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

[Nearly Sane]

Was having withdrawal symptoms after poppy season had finished, so here's this month's controversy
 

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-12-03/lgbtq-fans-disappointed-at-premier-league-captains-rainbow-armband-boycott

[Nearly Sane]

What happens when the virtue signal is virtue signalled

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

[jeremyp]

I probably wouldn't wear one for much the same reason that I never wear a poppy in the lead up to Remembrance Sunday.

[Nearly Sane]

I probably wouldn't wear one for much the same reason that I never wear a poppy in the lead up to Remembrance Sunday.

I don't disagree  but there is something more active here in that it the poppy/armband are provided, and you are expected just to wear them as the done thing. It's different from you and I just not wearing a poppy.

I'd be interested if anyone refused to wear them for non specific reasons, i.e. not religious, or cultural as covered in the article but just because they thought it was a bit naff.

[Nearly Sane]

Another example, again on the basis of religion.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czjd92z22yno

[Steve H]

I probably wouldn't wear one for much the same reason that I never wear a poppy in the lead up to Remembrance Sunday.

Same here. I'm a poppy refusenik, because I object to poppy-fascism, and as for other things such as various ribbons, i might wear one if there's no pressure to do so, but wouldn't if there was, so kudos to Sam Morsy.

[Aruntraveller]

Same here. I'm a poppy refusenik, because I object to poppy-fascism, and as for other things such as various ribbons, i might wear one if there's no pressure to do so, but wouldn't if there was, so kudos to Sam Morsy.

Hmm...your refusal is based on the fact that you are a grumpy old sod. Much as mine is. Morsy's is different, as the reports say, because of his religious views. I think it unlikely he would wear one if there was no pressure to do so, unlike yourself. So the kudos that you give him is unearned.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hmm...your refusal is based on the fact that you are a grumpy old sod. Much as mine is. Morsy's is different, as the reports say, because of his religious views. I think it unlikely he would wear one if there was no pressure to do so, unlike yourself. So the kudos that you give him is unearned.

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.

On Guehi - the FA have rules on religious and political messages etc, and that surely has to apply even handedly - the rule should be agnostic to the nature of the message. And for his to write it over the rainbow armband cannot be seen as other than a negative comment on the message of the armband.

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

On Guehi - the FA have rules on religious and political messages etc, and that surely has to apply even handedly - the rule should be agnostic to the nature of the message. And for his to write it over the rainbow armband cannot be seen as other than a negative comment on the message of the armband.

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.

Why should someone be demoted as captain for not agreeing with a political message?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why should someone be demoted as captain for not agreeing with a political message?

Where did I say he should be demoted NS? I didn't.

What I said was that the principled decision would be for Morsy himself to say that during the period where the club expected him to wear a rainbow armband that he would step aside as captain and return when he felt able to wear that armband. That would be about him making that principled decision himself - I thought the point about principled decisions was that you were prepared to make sacrifices on behalf of those principles.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why should someone be demoted as captain for not agreeing with a political message?

Note my comment above.

On the broader principle - the captain represents the club in its entirety on the field and it is perfectly reasonable for the club to expect the captain to promote and amplify messages that the club feels are important and wishes to portray. It is called collective responsibility, same as in many other roles and fields - if you are a cabinet minister you can disagree as much as you like behind closed doors, but collective responsibility means that you are expected to swing behind the agreed position in public. If that isn't possible then you can step down from the cabinet as no-one forces you to be a members. And the same applies to the captain of a football club - no one forces you to do it and the role comes with certain privileges and also with certain responsibilities. If you cannot fulfil those responsibilities then perhaps you should step aside as captain.

I also not you ignored another point I made so I will reiterate:

NS - would you 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?

[Nearly Sane]

Note my comment above.

On the broader principle - the captain represents the club in its entirety on the field and it is perfectly reasonable for the club to expect the captain to promote and amplify messages that the club feels are important and wishes to portray. It is called collective responsibility, same as in many other roles and fields - if you are a cabinet minister you can disagree as much as you like behind closed doors, but collective responsibility means that you are expected to swing behind the agreed position in public. If that isn't possible then you can step down from the cabinet as no-one forces you to be a members. And the same applies to the captain of a football club - no one forces you to do it and the role comes with certain privileges and also with certain responsibilities. If you cannot fulfil those responsibilities then perhaps you should step aside as captain.

I also not you ignored another point I made so I will reiterate:

NS - would you 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?

A footballer is not a politician. Treating them as such is a category mistake.

If the player is punished for expressing a political opinion.on a shirt, then the club and the FA shouldn't be forcing them to do so. I think you kean to ask would I support the right of a player to refuse to wear a kick racism out armband, rather than how much sympathy I would have with them . And yes, I don't think that political speech like that should be forced on someone  and whether I agree with the message  I agree with their right to refuse to do so.

[ProfessorDavey]

A footballer is not a politician. Treating them as such is a category mistake.

Not really as the point was about collective responsibility and about people in a particular role being expected to represent an organisation and it's agreed positions on specific matters.

If the player is punished for expressing a political opinion.on a shirt, then the club and the FA shouldn't be forcing them to do so. I think you kean to ask would I support the right of a player to refuse to wear a kick racism out armband, rather than how much sympathy I would have with them . And yes, I don't think that political speech like that should be forced on someone  and whether I agree with the message  I agree with their right to refuse to do so.

So should a player refuse to participate in interviews if an organisation they disapprove of is being advertised in the background - or if sponsored drinks bottles are in the foreground etc etc. I imagine they are contractually required to do so.

When individuals are employees and contracted to organisations it is completely reasonable for those organisations to expect those individuals to act in a manner that aligns with that organisations values. That doesn't necessarily impact on their freedoms to act differently when not representing that organisation, but that is a different manner. Professional footballers in the PL get paid eye watering amounts and being asked to be captain is an additional privilege. I don't think it unreasonable at all for the club (their employer) to expect the club captain, when representing the club, to promote and amplify messages that the club feels are important and wishes to portray.

And remember - no-one is forcing him to wear the armband. Only the captain wears the armband - it is his choice to accept the position as captain.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really as the point was about collective responsibility and about people in a particular role being expected to represent an organisation and it's agreed positions on specific matters.
So should a player refuse to participate in interviews if an organisation they disapprove of is being advertised in the background - or if sponsored drinks bottles are in the foreground etc etc.

When individuals are employees and contracted to organisations it is completely reasonable for those organisations to expect those individuals to act in a manner that aligns with that organisations values. That doesn't necessarily impact on their freedoms to act differently when not representing that organisation, but that is a different manner. Professional footballers in the PL get paid eye watering amounts and being asked to be captain is an additional privilege. I don't think it unreasonable at all for the club (their employer) to expect the club captain, when representing the club, to promote and amplify messages that the club feels are important and wishes to portray.

And remember - no-one is forcing him to wear the armband. Only the captain wears the armband - it is his choice to accept the position as captain.

The idea of collective responsibility in a political party, and a football team are completely separate. One involves politics, the other involves football.

And as you note players are employees, not members such as they would be of a political party, and should the employee refuse to carry out what they are contracted to do then action could sensibly be taken. They are not contracted to express political views that they are told to.

[ProfessorDavey]

... and should the employee refuse to carry out what they are contracted to do then action could sensibly be taken. They are not contracted to express political views that they are told to.

Aren't they - do you know what is in Morsy's contract? I imagine it includes all sorts of contractual expectations in terms of wearing kit that the club dictates, which might include sponsors logos, etc or messages that align with the values the club wishes to portray (e.g. poppies, rainbow armbands).

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Aren't they - do you know what is in Morsy's contract? I imagine it includes all sorts of contractual expectations in terms of wearing kit that the club dictates, which might include sponsors logos, etc or messages that align with the values the club wishes to portray (e.g. poppies, rainbow armbands).

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.

If it's in Morsy's contract then it's a different matter and not what you were arguing.

As to support for any minority, leaving aside your attempt at the ad populum, it's very obviously a political statement, and that's why offset made. If Morsy wore an armband of his own supporting those in Gaza, then he would be breaking the rules of it being political.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it's in Morsy's contract then it's a different matter and not what you were arguing.

It is precisely what I'm arguing as there may well be very strict contractual requirements (e.g. on clothing), but also other contractual clauses around conduct and acting in a manner that aligns with the club's values etc.

So my understanding is that there are very strict contractual requirements on clothing, which cover all items of kit with the exception of items considered to require personal fit, specifically boots and goalkeepers gloves. So a player is contractually required to wear the shirt, shorts, training kit etc (with logos etc etc) that the club determines. It may be that the issue of the armband is a weird loophole that isn't covered - I've no idea. But I imagine were the club to determine that the shirt has a discrete rainbow logo on it then players would be contractually obliged to wear it. In fact there have been instances where players have refused to play in shirts with betting logos on - the result wasn't that they were able to wear an alternative shirt, but that they did not play.

As to support for any minority, leaving aside your attempt at the ad populum, it's very obviously a political statement, and that's why offset made. If Morsy wore an armband of his own supporting those in Gaza, then he would be breaking the rules of it being political.

You and I can argue whether the rainbow is political and we clearly disagree. But our view isn't really relevant here is it. The FA does not permit political or religious messages/slogans to be worn on football kits. The FA has clearly authorised both the rainbow armband and poppies on shirts as acceptable, so does not see them as 'political' or 'religious' under their rules.

So as far as I understand it, the rainbow armband was allowed by the FA but not obligated, hence why the FA decided that the Morsy situation was a matter for the club to determine - in effect whether refusing to wear it broke their rules or his contract. It would appear that they came to a compromise, but a different compromise was entirely possible (a principled decision by Morsy to step aside as captain during the period where the club wanted to show their support for the LGBT community through the wearing of the rainbow armband).

The Guehi case is different - the FA clearly authorised the wearing of the armband, and presumably Crystal Palace wear not prepared to accept the same compromise as for Morsy. However the message that Guehi wrote on the armband was deemed to be a breech of the FA's rules on religious messaging and he has been warned although the FA have chosen not to take any further action at this stage.

[Nearly Sane]

It is precisely what I'm arguing as there may well be very strict contractual requirements (e.g. on clothing), but also other contractual clauses around conduct and acting in a manner that aligns with the club's values etc.

So my understanding is that there are very strict contractual requirements on clothing, which cover all items of kit with the exception of items considered to require personal fit, specifically boots and goalkeepers gloves. So a player is contractually required to wear the shirt, shorts, training kit etc (with logos etc etc) that the club determines. It may be that the issue of the armband is a weird loophole that isn't covered - I've no idea. But I imagine were the club to determine that the shirt has a discrete rainbow logo on it then players would be contractually obliged to wear it. In fact there have been instances where players have refused to play in shirts with betting logos on - the result wasn't that they were able to wear an alternative shirt, but that they did not play.
Weird that supporting a minority is somehow (in NS wonky thinking) an ad populum.

But let's put that to one side. You and I can argue whether the rainbow is political and we clearly disagree. But our view isn't really relevant here is it. The FA does not permit political or religious messages/slogans to be worn on football kits. The FA has clearly authorised both the rainbow armband and poppies on shirts as acceptable, so does not see them as 'political' or 'religious' under their rules.

So as far as I understand it, the rainbow armband was allowed by the FA but not obligated, hence why the FA decided that the Morsy situation was a matter for the club to determine - in effect whether refusing to wear it broke their rules or his contract. It would appear that they came to a compromise, but a different compromise was entirely possible (a principled decision by Morsy to step aside as captain during the period where the club wanted to show their support for the LGBT community through the wearing of the rainbow armband).

The Guehi case is different - the FA clearly authorised the wearing of the armband, and presumably Crystal Palace wear not prepared to accept the same compromise as for Morsy. However the message that Guehi wrote on the armband was deemed to be a breech of the FA's rules on religious messaging and he has been warned although the FA have chosen not to take any further action at this stage.

No, it's not what you were arguing since you compared him to a politician who doesn't have a contract. You didn't make any case that this was in Morsy's contract. And didn't cite it .


The FA are not authorities on what is political, and any dwcisiin they make about what is political is by definition political.

[ProfessorDavey]

The FA are not authorities on what is political, and any dwcisiin they make about what is political is by definition political.

Yes they are in terms of what may, and may not, be worn on football kits during matches under the jurisdiction of the FA. They have clearly deemed both the poppy and the rainbow armband as within the rules on permitted messages etc.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes they are in terms of what may, and may not, be worn on football kits during matches under the jurisdiction of the FA. They have clearly deemed both the poppy and the rainbow armband as within the rules on permitted messages etc.

That an organisation assumes authority does not mean it is correct.  Else the poppy is both political and not political.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37834224

[ProfessorDavey]

That an organisation assumes authority dies not mean it is correct.  Else the poppy is both political and not political.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37834224

You do seem to struggle with the concept of organisations have the authority to make decision about what is, and is not, acceptable in cases that are under their jurisdiction.

The FA make the rules on what is acceptable messaging and what is not acceptable messaging on kits worn in matches in FA competitions (e.g. PL). They could say anything is fine, they could dictate no messaging of any kind including sponsorship. But they have ruled that political and religious messaging is not permitted and they have determined that both the poppy and the rainbow armband are permitted.

If you don't like the FA's rules, take that up with them. Or pick up your ball and take it home ... oh yes, they also dictate what ball must be used.

[Nearly Sane]

You do seem to struggle with the concept of organisations have the authority to make decision about what is, and is not, acceptable in cases that are under their jurisdiction.

The FA make the rules on what is acceptable messaging and what is not acceptable messaging on kits worn in matches in FA competitions (e.g. PL). They could say anything is fine, they could dictate no messaging of any kind including sponsorship. But they have ruled that political and religious messaging is not permitted and they have determined that both the poppy and the rainbow armband are permitted.

If you don't like the FA's rules, take that up with them. Or pick up your ball and take it home ... oh yes, they also dictate what ball must be used.

I note you didn't answer the point. And while you are struggling with that were the rainbow laces political or not in the last World Cup? If the FA said an armband saying Kill the Jews was not political, would you agree?

[ProfessorDavey]

That an organisation assumes authority does not mean it is correct.  Else the poppy is both political and not political.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37834224

You seem to be supporting my point, that organisations make the rules about matches under their jurisdiction. That FIFA do not permit the poppy (and deem it political) is irrelevant to whether the FA do permit the poppy (and deem it not political) for their matches. We are talking about the PL - the FA make the rules for those matches, not FIFA.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be supporting my point, that organisations make the rules about matches under their jurisdiction. That FIFA do not permit the poppy (and deem it political) is irrelevant to whether the FA do permit the poppy (and deem it not political) for their matches. We are talking about the PL - the FA make the rules for those matches, not FIFA.

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the FA said an armband saying Kill the Jews was not political, would you agree?

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