Ipswich Town back captain Sam Morsy's religious boycott of Rainbow Laces armband

[Nearly Sane]

Irrelevant aș the key point would be whether they they have the authority to make the rule for matches under their jurisdiction (they do).

Entirely relevant. Your position is based on the decision being right. I'm not willing to abrogate my political decision making to the FA, sad that you are and expect other people  to obey that.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I'm saying that if you regard something can be deemed both political and not political and defend both decisions as right, then you are illogical.

Again, spectacularly missing the point. I am saying that the arbiter of whether it is deemed political or not political for matches under the jurisdiction of the FA is, err, the FA. Your opinion is irrelevant, my opinion is irrelevant, FIFA's opinion is irrelevant. The only organisation whose opinion is relevant is the organisation authorised to make that decision ... which is the FA, for matches under their jurisdiction.

[ProfessorDavey]

Entirely relevant. Your position is based on the decision being right.

No I'm not - I don't think I've really proffered a view on whether it is right or not. My view is that they have the authority to set rules around what messaging is, and is not, acceptable on kits worn in matches under their jurisdiction. 

I'm not willing to abrogate my political decision making to the FA, sad that you are and expect other people  to obey that.

Pathetic comment.

What I am saying is that the FA set the rules for the matches under their jurisdiction, and if you want to play in those matches (as club or player) you are required to adhere to their rules. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Gordon]

Surely the point here is that if an organisation decides to formalise its support on a particular issue in a manner that is akin to an advertising promotion, and if support for that issue intrudes on what may be a known matter of personal conscience for some who are expected to comply, then either the FA haven't thought this through very well, else they have decided that personal conscience doesn't matter much to them.

It seems to me that the FA are over-reaching here if they think they are competent to determine matters of personal conscience for people who are primarily there to kick a ball around.

[Aruntraveller]

 My take on it, such as it is, is that the rainbow emblem lost any meaning when businesses adopted it for no other reason than making money. We've discussed this elsewhere with BMW and others, whose approach to using it or not varies according to the market place involved. If football wants to make a supportive statement couldn't they just put it up on the screens around the ground and save all this aggro with individual players who may, or may not be, homophobic.

[Gordon]

Agree - I believe another club has had to abandon the idea of jackets because one of their players declined to wear it, thereby reducing the power of the message. As you say, display whatever the message is inside the stadium as presumably happens with general advertising or sponsorship.

In other words, make it corporate and not personal to individual players assuming, of course, that football is a relevant vehicle for the message.

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm not - I don't think I've really proffered a view on whether it is right or not. My view is that they have the authority to set rules around what messaging is, and is not, acceptable on kits worn in matches under their jurisdiction. 
Pathetic comment.

What I am saying is that the FA set the rules for the matches under their jurisdiction, and if you want to play in those matches (as club or player) you are required to adhere to their rules. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

  Just to remind you that this discussion on whether it was political or not started from you saying it wasn't in reply 14 when you said "And I note that you like to portray this as a 'political view' - not sure most people would see this as a 'political view', rather it is a sign of solidarity with certain minority groups."

At that stage it was purely your opinion, and an attempt.at an ad populum, that mattered. Nothing it not being important as the FA had to be accepted. So in a few posts you contradicted that position. I suggest you work out what you are trying to say.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What happens when the virtue signal is virtue signalled

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cevgyx14vpxo

I'm not surprised that his religious beliefs would mean he would decline wearing something to show public support for activities related to sexual acts.

I can't see him promoting heterosexual sex acts either or pre-marital sex. My impression is that modesty is encouraged in Islam especially in relation to sexual matters, including between married couples.

If it was alcohol - no one would be forced to celebrate it, even though people are locked up in certain Middle Eastern countries for drinking alcohol in public.

When the England cricket team celebrate a win, they take a picture for the Press with their Muslim teammates and then wait for them to move away before celebrating by showering alcohol over themselves. Interestingly, When Liverpool won the league back in 2020 Jordan Henderson confirmed that they sprayed non-alcoholic champagne out of respect for the Muslim players on the Liverpool team https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9070197/Jordan-Henderson-says-champagne-sprayed-Liverpools-Premier-League-trophy-lift-non-alcoholic.html - enjoyed the comments by the Daily Mail readers - always a laugh.

In Grands Prix in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, a sparkling fruit juice called rose water is used to celebrate wins on the podium - though still decked in Ferrari branding  https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/-how-spraying-champagne-became-a-tradition-on-the-f1-podium/10646556/

Alcohol and being open about sex may be important to British culture and people may require sports teams to celebrate this cultural norm but freedom of expression also seems to be a British cultural norm, which means being free to express support for sexual practices and also being free to decline to express support for sexual practices.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm somewhat conflicted on this one.

Let's not forget that when you are a member of a team and an organisation there is a level of collective responsibility. And further if you are the captain on the pitch, you are acting as a representative for that club - and not just the other players on the pitch, but the staff and fans. So I don't think it unreasonable that if a club takes a decision to support a particular message, then the club captain would be expected to get behind that decision, regardless of what they might think about the message personally. That's how collective responsibility works, surely.

Now the principled thing for Morsy to do would not be to refuse to wear that armband, but expect to wear a different one. No, the principled thing would be for him to step back as captain and allow a different player to captain the side during the period when the club wanted the rainbow armband to be used. Once that time was over then he can come back in as captain.

I don't agree that every time a captain of a sports team disagrees with a message that their employer wants them to overtly promote, that it is principled to step aside and let someone else do their job. It's competitive sports so it would have taken a lot of drive to earn the captain's spot - they should maintain their focus on the sports aspect of it. Unless there is a dress code in their contracts that states the captain needs to publicly support their employer's messages.

But another point. Would we have the same levels of sympathy if it was a player refusing to wear an armband with 'kick racism out of football' on it, or a player who wrote 'white lives matter' on such an armband? And I would argue strongly that football has much, much further to go to become an inclusive environment for people who are not heterosexual than for people who aren't white.

If that dress code is in their contract as being part of the job of being professional sports person in Britain, then yes if they want to play for a British team they would need to abide by their contracts.

It is up to their employers/ employment law to decide the pecking order of the liberties they want to support and whether insisting on a dress code that publicly supports a cause is reasonable or should be prioritised over freedom of belief or freedom of expression. 

[Aruntraveller]

If it was alcohol - no one would be forced to celebrate it,

Greene King are one of the sponsors of Ipswich Town.

But I guess it is different when alcohol is helping to pay your salary.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Greene King are one of the sponsors of Ipswich Town.

But I guess it is different when alcohol is helping to pay your salary.

Alcohol is helping pay his salary.

Presumably Greene King sell other stuff apart from alcohol - e.g. food and soft drinks. Muslims who are teetotal can enjoy the services of a Greene King pub without drinking. We used to have our Islamic charity meetings in a pub meeting room.

I could be wrong but I think the difference is not displaying a logo that is promoting something related to sexual acts - I could understand why that would make someone uncomfortable if they were more conservative-minded.