted words on Twitter, written over numerous years, better capture the man. And then they’ll decide if they can continue to root for the upstart in his quarterfinal match against Hyeon Chung, the unseeded South Korean underdog who wears glasses, just upset Novak Djokovic in straight sets and, as of this publishing, has no known associations to hateful rhetoric.

Sandgren is the latest athlete to highlight a modern sports fan dilemma: Is an athlete’s politics enough of a reason to root against him or her, regardless of the uniform they wear or the country or city they represent? Without question, many American football fans decided Colin Kaepernick’s silent kneeling during the national anthem was too much for them. (As did, obviously, many NFL owners, general managers and coaches, as the quarterback remains unemployed while Blake Bortles is handed the keys of a play-off team.) For others, Kaepernick wearing police pig socks at a San Francisco 49ers practice and a Fidel Castro T-shirt to a press conference is what pushed them into the anti-Kaepernick camp.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, there’s Curt Schilling, former baseball pitcher and now a Breitbart online radio show host. And, yes, you guessed it: someone Tennys Sandgren follows on Twitter. When Schilling pitched through his bloody sock in Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series, Twitter didn’t exist, the United States was far less polarized politically and, so, Boston fans didn’t know that Schilling held loathsome views on Muslims and the transgender community. Nor did they know he was someone who would take tens of millions in loans from the state of Rhode Island for a (failed) video game company, only to then align himself with a political philosophy that rails against welfare and entitlements.

Boston fans face a similar dilemma today with their beloved Patriots. Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft may be the greatest quarterback, head coach and team owner in NFL history. It’s impossible not to marvel at Brady’s on-field performance or the strategic and organizational advantage Belichick somehow manages to hold over every opposing coach week after week. Yet in the deep blue state of Massachusetts, is all of that enough to overlook Brady’s MAGA hat and friendship with Trump? Or Kraft and Belichick’s overt endorsement of the president, including Belichick writing a letter that was read by Trump himself at a New Hampshire rally the night before the 2016 election? Meanwhile, New England’s Super Bowl opponent, the Philadelphia Eagles, has been called the “wokest” team in the NFL with not one, but two, players who have raised a fist during the national anthem. Do some fans of the Eagles, playing in a state that tipped for Trump in 2016, struggle to justify rooting for a team full of players that openly dislike the president? Probably. Although an unexpected trip to the Super Bowl may help them set aside their displeasure for a time. But can you still root for someone, even if they represent your city or nation, if they hold political beliefs that disgust you?

It’s an interesting discussion to have. Maybe someone on the far-right can tweet it into Tennys Sundgren’s Twitter feed so he can think about it, too.