It annoyed the hell out of me. Of course, once we got into the actual games it wasn't so bad (..especially as my fantasy team did quite well). I was also slightly comforted by the fact that there seemed to be a bit of a backlash against this politicisation of football on social media. Though there was also the usual large number of brainwashed sheep, fluffing up the sentimentality and chastising anyone complaining as 'gammon' or 'right wing'. I even ended up getting blocked by someone after I pointed out the hypocrisy of people using the term gammon - a term based on skin colour - in order to argue for racial equality.
[On a side note it always amuses me when I get blocked 😅 I think it's such a strange thing for someone to do. Don't get me wrong, I can totally understand it if someone is getting repeatedly harassed or something like that, but just blocking someone for disagreeing with you. It seems so babyish. I really can't imagine ever having the urge to do it.
It does seem a very common thing online though these days. So perhaps it's just me that doesn't block people. I always get a cheap laugh when it happens though, so I can't complain too much xD]
Anyway..
..this whole thing has got me pondering a fork in the road when it comes to the strategy for dealing with this increasing politicisation.
Is it better to argue against the politicisation of football full stop?
(Which is traditionally how football is supposed to be, though that's never strictly been the case of course).
Or is it better to just accept that football is now a political battlefield and get stuck in there?
The former option is the most attractive and sensible. It would be nice to just let football be football. It's also a somewhat purer message, and allows you to take a moral high ground. You don't have to argue your case, you just have to point out that football isn't the correct arena for these debates to be happening.
The downside with this though is that;
a) The people now politicising it might not listen.
In fact, they currently make the argument that things like BLM "aren't political". Which is a bit sneaky and disingenuous, and obviously isn't true, but they do it anyway and it gives them cover. Though I'm maybe being a bit unfair on them here, as often they're so self-righteous in their views that they genuinely believe this to be the case.
b) On a personal level I'm not actually sure if I believe these things should be considered apolitical.
If a footballer wants to take a personal stand about something in an interview or after scoring a goal am I against that? And if so where is the line drawn? Where does the professional life end and the personal life begin?
It's a tricky one. My main overriding concern is the one sided nature of things at the moment though. Some opinions are not only acceptable, but actively promoted. Whereas others are considered so taboo that careers may be ended if someone simply expresses them in a private conversation. The balance is all wrong. So it's very tempting to try to adjust this balance by hijacking football in favour of the demonised side.
Obviously though, when you do start openly bringing politics into sport in this way the danger is that you just end up with a whole heap of trouble. Ruining things even more. Which is what we're beginning to see at the moment.
Something has to be done however, as the current status quo is simply unfair and unacceptable.
So what strategy??
Argue in favour of removing politics from football in the hope that these current campaigns can be neutralised.
Or, just forget about all that peaceful "leaving politics on the doorstep" stuff and just go all guns blazing.
The second option might be more fun :) ..but the first one is probably the way to go. Again though, I'm not quite sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment