I wouldn't go that far, to be honest. He was not outspoken, as he rarely gave interviews. Definitely a conservative - he funded ServusTV, Addendum, and Pragmaticus, all conservative media outlets. However, I don't recall him making statements that could be considered really right-wing or extremist.
In my opinion, they have a negative image for multiple reasons:
- Football: Their approach of taking over clubs and changing names and club colors has made them quite unpopular in Germany and Austria.
- Formula 1: As a "non-traditional" team, they have stirred things up. To be fair, I also think Horner and Marko are not the most sympathetic figures in the sport.
- Business Practices: They are secretive; they don't do their bottling, making them arguably the most successful marketing company globally. They prefer to keep their strategies private and have opposed labor unions within their company and subsidiaries.
- "Healthwashing": As some users have termed it, their product is not the healthiest, and their association with sports is clearly a marketing strategy. There have also been claims that their focus on extreme marketing has led to athlete fatalities.
- COVID-19: ServusTV was accused of spreading misinformation by inviting questionable "experts" to their discussions.
- Inheritance of Mateschitz Jr.: In Austria, it was a major topic when he became the richest person in the country by inheriting the Red Bull empire after the death of Mateschitz Sr.
If I were to defend them, I'd say some points are exaggerated:
- Football: The rebranding of teams is tough, and fans are sensitive to that. However, calling them "corporate" and "artificial" is a bit hypocritical, considering the state of many other teams.
- Formula 1: While I'm not a fan of Horner, I somewhat respect Marko. A fair amount of trash-talking is typical in Formula 1 and should not be overinterpreted. They are just the "newcomers" in some sense.
- Business Practices: They offer high salaries in Austria, have created many jobs, and haven't moved offshore for tax reasons. This is supported by their consistent ranking as one of the Best Places to Work for Austrian graduates. So is it hierarchic? Probably, but for most employees that choose to go their it still seems to be a cool opportunity.
- "Healthwashing": This is a valid point, although I believe the extreme stunts they sponsor would have occurred in some form or another without Red Bull's involvement anyway.
The other two points are highly political, and everyone can form their own opinion.
In general, I'm not a big fan of the company, but I also don't think they're as evil as sometimes portrayed. They are not involved in activities like selling weapons to terrorist groups or whatever. In many areas, they have contributed positively - funding the largest charity for curing paraplegia, supporting a medical university in Austria (Paracelsus), investing in top-notch sports infrastructure in Salzburg (Red Bull Performance Center, Youth Academy), and revitalizing the Spielberg region in Styria, including owning hotels and restaurants, reportedly often run at a loss but to invest in Mateschitz' home region.
So, I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Sorry for this lengthy off-topic post. I actually think the negatives one could discuss concerning a cycling sponsorship are whole different ones -but that's a story for different parts of the forum (seemingly not having too much fear of contact with doping-linked Dr. Pansold, for example).