I don't have the article at hand but I remember him saying the IFA discussed it (after he'd conducted discussions with players from nationalist backgrounds) and that was the conclusion they reached, so I assumed it was the official line.
To be fair, I think their primary responsibility should be to their own fans. I also think it's important to acknowledge the 'Football for All' programme and the strides they've made in battling sectarianism. It would be grossly unfair to cast them as anti-Catholic or sectarian. They can also play whatever they want as their anthem. In saying all that, I also acknowledge that purporting to be a "cross-community" entity might be somewhat disingenuous, especially whilst continuing to use 'GSTQ' as their anthem. I don't know if NI could ever truly be a cross-community entity in the sense that it is a British unionist entity by its very existence.It is absolutely a deflection of their responsibility to the people of the north, for whom they govern football with FIFA's permission. If the IFA truly wanted to be "cross-community", they'd catch themselves on and become as neutral as possible.
My insinuation was that perhaps such identity issues reside not just within the fan base, but within the IFA itself. Passing responsibility on to these apparent fans with issues ensures the IFA don't have to risk being explicitly recalcitrant or appearing overly hardcore themselves. If they had a will to change the anthem, they'd do it and tell their fans with issues to get with the programme. Compromise is kind of what being cross-community is all about, after all.Ostensibly, however, they are more concerned about the identity issues of hardcore union-jack-waving, god-save-the-queen-singing unionists.
Bookmarks