Hard though you would have to then consider banning other countries involved in similar circumstances ? do you ban Israel for its conflict with Palestine ? do you ban Saudi Arabia for its conflict in Yemen.
No and yes. The yes because it is also a one-way invasion. I agree that politics should never control sport, but I also think that sport can and should take a clear stand on some issues, if those issues have a clear connection to that sport. Sorry if this sounds bombastic, I'm just trying to put complicated arguments into a few words.
Hard though you would have to then consider banning other countries involved in similar circumstances ? do you ban Israel for its conflict with Palestine ? do you ban Saudi Arabia for its conflict in Yemen.
No and yes. The yes because it is also a one-way invasion. I agree that politics should never control sport, but I also think that sport can and should take a clear stand on some issues, if those issues have a clear connection to that sport. Sorry if this sounds bombastic, I'm just trying to put complicated arguments into a few words.
The Palestinian territories (East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza) are occupied by Israel under international law. So it's really not that different apart from that occupation having been in place so long that people have become used to it and Israel has settled some of its population within those areas, making it more complicated. There was no Palestinian invasion of Israeli lands. The majority of Palestinian attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank are on soldiers but we're now seeing Sky News live broadcast molotov cocktail workshops in Ukraine.
There is also a direct link - Palestinian sportsmen are regularly denied permits to travel, whether for international competitions or simply between the West Bank and Gaza.
I do agree with you that sport should take a clear stance and I think a sports boycott could be an effective way for Russia to be sanctioned. I just think that they might not because it will open the door on this but also that if they do it needs to be a change in principle, not simply just in this case.
Spartak Moscow are being removed from the EL. UEFA deciding whether to give Leipzig a bye or reinstate another team, which if they do, I would presume someone they beat in their group.
It would have to be Napoli as they came 2nd and got knocked out in the playoffs by Barcelona. Leicester came 3rd but are through to the last 16 of the Europa Conference
Hurrah, I think the difference with this invasion is the brazenness and the absolute lack of any credible rationale, whatever is felt considering the “legitimacy” of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the animosity between them is well documented and goes back over generations so at least I understand why a state of perpetual conflict exists.
There is rarely any justification for war, few would argue against the overthrow of imperialism and facisam in the 40s as being anything other than just, in more recent times, I have no problem with the overthrow of Saddem Hussain, I just object to being blatantly lied to.
At least imo, the action by FIFA is the correct one and I am pleased they did so, albeit slightly reluctantly.
IM0 the more Russians that we can turn against Putin before he “pushes the button”, and goes even further, the better. Ban all the tennis, ice hockey players, etc - that is ALL athletes, and threaten them with life bans if they don’t denounce what is happening.
May seem extreme, but we need to hit them hard because people, including Russians, are dying for a cause most of the world disagree with! We should use the ‘power’ of sport if we can.
Outcast: yes, Palestine is a murky area when it comes to principles. The Israeli rationale/excuse/cop-out is that Arab countries have been trying to wipe them out since 1947, so they are acting in self-defence. Legally sound but very dubious in recent years. As a general point, there aren't many examples of invasions since 1945: most conflicts have been civil wars. (I will probably be corrected on this!)
There have been quite a few invasions, though few of them have been to simply take over the neighbour's land. Libya in Chad is the main one that comes to mind. Others have always given another excuse - to stop someone else's influence, to find WMDs, to stop a rebel takeover, to change a regime etc. It's not clear Russia is planning to annex Ukraine as opposed to put in place another client government - which makes it very similar to other wars. On Israel, 1967 war is the one that is the root of most current problems and is accepted as having led to illegal occupations and settlements.
Anyway, we can get into a very, tricky comparison of all these wars and conflicts and that's not my intention apart from the fact that it gets so tricky shows that any stance has to be principled. You can't fine some political protests and then completely back others. This war is criminal and Putin should be challenged but if it's a one-off, it does reinforce some global inequalities that coverage of this war has already embedded further - "blonde, blue eyed kids" during and accepting refugees because they're from "civilised, christian" nations.
I hope no one misunderstands me: I want Putin to be challenged and I think sport is a good way to do it. But I cover conflicts pretty much every day of the week and I see, frankly, even worse happening, including by Putin's forces and associates so I do despair at some of the exceptionalism of this conflict. It's not exceptionally atrocious but it is atrocious. It's an exceptional geopolitical challenge.
They're accepting them because they're right next door as opposed to travelling thousands of miles. If the Ukrainians rocked up in the Middle East seeking asylum, I think questions would be asked along the lines of why are you here?
They're accepting them because they're right next door as opposed to travelling thousands of miles. If the Ukrainians rocked up in the Middle East seeking asylum, I think questions would be asked along the lines of why are you here?
Yes, of course. That's the only reason that needs to be given but it is not what a lot of the commentariat are saying.
What I do find amusing, probably wrong word, is that after being constantly warned about fake information by the BBC et al it transpires that the 40 mile ‘column’ nearing Kiev is in fact a ‘column’ spaced out over 40 miles even though the BBC et al were reporting this. Still scary but not as scary as originally reported.
Comments
There is also a direct link - Palestinian sportsmen are regularly denied permits to travel, whether for international competitions or simply between the West Bank and Gaza.
I do agree with you that sport should take a clear stance and I think a sports boycott could be an effective way for Russia to be sanctioned. I just think that they might not because it will open the door on this but also that if they do it needs to be a change in principle, not simply just in this case.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/60560567
There is rarely any justification for war, few would argue against the overthrow of imperialism and facisam in the 40s as being anything other than just, in more recent times, I have no problem with the overthrow of Saddem Hussain, I just object to being blatantly lied to.
At least imo, the action by FIFA is the correct one and I am pleased they did so, albeit slightly reluctantly.
May seem extreme, but we need to hit them hard because people, including Russians, are dying for a cause most of the world disagree with! We should use the ‘power’ of sport if we can.
Let's act like Russia does then berate them for doing so. 🤔
My overall point was that, for once, football seems to leading the way and should maybe be followed.
On Israel, 1967 war is the one that is the root of most current problems and is accepted as having led to illegal occupations and settlements.
Anyway, we can get into a very, tricky comparison of all these wars and conflicts and that's not my intention apart from the fact that it gets so tricky shows that any stance has to be principled. You can't fine some political protests and then completely back others. This war is criminal and Putin should be challenged but if it's a one-off, it does reinforce some global inequalities that coverage of this war has already embedded further - "blonde, blue eyed kids" during and accepting refugees because they're from "civilised, christian" nations.
I hope no one misunderstands me: I want Putin to be challenged and I think sport is a good way to do it. But I cover conflicts pretty much every day of the week and I see, frankly, even worse happening, including by Putin's forces and associates so I do despair at some of the exceptionalism of this conflict. It's not exceptionally atrocious but it is atrocious. It's an exceptional geopolitical challenge.
Or ask Lampard about Alisher Usmanov's links to Putin?
Or Moyes about Kretinsky's dealings with Gazprom?