I understood the initial boycott to be predicated on the assumption that the social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, WeChat and so on) would be hard hit by this, and so would feel pressured into taking action more quickly and more decisively.
Do the clubs lose out financially, on any great scale by the loss of the 'interaction' between them and the fans? They still have their websites and their online shops which aren't affected.
I wonder if any assessment was done of the impact.. if he social media companies did, they'll probably keep it very quiet!
You don't think that the likes of Twitter and Facebook would be forced into a change if hundreds of companies took a massive financial hit because the players boycotted a round of fixtures or two?
I think that when companies like Nike, Adidas, Chevrolet, Coca-Cola feel that it is going to affect their bottom line, they are more likely to force some form of change than social media companies doing it on good will or being 'forced' by government.
If taking a knee had lost its impact then would people be booing?
If it had lost its impact would Tory MPs be declaring they'll boycott watching England, declaring that the booing isn't racist in the House of Commons, claiming that the UK is "one of the most tolerant and diverse countries in the world", accusing players of being "woke" or comparing it to the Nazi salute?
It seems to be having a great deal of impact with a certain group of mostly white, middle aged, financially secure men who perhaps don't believe (or don't want to admit) that racial discrimination still exists in the UK
While it is certainly better than it was when I was growing up in the 70s (I'm 7 years younger than OCS's dad which makes me feel desperately old) it hasn't gone away and its been getting noticeably worse over the last 5 years
There is a problem, the players - some of who have probably experienced discrimination personally - want to acknowledge that problem and some people clearly don't like being reminded of it
A touchy situation for those who support it continuing and those who think its gone on too long. What I'll add is players are often criticised for being overpaid, flashy and not good role models, yet the one time they try and make a positive united stance they get criticised by some ( not on here, I mean generally in some quarters)
My thoughts on the practice of 'taking the knee' being dulled in time, was only to wonder how long players will do it, if nothing changes. It could be quite affective if, by using the cameras and other supporters, the offenders could be identified and removed from the ground. It's a different issue from booing bad play. We can't go on taking the knee thinking that that is enough.
But that's the reason they take the knee isn't it?
Not really. The reason they take the knee is to get people to discuss racism, and to tackle it. It’s not to get people to discuss whether or not they should kneel, and to try to stop them from drawing attention to racism.
19:03 KICK-OFF Hungary 0-0 Republic of Ireland The referee blows the whistle to start the match and the Republic of Ireland players take a knee, much to the displeasure of the crowd who loudly boo and jeer the visitors.
Hungary stay standing, but a few of the players point at the 'respect' logo on their sleeves.
That was a very, very vocal response to one of the most-topical issues in football.
The issue we have is that these topics get hijacked in order to muddle the message and therefore tackling it becomes harder.
BLM has been the hijacking tool this time. A group of people (those booing) who claim to not support the taking of the knee because it has connections with a wider political movement, yet most of these individuals would have never mustered a sentence of discussion about the political motives of the BLM movement prior to this all being - correctly - brought to the surface in 2020. All of a sudden BLM can be used to manipulate the message being sent in order to invalidate it, which basically helps reinforce the way it has always been, whether consciously done or not; we don’t end up tackling racism correctly, we don’t identify the source and put things in place to try and educate and eradicate it.
Players are kneeling to highlight a drive for equality, not to support political movements. Gestures are only gestures. You associate your own meanings to them. Back in 1940, putting your hand in the air was associated with a salute and support for the Nazi regime, yet every day that very same action in a classroom acts as a call for help or a positive contribution to learning from a young person to a teacher.
I hope players continue to take the knee for as long as is necessary, as a unified message towards equality across the world, not just football. Why anybody would have a problem with that, I really struggle to understand, personally.
Footballers showing solidarity by an anti-racism gesture is a huge step forward. They are important role models and it keeps the issue in the public eye. But expecting it to continue 'until the problem is solved ' is unrealistic. I hope they come up with a different gesture next season, that is politically neutral. Something like both teams holding a banner in the centre circle. All sports need to do the same, but maybe that's a separate discussion.
I think many of them are misdirected & buy the notion that they are somehow booing "marxism" & a political movement...it's sad but sensible people can have their heads turned. As for the rest...they are what they are...
I think many of them are misdirected & buy the notion that they are somehow booing "marxism" & a political movement...it's sad but sensible people can have their heads turned. As for the rest...they are what they are...
It's crazy to me that people can clap the NHS, protest billionaires, and boo an anti-racist gesture because they think it's socialist all in the space of a year. It's almost like people don't actually know what socialism is...
Personally I think it's a waste of time but if it makes the players happy to be doing something then let them carry on. I still think them coming off social media indefinitely would make a much bigger statement and have a much bigger impact.
The Hungarian team last night stood and pointed to respect logos rather than take the knee.
Haven’t respect logo and kick out logos and whatever been there for ages? Did they do anything?
Why is pointing to a logo so much more acceptable than taking a knee?
The only reason I can see to switch to pointing at a logo is to see if people boo that too. You'd see quite quickly whether the argument about people only booing because it's political washes. If players pointed at the logo for 15 seconds before the match, I reckon they'd still be booed.
"If [people who booed] had listened to Gareth Southgate in his press conferences and what the players have said, taking the knee is not about politics.
"There are a lot of people, I feel stupid people, making excuses and using politics as a reason they don't agree or they're booing players taking the knee.
"Listen, educate yourself, be informed and then you won't be booing."
I think many of them are misdirected & buy the notion that they are somehow booing "marxism" & a political movement...it's sad but sensible people can have their heads turned. As for the rest...they are what they are...
It's hard to accept that they are unable to comprehend Southgate's statement that the taking of the knee is not a political gesture and yet these morons have somehow read Marx and are protesting their disagreement with Marxist philosophy.
I wonder if the people booing have watched Game of Thrones, realised they don't like Daenerys and that's why they're booing?
Seriously, there are people who keep conflating it with bending the knee. Taking the knee is different. Kaepernick did it himself, he wasn’t making people submit.
Comments
Clubs?
Players?
Fans?
Social media companies?
I understood the initial boycott to be predicated on the assumption that the social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, WeChat and so on) would be hard hit by this, and so would feel pressured into taking action more quickly and more decisively.
Do the clubs lose out financially, on any great scale by the loss of the 'interaction' between them and the fans? They still have their websites and their online shops which aren't affected.
I wonder if any assessment was done of the impact.. if he social media companies did, they'll probably keep it very quiet!
I think that when companies like Nike, Adidas, Chevrolet, Coca-Cola feel that it is going to affect their bottom line, they are more likely to force some form of change than social media companies doing it on good will or being 'forced' by government.
Droll.
If it had lost its impact would Tory MPs be declaring they'll boycott watching England, declaring that the booing isn't racist in the House of Commons, claiming that the UK is "one of the most tolerant and diverse countries in the world", accusing players of being "woke" or comparing it to the Nazi salute?
It seems to be having a great deal of impact with a certain group of mostly white, middle aged, financially secure men who perhaps don't believe (or don't want to admit) that racial discrimination still exists in the UK
While it is certainly better than it was when I was growing up in the 70s (I'm 7 years younger than OCS's dad which makes me feel desperately old) it hasn't gone away and its been getting noticeably worse over the last 5 years
There is a problem, the players - some of who have probably experienced discrimination personally - want to acknowledge that problem and some people clearly don't like being reminded of it
I'll add is players are often criticised for being overpaid, flashy and not good role models, yet the one time they try and make a positive united stance they get criticised by some ( not on here, I mean generally in some quarters)
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts/dear-england-01f798yfraha/amp?__twitter_impression=true
In Budapest Ireland players took a knee
Hungary players all stood and pointed to anti racist patch they had on their sleeves
Don't know what the crowd reaction was as we're watching with the sound off
KICK-OFF
Hungary 0-0 Republic of Ireland
The referee blows the whistle to start the match and the Republic of Ireland players take a knee, much to the displeasure of the crowd who loudly boo and jeer the visitors.
Hungary stay standing, but a few of the players point at the 'respect' logo on their sleeves.
That was a very, very vocal response to one of the most-topical issues in football.
BLM has been the hijacking tool this time. A group of people (those booing) who claim to not support the taking of the knee because it has connections with a wider political movement, yet most of these individuals would have never mustered a sentence of discussion about the political motives of the BLM movement prior to this all being - correctly - brought to the surface in 2020. All of a sudden BLM can be used to manipulate the message being sent in order to invalidate it, which basically helps reinforce the way it has always been, whether consciously done or not; we don’t end up tackling racism correctly, we don’t identify the source and put things in place to try and educate and eradicate it.
Players are kneeling to highlight a drive for equality, not to support political movements. Gestures are only gestures. You associate your own meanings to them. Back in 1940, putting your hand in the air was associated with a salute and support for the Nazi regime, yet every day that very same action in a classroom acts as a call for help or a positive contribution to learning from a young person to a teacher.
I hope players continue to take the knee for as long as is necessary, as a unified message towards equality across the world, not just football. Why anybody would have a problem with that, I really struggle to understand, personally.
Why is pointing to a logo so much more acceptable than taking a knee?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57411472