Homophobia in football

[The perfect fumble]

Not at all. In fact, when King Charles passes away, and everyone stands at attention during the minute of silence, maybe Akanji can moon the Colin Bell stand. How do you think would go over? On second thought, don't answer that.

Point is teams do things together for a reason, performative or no. That's the point of being on a team. You don't moan and complain -- you are part of the team. You do what the team asks whether you like it or not, or whether it goes against your "beliefs" or not, or you get off the team. You aren't an individual. Your individuality has no place in this. You sacrifice it. You don't want to wear the armband? There's the door. Sit out the match.

And if you as a fan don't like the team or league's performative BS, stop following it. Stop bitching and boycott it if you feel so strongly. Stand up for your "beliefs." That's what happens over here.

Any of you follow the national anthem fiasco in women's US football? I don't recall any of you standing up and defending Megan Rapinoe.

The world is not like California and as we've just witnessed, neither is a sizeable chunk of the USA. The only thing one can say with certainty about the values that you hold, or I hold for that matter, whatever they may be, with all their nuance and cultural overlay, is they are not a one size fits all, though, come to think of it, I'm sure I could say that, I'm not so sure you would.

I've lived long enough to witness "progressive" politics morph into a mirror image of that which it ostensibly opposes. Under the cover of universal human rights, the left has crafted its own constantly burgeoning version of the white man's burden, an "enlightened" moral superiority, a kind of progressive determinism that through cultural creep and establishment capture, seeks to refashion the world in its own image, and why not? if one believes that a better world is whatever's trending in identity politics in North American academia, whatever's the latest scam "progressive" lobby groups and race grifters are peddling.

So what does this have to do with sport...

When you state....

Point is teams do things together for a reason, performative or no. That's the point of being on a team. You don't moan and complain -- you are part of the team. You do what the team asks whether you like it or not, or whether it goes against your "beliefs" or not, or you get off the team. You aren't an individual. Your individuality has no place in this. You sacrifice it. You don't want to wear the armband? There's the door. Sit out the match.

And if you as a fan don't like the team or league's performative BS, stop following it. Stop bitching and boycott it if you feel so strongly. Stand up for your "beliefs." That's what happens over here.

Fair enough, you're making a distinction between the sacrifices an individual makes, once they inevitably subsume a portion of their individuality in order to become a team player and contrasting it with an individual in the stands, who is under no compunction to do the same, and can exercise their right to acquiesce or not. But you over egg the pudding, the power of "the team" is not absolute, this isn't Orwell's 1984, or the Khmer Rouge, this isn't the divine right of kings, or the absolutism of an Ayatollah, a player has not been drafted into the army and the manager is not the drill Sergeant in "Full Metal Jacket"

And here you're conflating self autonomy with talent and or fuckwittery...

We aren't talking about who people are -- we're talking about when a team asks you to do something and you don't want to -- for whatever reason -- what do you do? Where should the lines be drawn -- professionally, socially and culturally?

I'm not saying individual talents can't drive success, of course. But there are far more stories of teams where individuals screwed up dynamics and were allowed to fester, or were booted and positive change was the result.

There are a number of things that might reasonably be expected of a player, the bread and butter technical stuff obviously, such as requiring a winger to try and get the ball in the box, a goal keeper to attempt to save goals, the wider necessity of not being an arse hole to your team mates, to display respect for the fans and the club (at least superficially) to engage in the PR circus that comes with being a sports professional and those nebulous little things with which it would be impossible to object.

What you're referring to is that which is required of a player by the owners, or the sport's federation or even the government, not as a team player and this is the crux, but as an employee, what those who are powerful tell those whose livelihoods they control.

Corporate and institutional capture by those selling a "fairer world" is now relentless, and sports persons in particular must be seen to embrace these values, these progressive "corporate" core values of their club, values that increasingly go well beyond the confines of sport, well beyond the idea that sport can be an exemplar, not only for the age old virtues of independence, self worth, health and well being, but to be a mirror to a better version of ourselves. To achieve this it is not essential for a club to comprehend whatever shite the progressive think tanks, pressure groups and assorted grifters have managed to concoct, which is just as well, because for the most part what they're selling is intellectually vacuous, dishonest, divisive and harmful.

Of course, this is not the first time pressure has been brought to bear on players.

Berlin, May 14th 1938, Germany face England in an end-of-season friendly.....

England’s players were instructed to perform the Nazi salute during the German national anthem.

In the English speaking world, sport occupies a significant cultural space, what happened above in 1938 was a consequence of the political exigency of the time, what happened below in 1968 was no less significant of its age, though this came with no corporate or establishment approval...

You posted the following, by doing little more than change the word "team" to "party" it reads rather differently.

Point is parties do things together for a reason, performative or no. That's the point of being in a party. You don't moan and complain -- you are part of the party. You do what the party asks whether you like it or not, or whether it goes against your "beliefs" or not, or you get out of the party. You aren't an individual. Your individuality has no place in this. You sacrifice it. You don't want to wear the party armband? There's the door. You're out.

We aren't talking about who people are -- we're talking about when the party asks you to do something and you don't want to -- for whatever reason -- what do you do? Where should the lines be drawn -- professionally, socially and culturally?

I did this because you're effectively saying that being a member of a team, beyond the behavioural requirements necessary for the nuts and bolts of the team game itself, requires a player to engage in a mode of behaviour that would shock most folk if it were required of members of a political party.

OTT? Probably.

I find it deeply depressing that the left always devours itself. At the extremes it's the gulags, the cultural revolution and the killing field, if it avoids that, then it's Animal Farm, it invariably becomes what it professes to despise. In the flabby centre left there's performative nonsense, damaging gesture politics, laces and armbands, anything to avoid the issue and then quelle surprise! There's a jolt when the great unwashed opt for a huckster and conman.

Cue hand wringing, comforting words for embattled minorities, gestures, then rinse and repeat.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Homophobia isnt a legitimate belief any more than racism is.

Homophobia isn’t a “belief” at all! It’s a reaction to a belief.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Berlin, May 14th 1938, Germany face England in an end-of-season friendly.....

England’s players were instructed to perform the Nazi salute during the German national anthem.

A history lesson we have failed to heed.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Regardless who is right, perfect fumble should win for the effort that went into the multi quote post.

That would have pecked my head doing all that.

 

[BlueTG]

My personal footnote is that he’s accepted the role of captain of a club, a club that represents the community of the club and the people of the club regardless of colour, creed, sexuality, faith or background. He has potentially alienated supporters or staff that may have been looking for representation by their club. He also appeared happy to put aside his personal beliefs in some instances, but not others. The other footnote being, you can choose your beliefs and how you act on them based on the society we have, so to what end can we argue the morals of it.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The world is not like California and as we've just witnessed, neither is a sizeable chunks of the USA. The only thing one can say with certainty about the values that you hold, or I hold for that matter, whatever they may be, with all their nuance and cultural overlay, is they are not a one size fits all, though, come to think of it, I'm sure I could say that, I'm not so sure you would.

I've lived long enough to witness "progressive" politics morph into a mirror image of that which it ostensibly opposes. Under the cover of universal human rights, the left has crafted its own constantly burgeoning version of the white man's burden, an "enlightened" moral superiority, a kind of progressive determinism that through cultural creep and establishment capture, seeks to refashion the world in its own image, and why not? if one believes that a better world is whatever's trending in identity politics in North American academia, whatever's the latest scam "progressive" lobby groups and race grifters are peddling.

So what does this have to do with sport...

When you state....



Fair enough, you're making a distinction between the sacrifices an individual makes, once they inevitably subsume a portion of their individuality in order to become a team player and contrasting it with an individual in the stands, who is under no compunction to do the same, and can exercise their right to acquiesce or not. But you over egg the pudding, the power of "the team" is not absolute, this isn't Orwell's 1984, or the Khmer Rouge, this isn't the divine right of kings, or the absolutism of an Ayatollah, a player has not been drafted into the army and the manager is not the drill Sergeant in "Full Metal Jacket"

And here you're conflating self autonomy with talent and or fuckwittery...



There are a number of things that might reasonably be expected of a player, the bread and butter technical stuff obviously, such as requiring a winger to try and get the ball in the box, a goal keeper to attempt to save goals, the wider necessity of not being an arse hole to your team mates, to display respect for the fans and the club (at least superficially) to engage in the PR circus that comes with being a sports professional and those nebulous little things with which it would be impossible to object.

What you're referring to is that which is required of a player by the owners, or the sport's federation or even the government, not as a team player and this is the crux, but as an employee, what those who are powerful tell those whose livelihoods they control.

Corporate and institutional capture by those selling a "fairer world" is now relentless, and sports persons in particular must be seen to embrace these values, these progressive "corporate" core values of their club, values that increasingly go well beyond the confines of sport, well beyond the idea that sport can be an exemplar, not only for the age old virtues of independence, self worth, health and well being, but to be a mirror to a better version of ourselves. To achieve this it is not essential for a club to comprehend whatever shite the progressive think tanks, pressure groups and assorted grifters have managed to concoct, which is just as well, because for the most part what they're selling is intellectually vacuous, dishonest, divisive and harmful.

Of course, this is not the first time pressure has been brought to bear on players.

Berlin, May 14th 1938, Germany face England in an end-of-season friendly.....

England’s players were instructed to perform the Nazi salute during the German national anthem.

In the English speaking world, sport occupies a significant cultural space, what happened above in 1938 was a consequence of the political exigency of the time, what happened below in 1968 was no less significant of its age, though this came with no corporate or establishment approval...

You posted the following, by doing little more than change the word "team" to "party" it reads rather differently.





I did this because you're effectively saying that being a member of a team, beyond the behavioural requirements necessary for the nuts and bolts of the team game itself, requires a player to engage in a mode of behaviour that would shock most folk if it were required of members of a political party.

OTT? Probably.

I find it deeply depressing that the left always devours itself. At the extremes it's the gulags, the cultural revolution and the killing field, if it avoids that, then it's Animal Farm, it invariably becomes what it professes to despise. In the flabby centre left there's performative nonsense, damaging gesture politics, laces and armbands, anything to avoid the issue and then quelle surprise! There's a jolt when the great unwashed opt for a huckster and conman.

Cue hand wringing, comforting words for embattled minorities, gestures, then rinse and repeat.

You know what? Fine.

You all win.

You're right.

Believing that highly-visible football clubs with a wide variety of players of all races and creeds and colors and cultures could/should be leaders in promoting tolerance and understanding among different people is a mistake.

They can and should be divorced from such things.

They shouldn't ask players to wear rainbow armbands.

League-wide or even player-sponsored kneeling as a sign that racism shouldn't be tolerated should stop.

Clubs should do their level best to avoid being perceived as being involved in "political issues."

And fans who persist with monkey chants should be allowed to continue to voice them.

After all, how woke to discourage freedom of expression.

The performative left should be ashamed.

 

[HelloCity]

Players shouldn't be FORCED to wear any political symbol ever. Progressiveness is the new fascism.

Showing love, care, and support is fascism?

Sounds like something someone with fascist views would say.

 

[Jack74]

Hissy fits on this thread

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

My personal footnote is that he’s accepted the role of captain of a club, a club that represents the community of the club and the people of the club regardless of colour, creed, sexuality, faith or background. He has potentially alienated supporters or staff that may have been looking for representation by their club. He also appeared happy to put aside his personal beliefs in some instances, but not others. The other footnote being, you can choose your beliefs and how you act on them based on the society we have, so to what end can we argue the morals of it.

100% and why the clubs should have accepted their decisions and picked other, more suitable, captains to represent them.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

100% and why the clubs should have accepted their decisions and picked other, more suitable, captains to represent them.

My points about what you sacrifice to be part of a team go double for captains.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

My points about what you sacrifice to be part of a team go double for captains.

There’s quite the juxtaposition between narrative in the Walker (and the offshoot “Who should be captain” threads) and this one.

 

[mikeyboy]

People using their religious beliefs as an excuse to hide behind their own homophobia. That's it in a nutshell unfortunately. Not the first time it's happened not going to be the last.

 

[kaz7]

For people who are saying it we should keep lgbt issues out of football, ofcourse it matters. Why hasn’t there been an openly gay footballer in the premier league? I can’t believe people have an issue with the FA showing support for LGBT rights. It’s just an armband, nothing else. If you don’t wear it because of your religious beliefs, you are homophobic.

Male footballers are scared to come out as football is so tribal and the homophobic chants would be constant , they may have a commercial interest they think they would lose. Male football has become too toxic

The womens game is the opposite and as such there are several gay players and there is no problems

 

[Damocles]

Any support for a cause that is enforced is useless morally and practically.

That said, they should have dropped the players. People are entitled to hold whatever views they wish and the Club is entitled to protect its reputation. Football wants to have its cake and eat it, which is where the problem lies.

 

[bluethrunthru]

There are 2 ways to look at this really -

1/ He is just homophobic but won't say it. If I were a team mate of his I would want to wear the jacket. Personal choice.

2/ He is Moroccan where being gay carries a prison sentence so maybe he fears ridicule and aggression back home once his playing days are over.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

You know what? Fine.

You all win.

You're right.

Believing that highly-visible football clubs with a wide variety of players of all races and creeds and colors and cultures could/should be leaders in promoting tolerance and understanding among different people is a mistake.

They can and should be divorced from such things.

They shouldn't ask players to wear rainbow armbands.

League-wide or even player-sponsored kneeling as a sign that racism shouldn't be tolerated should stop.

Clubs should do their level best to avoid being perceived as being involved in "political issues."

And fans who persist with monkey chants should be allowed to continue to voice them.

After all, how woke to discourage freedom of expression.

The performative left should be ashamed.

No one is proposing that we allow/encourage homophobic abuse, so your monkey chants thing is silly. I think we all agree racism and homophobia have no place on the pitch or the stands, and we can achieve that by not being racist or homophobic and if possible challenging / punishing it where it occurs. Effectively compelling players to wear rainbow laces or be damned is silly - like taking a knee which also just became embarrassing in the end. Both became cultish - almost like the religions which decree anyone who is gay is 'bad'

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

No one is proposing that we allow/encourage homophobic abuse, so your monkey chants thing is silly. I think we all agree racism and homophobia have no place on the pitch or the stands, and we can achieve that by not being racist or homophobic and if possible challenging / punishing it where it occurs. Effectively compelling players to wear rainbow laces or be damned is silly - like taking a knee which also just became embarrassing in the end. Both became cultish - almost like the religions which decree anyone who is gay is 'bad'

If we all agreed, people in the stands wouldn't be monkey chanting in the first place. Which -- by the way -- doesn't happen at sporting events in unenlightened, yee-haw America.

But let's assumed it's greatly diminished from previous levels. It is, right?

Why do you think that is? What caused the decline? Why did people change?

As I wrote and I assume you agree: Believing that highly-visible football clubs with a wide variety of players of all races and creeds and colors and cultures could/should be leaders in promoting tolerance and understanding among different people is a mistake.

And if that's not right, then the argument here is the WAY such clubs show leadership is wrong -- i.e. no rainbow flags, no laces/patches, etc. OK. Then how do you suggest they do it in a way that isn't inherently "political"?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

If we all agreed, people in the stands wouldn't be monkey chanting in the first place. Which -- by the way -- doesn't happen at sporting events in unenlightened, yee-haw America.

But let's assumed it's greatly diminished from previous levels. It is, right?

Why do you think that is? What caused the decline? Why did people change?

As I wrote and I assume you agree: Believing that highly-visible football clubs with a wide variety of players of all races and creeds and colors and cultures could/should be leaders in promoting tolerance and understanding among different people is a mistake.

And if that's not right, then the argument here is the WAY such clubs show leadership is wrong -- i.e. no rainbow flags, no laces/patches, etc. OK. Then how do you suggest they do it in a way that isn't inherently "political"?

I'd suggest banners on the stands, a programme ad or something on club social media channels. It's possible to be supportive and engage with the issue without the players having to wear something.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I'd suggest banners on the stands, a programme ad or something on club social media channels. It's possible to be supportive and engage with the issue without the players having to wear something.

So then the issue isn't that club's shouldn't be supportive or engage -- it's that they shouldn't make the players the billboard for that support or engagement. That makes sense as an argument whether I agree or not. Indeed we have had the same debate in the US with pro sport teams and corporate endorsements (up until recently, the big four team sports did not wear corporate advertising and even now logos are not universal nor especially prominent). Thanks.

 

[Mon Autre]

There are 2 ways to look at this really -

1/ He is just homophobic but won't say it. If I were a team mate of his I would want to wear the jacket. Personal choice.

2/ He is Moroccan where being gay carries a prison sentence so maybe he fears ridicule and aggression back home once his playing days are over.

If I was a United fan I'd feel more let down by the club than the player tbh. Whether you agree or not, the club clearly thought the jackets were a worthwhile show of support. For them to withdraw that support to spare the embarrassment of someone else's bigoted views coming to light is extremely weak. They also should have anticipated these kinds of issues and planned around it.