138. BANNED BANDS - On the Cowardice of the England Football Team
Aristotle’s virtue ethics places bravery as a virtue, between the excess of being rash and the deficiency of being a coward. In Aristotelian ethics there is no firm and fast rule for what exactly this golden mean between excess and deficiency actually consists in: what counts as brave in one situation might be considered rash in another or cowardly elsewhere. The virtuous person, according to Aristotle, possesses the further virtue of phronesis: the practical wisdom to know just how courageous to be in any given situation.
Last week it seemed clear to me that the England men’s football team showed a deficiency when it came to courage, and failed to act with virtue when told by Fifa not to wear their OneLove armbands in Qatar.
There is a lot of ethical discussion we could have about the 2022 World Cup, from migrant workers exploited and killed to make the stadiums, to the repressive laws in the Qatar which prohibit LGBTQ+ people from living their lives openly and honestly without fear of execution, to the unprecedented impact on the climate from this carbon-emitting monster of an event. While a lot of the discussion is legitimate, some of it, perhaps, stems more from a xenophobia towards countries in the Middle East that turn blind eyes to the many similar moral wrongs taking place on our own doorstep. (If the World Cup were held in the UK, for example, the current number of strikes across different public sectors as well as scandals coming out of migrant detention centres show that we treat both workers and migrants poorly ourselves; LGBTQ+ people continue to be oppressed, most recently with the hostility shown towards trans rights advocates and gender-questioning young people; and for a small island country we do our fair share of global polluting too). But today I want to focus only on this one single issue: the last minute ban by Fifa on players wearing the pro-LGBTQ+ OneLove rainbow armband that shows LGBTQ+ support.
On Monday morning, shortly before England’s first match against Iran, Fifa warned all teams that wearing the bands would result in sporting sanctions and that captains, especially, might face ‘unlimited liability’, from yellow cards (which would affect their freedom to play at their best in the match for fear of a second compromising their availability for future matches) to being forced off the pitch entirely.
I read the story online, just a few hours before the 1pm kick-off, and I realised that for all the wider debate and discussion about the morality of this World Cup, in this moment the England team had a real opportunity to show us who they were. They had ignored the plight of the migrant workers, they had ignored their contribution to this epic carbon footprint, but wearing that small symbol of solidarity with the oppressed LGBTQ+ communities in Qatar, and elsewhere, at least made it seem like there was some credence to the argument organisers had made that by engaging with places like Qatar, diverse ideas spread. Part of the official story from Fifa, and others, about why holding a World Cup in a place with such a questionable human rights record, was that it might encourage their liberalisation and further tolerance eventually. Cultures and communities who speak with each other and share their beliefs and practices are cultures and communities which learn and grow. Or at least that is the idea. A similar idea was had in 2018, when the tournament was held in Russia, which also denies rights to LGBTQ+ people. The country still makes life difficult for its LGBTQ+ population and has since launched a brutal invasion into Ukraine, so I am not sure that the world playing football there four years ago and sharing different cultural attitudes really had that much of an impact? Just like, given the continuing crackdown against democracy movements, especially surrounding the issue of Hong Kong, I am not sure the Beijing Olympics in 2008 necessarily brought better human rights to China either?
But let’s look at one sporting example that might lay claim to having the desired cultural impact. Or at least a pseudo-sport: wrestling. Several years ago, in 2018, World Wrestling Entertainment made the same argument when announcing a show in Saudi Arabia, right at the time when the company’s revolution in women’s wrestling was really kicking off. Women, at the time one of the main highlights of every WWE card, would be banned from the Saudi show because of local laws and customs about women, but the company made the case that by developing a relationship with the country, further down the line, change might be possible. And, to be fair, soon women were wrestling on the Saudi Arabian WWE shows, albeit covered up in costumes they would never wear in the West By this year’s event, in October, 2022, quite subversively, not only were there multiple women’s matches held, but two of those women even did a spot which involved driving, something women in Saudi Arabia were prohibited from doing without a male chaperone until very recently and which many women still refuse to do out of fear of domestic reprisals.
At the same time though, despite these minor breakthroughs of cultural sharing, the WWE shows have not really brought radical change to Saudi Arabia. Even these small glimpses of liberalisation regarding the treatment of women were already changes being mooted across the country - at least superficially - since before the company first ever wrestled a single match there. Certainly, the year the company refused to allow its female performers to be on the show, their presence in the country did nothing to transform the perception of women and women’s rights to the Saudi audience.
At the time I remember thinking that better than the slowly-slowly approach to cultural transformation the WWE could have made a real stand and refused to do business in the country unless the show included women. If Saudi Arabia wanted Brock Lesnar or The Undertaker to perform on their shores, they would also have to have Ronda Rousey and Becky Lynch on the card too. Simple.
And it really is that simple, until you bring money into it and realise that WWE have no real interest in promoting female equality. That they are committed only to making their business profitable, and at the end of the day the money they would make by doing business in Saudi Arabia was more important to them than the principle of equality. That this is all they care about.
Arguably the only reason they have fought to include women on subsequent shows is because of the possible impact on their domestic business once the backlash against the first Saudi show arose. People were angry. The wrestlers were angry. At that point, when the business was affected, I’m sure they did exactly what they should have done in the first place and put their foot down with the Saudi officials about the next one: we’ll come back, but this time we have to allow the women to wrestle. It’s non-negotiable.
Which brings us back to the Fifa ban and the England team.
Failing to do much to stand up against the other issues in Qatar, the team had apparently reached an agreement that they could wear the OneLove armband. Hearing the news that they now couldn’t, it seemed obvious to me that the team should take a stand. Wear the armband they believed in and face the consequences. Some things are more important than football and, if anything, sanctions happening in the opening match of a lengthy tournament, with plenty of time for outrage to grow and for any damaging decisions to be overturned, it would be fairly low-stakes to do so. They’d wear the band, I assumed, get the yellow-card, and be heroes. They’d be sent off, lose the match, have points deducted - whatever. Their message would be amplified globally. Perhaps their actions would spur the next teams out to do the same, the tournament would unravel, the sanctions would have to be stepped back? But most importantly, the LGBTQ+ community that they ostensibly wear the armband to support would know that the support was real and not just an empty PR gesture.
Football is, perhaps, worryingly known for such empty gestures. Taking a knee before each match even as racist abuse of players continues unabated and little wider analysis or comment is passed about the structures in place which create and sustain such prejudice and discrimination in the first place; women’s teams whose accomplishments are marginalised and who are sidelined to lesser venues by the men’s clubs they are part of but who refuse to share resources and a pitch with them; rainbow laces campaigns while controversies still persist around the acceptance of trans players on professional teams…
By choosing to follow the orders of Fifa and back down, the England team, sadly, showed their true colours. The armband was just business - not a principled stance at all - and the business of the World Cup was more valuable to them than truly standing up in defence of LGBTQ+ rights. Remember: in Qatar being openly LGBTQ+ is a crime. Although no-one has actually been given the death sentence for it, the death sentence remains a legal possibility under the current statutes. If England had thrown away their World Cup chances to stand up for the rights of those currently threatened by such laws, not only in Qatar, but all over the world, it would have been massive. Powerful. But they didn’t. And not for lack of options. Many things could have been done: every player but the captain wearing the prohibited band; keeping a band hidden inside your sock and quickly pulling it out and holding it up to the camera during the national anthem; swapping captains every game to spread the impact of sanctions across the team collectively; Gareth Southgate wearing one as manager on the sidelines… The list goes on. When the team came out in their long sleeve warm-up jackets I held the hope they would take them off to reveal Harry Kane’s rainbow armband hidden inside, perhaps accompanied by every other player pointedly wearing the hypocritical Fifa one which read: “NO DISCRIMINATION”. But alas, no.
Alex Scott, in a moment of wonderful defiance, wore one in her role as television pundit, proving once again just how much of a role model she is, but even then, I was disappointed not to see the whole BBC broadcast team join her in solidarity. They were happy to show a critical programme about the various human rights issues surrounding the tournament instead of the opening ceremony the day before, but, again, not brave enough - except for Scott - to stand up and be counted when it counted.
Few of us are. It’s how not only oppressive regimes, but everyday tyrants at work or in our social lives manage to get their way. Too often we lack Aristotle’s virtue and find ourselves cowards when doing what is right or simply saying ‘no’ comes with consequences we’d rather avoid.
Even here though, I have little sympathy for the England players. While I perhaps understand the cowardice of the worker afraid to say ‘no’ to their boss for fear of being fired, the sanction threatened by Fifa for wearing the OneLove armband is a sanction players take a risk on in every game. A yellow card, a booking, a red card, being sent off. Players foul, they dive, they argue with referees, they pull shirts, they sometimes let their emotions get the better of them and shove or even punch someone, they break many rules to win an advantage every game, each time risking exactly the same sanction they were threatened with by Fifa. Wales’ goalkeeper, Wayne Hennessey, chose not to wear a OneLove armband in protest on Friday, but chose to get sent off instead for kicking Iran forward, Medhi Taremi. I guess we choose our battles. England may be disadvantaged in future matches due to injuries, to bookings, to simply facing better teams. They may end up not winning the tournament, or not even getting to the finals, for a variety of everyday reasons. They couldn’t even manage to score a goal against the USA on Friday, and many players will have still have taken on the risk of wear and tear from having played that match despite its futility. Sports is always a risk and winning is never guaranteed. By choosing not to take the risk of sanction/disadvantage by showing solidarity with LGBTQ+ people last Monday, all that the England team showed is their lack of true commitment to the cause. They would risk it all for something they think is worth it - such as winning a match - but sadly they do not think LGBTQ+ rights are worth it.
Which some might think is perfectly fair. After all - they are footballers, not civil rights activists. Football is their job, not changing the world.
The problem with that argument is that they already do wear the armband. They have already chosen to position themselves as people committed to this cause. They have already proclaimed an intention to change the world and by participating in an event mired in such criticism and controversy they can’t avoid their potential complicity in any of the issues raised. They have a responsibility as a human being - as a moral agent - which transcends their role as footballer.
I am a teacher. I got into the profession to teach philosophy to young people, not to be a social worker, but if one of my students discloses to me something happening at home which puts them in danger and requires my intervention, I can’t just tell them “sorry - I only want to think about philosophy right now”. I have to put my teaching commitments aside, maybe leave the rest of my day’s lessons with cover, and deal with the safeguarding concern I am now morally obliged to respond to. Some things become more important, even if they are not your primary intention and may even thwart your primary intention. That is the price of being a person in the world. We do not act in a moral vacuum.
There have been many excuses made for the England team’s cowardice, but that is all they boil down to: excuses. Excuses which hide the sad truth that other people have been braver (the German team, for example, covering their mouths to collectively protest their silencing by Fifa, or the Iranian team, for a different issue, refusing to sing their own national anthem during the same match that England showed their cowardice) while England only showed vice. Every individual on the team has decided that their chances in the World Cup are more important than the chances for LGBTQ+ people to live a life without fear and discrimination. It sadly is that simple.
If it was short notice for the Iran game, then I would have expected someone who cared, someone for whom the ban really bothered them, to have arrived at the USA match on Friday ready to stand up and fight. A OneLove band in a pocket, a quick finger in the air for ‘one’ then two hands making a heart for ‘love’ during the anthem, just one player showing a defiant rainbow to make their views clear and refuse to be silenced. But, again, no one did.
The history of human protest is a history of groups and individuals standing up against authority structures which tell them not to do something and doing it anyway. Interviews with England players had them lamenting that the decision was taken out of their hands and made by people higher up than them. They had no choice but to comply.
It doesn’t matter.
It isn’t true.
Any one of them could have defied those higher up the hierarchy and done it anyway. You don’t ask permission to protest, you do it. That’s how protest works. That’s why it requires the virtue of courage. A virtue that the England team have so far failed to demonstrate they possess this tournament, regardless of their outcomes on the pitch.
Back to the idea of a golden mean and the practical wisdom of phronesis: when given the opportunity to show courage on the football pitch, or courage standing up for the rights of the disadvantaged and the oppressed, if you pick football courage instead of the courage to stand up for something bigger, then you are clearly morally deficient.
Maybe, then, this post was about the whole World Cup after all and all its ethical issues? Maybe we all need to do better when it comes to our courage to do what’s right?
Author: DaN McKee (he/him)
If you liked this post and appreciate what I do here at Philosophy Unleashed and want to buy me a coffee or cool philosophy book to say thank you, feel free to send a small donation/tip my way here. My book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE , from the publisher, and from all good booksellers, either in paperback or as an e-Book. Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here. Listen to me on the Philosophy Gets Schooled podcast here. You can follow me on Mastodon HERE. For everything else DaN McKee related: www.everythingdanmckee.com