FA 'never wanted' a Downing Street meeting unless England won the Euros, says Number 10 - "Stephen Barclay jumped to Priti Patel's defense after Tyrone Mings accused her of 'stoking the fire' of racism
Mings said she had 'no right' to condemn the racist abuse against fellow stars Rashford, Sancho and Saka
Barclay said Patel, the daughter of Ugandan Asian immigrants, has 'repeatedly taken a stand against racism'
Angela Raynor urged Ms Patel and PM to 'take the knee' for 'giving these racist scumbags license to abuse'
And ex-player insisted Mings has 'very right to be angry', just as 'millions of people are across this country'"
Backlash after FA launch new crest featuring cub, lion and lioness - "The new England Football crest featuring a cub, lion and lioness has faced a fan backlash — even though the elite teams will stick with the traditional Three Lions... hundreds of England fans tweeted their dismay at the design, with some suggesting that the branding was "PC nonsense". Another remarked: "Who’s offended by a lion?" Other comments include "why change something that is perfect already," "The Plantagenet symbol of England erased, just like that," and "I know somebody needs to look busy in the office but don’t mess around for the sake of it"."
The Millwall Revolt - "Nothing horrifies the woke elites more than the noises made by working-class people. Whether they’re saying ‘Let’s leave the EU’ or complimenting a member of the opposite sex on the street, the sounds and statements of the throng often have much of the chattering classes reaching for their smelling salts. So it is no surprise that a 30-second outburst of booing among Millwall fans when their players ‘took the knee’ yesterday has led to Guardianistas across the land thumbing their thesauruses in search of the shrillest words with which to condemn this foul guttural cry of blind hate, etc etc. ‘Is this fascism?!’, they wonder out loud. Yes, dear, of course it is... Quite why British football players are still bowing down in sorrow over a police killing that took place months ago and thousands of miles away is anyone’s guess... Of course, the anti-working-class left and the NuFootball commentariat (who love the beautiful game but loathe its ugly fans) instantly found the Millwall fans guilty of racism. They had no proof, naturally. No proof whatsoever that the booing fans were driven by irrational hatred of people whose skin colour is different to their own. But you don’t need proof when you’re a puffed-up member of the woke elite. All you need to see is a large group of portly working-class men making a disagreeable noise and, boom, that’s racism. Case closed. But here’s the thing that everyone whose capacity for critical thinking hasn’t been completely erased by the religion of wokeness understands perfectly well — booing Black Lives Matter is not the same as booing black people. Indeed, football is possibly this country’s greatest success story when it comes to challenging racism. The ugly racism that sometimes exploded at games in the 1970s and 80s has almost completely fizzled out. Around 30 per cent of professional players are black. Kids worship them; fans cheer them. The fans who booed the taking of the knee have no doubt whooped with joy when a black player scored a goal. And that’s because football fans don’t hate black people — they’re just sick of being looked down upon by elites who dress up their suspicion of working-class crowds as ‘anti-racism’. Here’s what is remarkable about the Millwall booing. Yesterday was the first time since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic that fans were allowed back into live games. And the first thing some fans did (including West Ham fans, reportedly) was register their disapproval of the colonisation of the beautiful game by the divisive cult of identity politics. For months, the footballing authorities, heartily backed by the middle-class media and the big sports broadcasters, injected the BLM ideology into the game... it confirms that the woke elites will brook no dissent whatsoever to their divisive agendas of critical race theory and woke re-education"
Meme - "WHEN YOU'RE A POLISH FOOTBALL PLAYER WHO GOES TO BRITAIN TO PLAY AGAINST ENGLAND AND SOME PERSON WITH PURPLE HAIR TELLS YOU YOU HAVE TO GO ON YOUR KNEES BECAUSE SOME AMERICAN WAS KILLED BY THE POLICE IN MINNEAPOLIS LAST YEAR"
Newport County to investigate why teams did not take knee before Tranmere game - "Newport County chairman Gavin Foxall says he will investigate why the teams did not take a knee before their 1-0 League Two win over Tranmere Rovers. Foxall said the gesture, in support of Black Lives Matter, was "something the referee instigates before a game"."
Dissent will not be tolerated
Three cheers for the booing England fans - "as we all know, blaspheming against BLM is one of the greatest sins you can commit in the woke epoch (it’s right up there with referring to people with penises as men)... None of the fan-bashers has bothered to ask the most basic questions about the taking-the-knee nonsense. Why are English footballers still performing this ritual in relation to a man who was murdered more than a year ago and 4,000 miles away? Why is taking the knee so seemingly essential in football – every bloody weekend – but isn’t happening at other big gatherings? Unless I’m wrong and when theatres and opera houses reopen the actors and singers will take the knee every night. Hmm. I doubt it."
Free speech for football fans - "There are two issues to consider in this case. One is whether or not the FA would have the power to ban fans from booing players who take the knee, which would open a legal can of worms and set a dangerous precedent. The other is the dishonest narrative that surrounds this case, exacerbated by elitists and prominent figures. Starting with the former, irrespective of what you are protesting for or against, people have the right to express themselves. This applies to both football players and fans... to silence the fans, ban them from booing a particular action, or eject those who boo, would be to censor them. It would send a message that some movements are virtually untouchable, which could easily be twisted and weaponised. On Saturday, some Millwall fans, on their long-awaited return to their stadium, The Den, booed Millwall players as they took a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. One supporter was heard shouting ‘get up!’ in response to the players. Since then, many pundits and former players have condemned the booing, and Millwall FC has released a statement regarding the incident. Now, the English FA has announced that it plans to investigate the booing. This could have chilling effects not only on football, but also on wider society going forward.There are two issues to consider in this case. One is whether or not the FA would have the power to ban fans from booing players who take the knee, which would open a legal can of worms and set a dangerous precedent. The other is the dishonest narrative that surrounds this case, exacerbated by elitists and prominent figures.Starting with the former, irrespective of what you are protesting for or against, people have the right to express themselves. This applies to both football players and fans. The players have the right to kneel for a cause they believe to be just. The fans have the right to express their opposition. It’s a two-way street. Potentially to silence the fans, ban them from booing a particular action, or eject those who boo, would be to censor them. It would send a message that some movements are virtually untouchable, which could easily be twisted and weaponised.Then there is the narrative that is surrounding this case. There is a fraudulent idea that fans who boo players who kneel for BLM are racist... If this were the case, then perhaps someone could explain why the Millwall fans applauded the players when a banner was revealed in an act of solidarity against racism in the next match against Queens Park Rangers?... The answer is simple. Throughout this year, it could be argued that BLM supporters had a huge role to play in disorder and riots."
Euro 2020: Hungary fans unveil anti-kneeling banner before France game - "Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban said he agreed with their reaction and argued that “this kneeling business” had no place on the football pitch. He also described it as a “provocation” because Hungary has no history of slavery. “If you’re a guest in a country then understand its culture and do not provoke it,” Mr Orban told a press conference. “Do not provoke the host... We can only see this gesture system from our cultural vantage point as unintelligible, as provocation.”"
No, Gareth Southgate, ‘taking the knee’ is not a protest against injustice - "When the kneeling began at the return of football last June, it was made quite explicit that it was in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Players wore the BLM message on the back of their shirts for the first 12 games of the season. Arsenal placed large BLM banners in the stands at the Emirates to convey the messaging. Sky Sports and BT Sports both displayed BLM branding on their screens while broadcasting matches. In its communications, the England football team also promoted Black Lives Matter. So did the players. Then, the backtracking began. After the Black Lives Matter UK Twitter account attacked the existence of Israel, the Premier League insisted that its use of the slogan was not an endorsement of a political movement. Other incidents have also sparked controversy. At a BLM protest in London, on 7 June last year, mobs attacked police officers. Some activists made individual officers kneel in submission. Others defaced monuments, including that of Winston Churchill. The BLM movement has popularised the slogan ‘defund the police’ and has advocated dismantling the nuclear family. On one level, Black Lives Matter is a masterpiece of political marketing: a slogan with a campaign attached. The slogan conveys a message which no non-racist could possibly dispute. But it also directs money and attention to the activists and their ideology. This ideology boils down to basic racial favouritism: give us money and power or we will denounce and attack you. To many patriotic football fans, the gesture of kneeling to this movement cuts right to the bone. After all, going down on one knee could hardly be more symbolic. It is a powerful act of submission, normally reserved for praying to God in a church, for proposing marriage or for receiving an honour from a queen or king. Fans have noticed that the football world, by submitting to BLM, is submitting to racial ideologues who hate them and their country, and who want to abolish institutions like the family and police that nourish and protect them. When fans sit down to watch their teams play, this submission is forced into their faces. Then, they are lectured by commentators about how ‘powerful’ and ‘important’ it is. And when they object to any of this, their point of view is dismissed, they are treated with contempt and are denounced as racist. The football world’s near-unanimous response has been to shift the goalposts"
Meme - "When you're kneeling for "racial justice" but your black teammate is standing in respect, you may just be an idiot."
Clearly the black teammate has internalised white supremacy
Paul Embery on Twitter - "Millwall fans didn’t boo because they are racist. They have taken many black players to their hearts over the years. They booed because what began as a single act of solidarity has, as usual, turned into a protracted moral lecture. That is what irritates people. Understand it."
It is not racist to describe someone as black, says John Barnes - "A major row erupted on Wednesday night over the racism scandal to engulf the Champions League after John Barnes proclaimed there was nothing wrong with a match official describing an African coach as “the black one”... Barnes, himself a victim of shocking racist abuse while a player and now a prominent commentator on discrimination within society, responded to the outcry over the incident by posting images of the Basaksehir coaching staff on Twitter and writing: “Its [sic] NOT racist to describe the offender as the black one! We are telling people to call us black … he doesn’t know his name, there are 6/7 coaches standing together all Turkish … 1 is to be sent off, the ref says which one THE BLACK ONE what else can he say to let the ref know? Why can’t you describe a black man as being a black man?”"
Wouldn't only racists think being described as black as insulting?
Petition to Make Verified ID a Requirement for Opening a Social Media Account Gains Momentum - "Many supporters of the England football team were left devastated on Sunday when the team missed out on taking the UEFA EURO 2020 trophy home after Italy secured the win during a penalty shootout. Since the match, racist abuse towards England players has been rife on social media - and social media users and influencers alike are petitioning to crack down on this major issue."
So a lot of black people aren't going to be able to have social media anymore, apparently. Is that racist?
Premier League says support for Black Lives Matter not political
Literally...
Boris Johnson deserves the cold shoulder from England players – No 10’s been fanning the flames of racism for years
What a reach, even for The Independent. They barely attempt to justify the claim
Marcus Rashford and the hysteria about racism - "So, that graffiti sprayed over the mural of Marcus Rashford in Manchester wasn’t racist after all? That’s what Greater Manchester Police are now saying. They are keeping an ‘open mind’ as to the motive of the muppet who daubed the mural with insults after Rashford missed his penalty in England’s Euros final clash with Italy. But they’re now saying the graffiti is ‘not believed to be of a racial nature’. This is a serious development. It is another indicator, perhaps the most important one yet, that the past week of fury and handwringing over what a racist cesspit England has become was motivated more by hysteria than facts... Most of the media blurred out the actual graffiti, leaving readers and viewers to imagine that it said something obscene about this young black man who has become a national treasure over the past year. But the few uncensored images of the graffiti that were floating around social media revealed a very different reality. The graffiti seemed to say ‘Fuck Saka, Fuck Sancho’ – in relation to the two other penalty-fluffers – and ‘Shite in a bucket, bastard’ with a badly drawn cock and balls pointing to Rashford’s mouth. Infantile? Undoubtedly. Racist? No. The graffiti was more in keeping with the kind of intemperate chatter and banter frequently heard in relation to football than it was with racial hatred. Fuck, bastard, shite – these words might offend the sensibilities of the middle-class Johnny Come Latelys to the beautiful game but they are not uncommon from the mouths of impassioned fans angry when their team loses. It was a criminal act, for sure – no one has the right to deface public property. But if it were a racist act too, then surely the graffitist would have used racist terminology? Those claiming that it is by definition racist, because it was targeted at a black man, are playing a dangerous game indeed. Do we really want to say that all criticism of black people is racist? That would infantilise our ethnic-minority citizens, forcefielding them from the rough and tumble of daily life, which is the opposite of equality, and arguably a tad racist... the far larger story here is how swiftly and uncritically the graffiti incident was folded into the narrative about England being a horrible racist hellhole. For the past week, blurred images of the daubed Rashford mural, and then images of it covered in messages of love and support from the people of Manchester, have dominated media discussion in the UK. The defaced mural became Exhibit A in the case against racist Britain... huge numbers of activists – including, inevitably, the Socialist Workers Party – gathered at the mural to take the knee and chant ‘Black Lives Matter’. Many of these people were entirely well-meaning, of course. They love Rashford and loathe racism. But what, exactly, were they protesting against here? The word ‘shite’? The drawing of a dick? Where was the racism? Where was the suggestion that black lives don’t matter? They were, in essence, protesting against something that didn’t actually happen. This requires some analysis. What this all suggests is that the discussion about racism today is becoming more and more unhinged, more and more disconnected from reality. There is no evidence that the anti-Rashford graffiti was racist, and yet anti-racists protest against it. Surveys and polls continually show that Britain has become less racist in recent decades, and yet the cultural elites have convinced themselves that racism lurks everywhere. Or consider the scandal of racist messages being sent to Rashford, Saka and Sancho on social media. This was blown entirely out of proportion. The messages were tiny in number and many of them came from overseas. And yet they, too, were held up as proof of the unstoppable march of racism across England. Once again, the claims and the activism are untethered from reality. Racism has become a moral panic... The danger is that this moral panic about racism will start to play the role racism once played – dividing communities from each other, making us fearful of ‘the other’, and empowering the elites to manage relations between the quarrelling races. If you once stood against racism, now you should stand against the moral panic about racism. Because these two things have a scarily similar energy."
Facebook - "Guide for disappointed UK soccer fans furious at the penalty takers.
"They are lousy [race-related word], overpaid and overrated players who should sod off to [origin country]" - racist and wrong
"They are lousy, overpaid and overrated players who should sod off to hell" - correct, reasonable and appropriate"
Facebook - "Hahaha I spoke too soon. Even legit insults that don't mention race are now alleged by the media to be racist. Seems like in the UK, you can now do no wrong if your skin tone is of a certain shade."
Michael Knowles on Twitter - The Economist: "The most striking aspect of Italy’s 26-man squad before it took to the pitch was that, alone among the main contenders, it did not include a single player considered as being of colour"
"What precisely is "striking" about Italians making up the Italian soccer team?
STRIKING: Nigeria's soccer team doesn't include a single Norwegian"
There were no transmen either, so they're transphobic too
Other replies: "Emerson isn't of color? He was born in Brazil & was granted Italian citizenship in 2017. Also, WTF is the point of this article?"
"100 years ago, all Italians were considered to be "of color.""
"ThE itALiAn TeAM haS tOo ManY ItAliAnS oN iT"
"wow, 3 brazilian-italians are not enough for the virtue-signaling police."
Italy’s government basks in the glow of footballing success | The Economist - "To the extent that any sporting event can have an impact on politics, this one unquestionably favoured the right—and not just the League, but the even harder-right Brothers of Italy party, which is in opposition. The most striking aspect of Italy’s 26-man squad before it took to the pitch was that, alone among the main contenders,it did not include a single player considered as being of colour (Although three were born in Brazil, they are of Italian descent). The publication of the team photograph prompted a slew of criticism on social media, particularly in France. And there was further criticism of the squad’s ambivalent approach to “taking a knee” as a gesture of opposition to racism. Only some of the Italian players knelt before the game against Wales. They subsequently took the odd decision that they should all do so, but only if the opposing team did too. Almost every country has learned that, in sport, diversity brings dividends—and indeed medals and cups. Italy, although it has a smaller and more recently acquired immigrant population than either France or Britain, is no exception... But one reason why talented young sports people of colour in Italy are not nurtured through junior national teams in the early parts of their careers is that they are not Italians."
Of course, if it had been a victory for the "Italian left" that would not have been a problem
"In theory, Italy should have lost. But it didn't. Therefore it's a problem for reality"
Meme - "World Cup should be a banter now that England footballers are woke politicians
Where Homosexuality Is Punishable By Death *Muslim countries*"
Liberals will just blame colonialism
Billy on Twitter - "There was more public outrage and government action when football players got 1,000 mean tweets than when 1,400 girls got sexually abused by grooming gangs."
Meme - "Based Polaks again: A new method developed by Polish fans to "hack" the kneeling at football matches. A huge banner with a Polish king with the title "Kneel before his Majesty," refers that the Leicester players knelt before the King"
Football is no place for politics – it’s high time we kicked it out - "Leicester City defeated Chelsea to win the FA Cup for the first time in their history. Before kick off, the players and match officials knelt in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. As they did so, a minority of fans – allowed into the stadium for the first time in more than a year – booed. After the match, two Leicester players unfurled a Palestinian flag, presumably to share their views about the conflict between Israel and its terrorist enemy, Hamas. Football has been getting steadily more political for several years... This might not seem like such a big deal. After all, don’t footballers have the same right to express themselves as the rest of us? Shouldn’t football use its enormous reach to help advance good causes? Isn’t sport, especially when it is international, unavoidably political? Study some examples and you will soon realise how complicated answering these questions can be. Marcus Rashford, the Manchester United and England forward, has campaigned skilfully to force the Government to change its policies and provide free meals for poor children outside the school term. His work was away from the pitch, never strayed into party politics, and was not particularly divisive. Supporters seemed to take pride in what he had done, and the Government even awarded him an honour for his efforts. But a year and a half ago, Mesut Özil, then an Arsenal player, found himself in a more controversial situation. Özil is a German international with Turkish ancestry and a Muslim. Following the reports that the Chinese state had incarcerated one million Uighur Muslims, Özil criticised China, defended the Uighurs, and criticised his fellow Muslims for not speaking out. China responded by having Özil removed from a Chinese version of a football video game and blocking the broadcast of Arsenal’s next fixture on Chinese television. Arsenal disowned Özil, saying the club was “always apolitical as an organisation” and issuing its statement on the Chinese social media platform, Weibo. Such blatant hypocrisy is just part of the problem with political football. Footballers may take political positions, it seems, unless those positions interfere with the commercial interests of their employers. And footballers and their clubs may take positions on specific ethical issues, insisting they are very much holier-than-thou, while remaining silent on their own conduct. And so we have the former footballer and television presenter, Gary Lineker, who wears his progressive credentials on his sleeve, under investigation by the tax authorities for millions in unpaid taxes. We have Sam Allardyce, who had to resign as England manager after a corruption scandal, back in the Premier League at West Bromwich Albion. And we have owners like Mike Ashley, who, according to a Parliamentary inquiry, treated his Sports Direct employees as if they were in a Victorian workhouse. Next year, the football World Cup will be held in Qatar. The decision to host it there was the result of a suspect process, overseen by Fifa, the international football governing body, whose senior leadership has been investigated, and in some cases prosecuted, for corruption. Much construction in Qatar is undertaken by migrant workers trapped in appalling conditions that amount to modern slavery. Since Qatar won its World Cup bid 10 years ago, 6,500 migrant workers have died there. And yet the football world has remained almost universally silent. There were no flags at the Cup Final for the Pakistanis, Indians, Nepalese and others trapped in forced labour on Qatari World Cup construction sites. Nor were there flags for the Uighurs or the many Muslims who have suffered and died under Assad and Isis in Syria, or those who live under tyranny in Gaza and Iran. Nor were there flags, needless to say, for the Israeli civilians – Jews and Arabs – who have been targeted by Hamas terrorism. Nobody was able to make this point to the players as they paraded their Palestinian flag at Wembley on Saturday, of course. And this is the other big problem with political football: it represents the abuse of a captive audience, brought together in stadiums and on television to enjoy a spectacle together without the division of politics. Among us, there are different views on the conflict between Israel and Hamas, just as there are on Black Lives Matter. Football fans almost universally respect and support the long-running campaign to “kick racism out of football”, but while some agree with Black Lives Matter, others are repelled by its association with campaigns to defund the police, abolish prisons and radically remake society. Even if players believe taking the knee is a gesture of solidarity in the face of racism, they are unwittingly bringing politics – and the divisions of values that politics by definition represent – into the sport. They are taking sides, which alienates many. In this respect, football does reflect wider society. Across so many parts of life, politics – and usually the politics of the radical Left – is intruding. And as it does so – in sport, in television and movies, the arts and heritage, and elsewhere – it unavoidably divides us, because that is what politics does. In this era of polarisation and culture wars, we need more places, events and moments that bring us together, not fewer. Footballers are entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but politics must be kept out of matchday."
Football and Black Lives Matter don't mix - "For the first 12 games, the slogan ‘Black Lives Matter’ replaced the players’ names on the back of their shirts, before shrinking to a logo thereafter. And just ahead of each kick-off, players and staff have been earnestly ‘taking the knee’, with some raising a tentative fist, Black Power-style. Sky Sports, BT Sport and other UK broadcasters have flashed up BLM messages and graphics during ad breaks, while anchors have intoned sombre monologues on the need to ‘educate’ ourselves about racism. And some pundits have even indulged in that most middle-class of BLM rituals: the self-flagellating, self-aggrandising display of contrition... It has made for a spectacle replete in political kitsch, from the parody of decades-old protest to the formulaic repetition of saccharine sentiment. It looks virtuous. It feels progressive. It sounds moral. But, like all kitsch, the Premier League’s BLM parade is not what it claims to be... The Premier League may now be cosplaying as a BLM protester, but it is continuing to act as a corporate, commercial entity. Which is what it is: a corporate, commercial entity. Its single objective is not ‘to eradicate racial prejudice wherever it exists’, but to maximise the profits of its 20 members, mainly through the broadcasting deals it strikes with the likes of Sky, NBC Sports and Amazon. That is why, between 2018 and 2022, the Premier League will have lined its members’ coffers with half-a-billion pounds’ worth of Qatari state capital – because it sold its Middle East and North Africa broadcasting rights to beIN Sports, which is owned by Qatar. Yes, Qatar. A gulf statelet that actually practices something close to the ‘systemic racism’ BLM merely preaches against. How else should one describe the treatment of mainly African migrant workers under a Qatari employment system that strips them of all rights, and pits them to work for low-to-no pay, on, among other projects, brand new football stadia. But, hey, no doubt they will appreciate seeing Brighton and Hove Albion’s first team, paid in part by their Qatari state oppressors, taking the knee, and reassuring them that black lives really do matter. And then there’s the small matter of the prospective owner of Premier League club Newcastle United — namely, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund... a Premier League football club will be owned by an Islamic theocracy — one, moreover, that is not only literally crucifying and beheading domestic dissidents, but is also prosecuting a war in Yemen that has cost the lives of over 100,000 ‘people of colour’. It seems that when it comes to Premier League business, some black lives matter less than others... But if it is not the Premier League’s responsibility to sort out the world’s ills, then why is it dressing itself up as if it is? Why is it, aided and abetted by its media partners, posing as an anti-racist crusade? And why is it therefore inviting the charges of gross hypocrisy that will surely come its way? In part, it’s because, as Apple or Amazon have discovered, embracing BLM has seemed an easy, no-cost way to burnish corporate reputations... But in the case of the Premier League the sense of cause, of mission, is perhaps even greater. This is because of the role football has played, since the 1990s, as a means for our political and media elites to address, inculcate and discipline football’s traditional constituency: the working class. And the principal form this has taken is ‘anti-racism’, hence officialdom’s ever-increasing obsession, shared by an excitable media class, with the much-trumpeted rise in fans’ alleged racism during a period in which the number of actual match-going racists has clearly dwindled. That is why the Premier League has been so blind to the obvious hypocrisy in its BLM stance. Because it is not really interested in the devastating warmongering of its members’ prospective owners, or the brutal, borderline racist employment practices of its partners. Indeed, it is not really interested in tackling actual discrimination. Rather, it is interested, almost myopically so, in targeting fans, addressing them as if they have been doing something wrong, challenging them to fess up to prejudices they never knew they had. It’s like a showtrial conducted on a mass scale. Those overseeing it – in the media, and beyond – are simply convinced of fans’ guilt... constantly telling fans stuck watching the match at home that they’re racist, or that their views are ‘problematic’, is going to get peoples’ backs up
Why I have finally stopped watching football - "Football, always central to our culture, has become a meeting point for the triple threat of globalism, wokeism and safetyism. Globalism, as well as the general shift towards a feudal society led by a handful of billionaires, is perfectly exemplified by the proposed new Super League. The idea is (or was?) that a select few European teams, owned by very rich people from around the world, would compete repeatedly against each other in a pointless, elitist circle jerk with no jeopardy, financed by JP Morgan and generating revenue not necessarily through ticket sales, but from, for example, selling off the TV rights to China. The teams would finally lose all connection with their local areas, and even with their respective countries, as well as with the fans who built these clubs, and who have conveniently already been banned from stadiums. Like a high-level politician walking into a pub and telling the landlord that he doesn’t want to hear his views, despite said landlord being a lifelong voter for his party, football’s biggest problem has long been getting rid of the pesky fans that scupper all their evil schemes. With the Super League they are (or were?) on the verge of achieving that aim... safetyism has also infected football, in the form of VAR. It is football’s equivalent of a ‘Zero Covid’ approach. A centrally planned, utopian notion that all error can be removed from the game, failing to realise that in doing so all joy is also removed (what pundits call the ‘human element’) and that new errors are continually created by the overcorrection itself. It is a form of insanity that has brought the game to its knees metaphorically, just as BLM has achieved this in literal terms. We can also see this safetyism in the more valid concerns about players heading the ball. The suggestion from some is to completely ban heading from the game, or at least remove it from training (leading, presumably, to crap heading). No one wants players to suffer brain injuries, but at the same time this proposal forces us to confront the very meaning of sport. The goal of sports is not safety. It is human potential reaching its fullest expression, requiring sacrifices in order to do so. Sport is supposed to contain an element of the warrior mentality. Very explicitly in boxing, where you can still easily get killed in the ring, and to a lesser extent in games like football... Nor is sport free from the recent confusion around gender. Another possible sign of decline – it is said to have been prevalent in the late period of the Roman Empire – it poses a huge problem for women’s sports, with the emergence of trans athletes. Given all this, it is no surprise that the commentary around football has now become more interesting than the game itself... This is consistent with where we are across the entire culture. As our values collapse, we are unable to produce quality art, movies, music, comedy, and so on. All that remains viable is an obsessive dissection of where we have gone wrong. Thus YouTube videos, podcasts, Twitter and even football punditry hold our interest, while the primary forms they refer to fall away. Culturally we have cornered ourselves into self-destruction. All we can do, at least for now, is analyse the problem."
Black Lives Matter has no place in the Premier League - " Having failed to stamp out racism from matches, and under the same political pressure every other corporation is currently under not to appear ‘silent’ on the issue of racism, the Premier League has decided to welcome an organisation that, among other goals, aims to defund the police and ‘disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement’. These policies would be disconcerting in any context, but in the world of football they sound even more incongruous. Anyone who’s ever been to a football match knows the importance of police presence... As for the ‘nuclear family’, going to the football is one of the best family pursuits we have. Especially, traditionally, as a way for men to bond with their sons... BLM is also, of course, fervently anti-capitalist. Yet it is hard to think of a more ruthlessly capitalistic figure than the Premier League footballer... We’ve already seen from the NFL in America that many sports fans just don’t want their leisure activities clouded by politics. People taking the knee, not taking the knee, honouring the flag, dishonouring the flag. It all creates conflict and bad feeling of a level that goes beyond what sport is supposed to be about – namely, coming together, having fun, and sticking a couple past Liverpool (or, to avoid appearing biased, Man City)... The argument that this is about racism simply isn’t true. It is a case of a specific political outfit using most people’s strong distaste for racism as a way to smuggle in their own brand of left-wing politics. I’m not sure that has a place in football, or any sport. To me, the only battle on the football pitch should be between the two teams, rather than the more contentious and slippery war between competing political ideologies."
Facebook - "Whilst no country will ever be perfect and you can never account for the actions of every individual, I think the U.K. can be held up as one of the most tolerant and diverse countries in the world. Football has also come a long way, even in my own lifetime, when I remember seeing players like John Barnes receiving abuse in the 1980s. But this time last year we saw widespread vandalism and disorder from groups claiming to be ‘anti-racist’, including buildings being smashed up, police being attacked and we even had threats to our local pubs over their historical names. For me, the behaviour of these groups, particularly the ones acting under the banner of Black Lives Matter, did nothing to promote equality or race relations. In fact, all they did was promote division. It was at this point we started to see the football authorities promoting Black Lives Matter... I’ve seen many examples where players have been able to show unity and promote putting a stop to racism within the game. Just this last week we saw this at the England v New Zealand cricket match and other examples include rugby league players linking arms before a match. Football at other levels of the game has also managed to find other ways. So why then does the Premier League and the England team persist with such a divisive and politically charged approach when there are others we can all get behind?... I have been very disappointed when some have suggested that opposition to taking the knee is somehow disrespectful to players - especially black players. Ask Wilfried Zaha what he thinks or Nottingham Forest’s Lyle Taylor. Last season Les Ferdinand also questioned whether taking the knee was actually having any sort of effect. Now we see this sort of politicisation of our game spreading. First we saw Leicester’s Hamza Choudhary with a Palestinian flag at the FA Cup Final and then two Manchester United players parading around the pitch with one, presumably to celebrate winning nothing again this season. The fact they had the flag upside down and probably couldn’t find the place on a map was probably lost on them. Last week Chelsea won the Champions League. Imagine the reaction if Roman Abramovich had paraded around with an Israeli flag after the match (a country he is actually a citizen of). To suggest that fans “aren’t quite understanding the message”, as Gareth Southgate has done, is an insult to their intelligence. Fans understand perfectly well - they are just sick and tired of being preached and spoken down to. They are there to watch a football match, not to be lectured on morality. It is the football authorities and elements of the media who aren’t understanding the message. Find something we can all support and ditch this ridiculous empty gesture."
Facebook - "The controversy over the England team taking the knee goes on. Manager Gareth Southgate has insisted that this gesture will continue and has once again taken aim at supporters and MPs who have chosen to show their discontent, commenting “If it happens in future matches, we won’t be discussing it after because we don’t want to give oxygen to those people”. Gary Lineker has also weighed in with comments of his own, stating “if you boo England players for taking the knee, you’re part of the reason why players are taking the knee”... Let’s travel back in time to Berlin in 1938. England had travelled to Germany to play the national team, after controversially hosting them in 1935 at White Hart Lane. Despite protest, that initial game went ahead and both the Home Secretary and the FA made a point of keeping football independent of politics. Germany had annexed Austria at that point and political tensions were running high. Following the 1936 Berlin Olympics being used as a propaganda exercise and under a great deal of pressure from both the FA and Britain’s ambassador at the time, the players were encouraged to join the hosts in making the Nazi salute prior to the match. England players, including the great Sir Stanley Matthews, were not impressed and did not want to do it. However, they had been reassured that it was merely a formal gesture of courtesy and that it did not mean an endorsement of the regime. Reluctantly, they agreed and for many years since it has been a great source of shame for many of those involved, including the Football Association. In more recent times we have seen the same ‘Roman salute’ by Paolo Di Canio at Lazio, who was later reported to have said “I am a fascist, not a racist”. The point here is that regardless of the original intention, the mixing of politics and football had disastrous consequences. Symbolism means a lot, both in football and wider society, and we must think carefully about how it is used."
The same people who want to force them to kneel are upset when you pin a poppy