I remember that nonsense last year. If I recall correctly, it all acted as a convenient distraction for the FA from some other issue that was pressing upon them, for England had never worn the poppy on their jerseys around the 11th of November in all the 93 years before that; indeed, "Terrygate" had been raging in the media at the time. Interesting summary of it all here with a healthy dose of sarcastic cynicism: http://daveboyle.net/analysis/war-mi...-from-the-hip/
It also raises the issue of what is and is not deemed commercial, political or religious. Essentially, that's an arbitrary decision that is adjudicated upon within the domain of FIFA. For example, we wore black arm-bands against Italy at the Euros on the anniversary of the Loughinisland massacre in 1994 and in memory of all victims of the Troubles. Some argued that was political whilst others, and FIFA evidently, saw it as a worthwhile humanitarian gesture. If, say, the German team, for whatever reason, sought to remember fallen members of the Waffen-SS through the wearing of similar armbands at some point, it might pose some thornier moral issues for FIFA, but who's to know how they would adjudicate. I could see how a prohibition on the wearing of armbands in such an instance could leave them open to criticism for inconsistency and the practicing of double standards.
And so it ends. 93 years of England’s ignominious and unpatriotic failure to wear poppies on their shirts comes to a deserved end, and a nation can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that now football has fallen into line, people will actually start wearing poppies for the first time ever. Or something like that.
...
Never mind that the Chief Executive of the British Legion said “The Legion never insists that the poppy be worn or insists that others allow it to be worn.” But who cares what that pen-pushing pinko thinks, when there’s a jingoistic juggernaut on the move. Either stay still and be run over, or get onboard and watch it magically become a bandwagon.
...
Never mind that the Chief Executive of the British Legion said “The Legion never insists that the poppy be worn or insists that others allow it to be worn.” But who cares what that pen-pushing pinko thinks, when there’s a jingoistic juggernaut on the move. Either stay still and be run over, or get onboard and watch it magically become a bandwagon.
FIFA, ever alive to opportunities to play the pantomime villain for their friends in the English press pack refused, citing their blanket ban on all commercial, political and religious messages on the shirts worn in matches which take place under their jurisdiction.
FIFA rightly have long-standing rules in place, mindful of the power of the game to be used to further dark agendas, and equally mindful of the nature of political matters to be judged very differently depending on where one stands. Would that they have been in place in 1938 to save England’s players from being advised to give a Nazi salute before playing Germany.
But sadly – for many, many more important reasons than this – FIFA are perhaps the last people on earth to be able to survey the high ground of principle from their strong fortress of legitimacy.
What FIFA actually practice is the highest and most powerful example of politics of all – the ability to decide what is and is not political. Behind the canard that sport and politics shouldn’t be mixed lies the pure power to decide what is and isn’t political, and so what will, and will not be tolerated in mixing with sport.
Racism was political – and not to be mixed with sport – when the old guard stonewalled developing world pressure to tackle apartheid. The new guard who understood that sensibility changed tack, and now FIFA’s stance is that anti-racism isn’t political and can be mixed with sport. It’s a welcome change, of course, but on no level can it be seen as apolitical.
Commercial matters are most definitely not political in FIFAland; certainly not how FIFA ensures host countries for world cups give them carte blanche to pretty much do as they commercially please, and rewrite their laws and tax codes. It also isn’t political to allow national teams to display the logo of the kit manufacturer, a commercial message if ever there was one. Adidas, after all, would expect nothing less from the people they groomed for power back in the day.
FIFA rightly have long-standing rules in place, mindful of the power of the game to be used to further dark agendas, and equally mindful of the nature of political matters to be judged very differently depending on where one stands. Would that they have been in place in 1938 to save England’s players from being advised to give a Nazi salute before playing Germany.
But sadly – for many, many more important reasons than this – FIFA are perhaps the last people on earth to be able to survey the high ground of principle from their strong fortress of legitimacy.
What FIFA actually practice is the highest and most powerful example of politics of all – the ability to decide what is and is not political. Behind the canard that sport and politics shouldn’t be mixed lies the pure power to decide what is and isn’t political, and so what will, and will not be tolerated in mixing with sport.
Racism was political – and not to be mixed with sport – when the old guard stonewalled developing world pressure to tackle apartheid. The new guard who understood that sensibility changed tack, and now FIFA’s stance is that anti-racism isn’t political and can be mixed with sport. It’s a welcome change, of course, but on no level can it be seen as apolitical.
Commercial matters are most definitely not political in FIFAland; certainly not how FIFA ensures host countries for world cups give them carte blanche to pretty much do as they commercially please, and rewrite their laws and tax codes. It also isn’t political to allow national teams to display the logo of the kit manufacturer, a commercial message if ever there was one. Adidas, after all, would expect nothing less from the people they groomed for power back in the day.
Comment