....either that or allow ball games in the debate chamber at Westminster.

While i agree the invasion of Ukraine was heinous and monstrous,.... i do not recall the same outcry from the Media for the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan ?

And agreed, the human-rights of LGBT people were abused in the past and i would support their equality and respect before the law.

And the suffering of peoples under slavery in the past was awful. Africans across the Atlantic, Celtic-Brits to Rome or Irish kids traded by Vikings to Byzantium.

But lets project ourselves forward to 2030. What crusades, cavalcades and other flags will be filling up the time that should be otherwise used to discuss whether that Referee performed badly again ?

Take one option : remove ALL the politics, or overload us with a bit more.... the brutalized peoples of East Timor, the border dispute in Nogorno-Karabac, Catalan Independence, Female Genital Mutilation, Human Rights in Saudi.....etc etc.

Football, the clue is in the name ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Steady on Palazio old chap. A bit extreme, but I think I get your point. Of course there's more media attention to the Russian war on Ukraine than those to which you refer, because they're attacking a European ally and this country and others could easily be dragged in. Doesn't bear thinking about.

I've read at least three articles in the paper this morning commenting that arguments about trivial issues such as, say, about the standard of refereeing, seem futile in the face of what's going on in Ukraine.

Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

Agree with the sentiment of this thread.

It's not an attack on any of the issues involved but they are societal issues not exclusively footballing ones. The are a few thing that really bother me about this:

1. I think it would be ridiculous to say that the motivations behind these 'campaigns', if you will, within football are based solely on humanitarian motivations. People aren't f****ing stupid, there is obviously some sort of commercial value within the backing of aforementioned movements if not at least protection from 'cancel culture'. Hence media companies jumping wholeheartedly on any bandwagons.

2. Because of reason 1. there are two obvious negative results in my eyes, the first being the cheapening of the actual causes/messages themselves and the second being the demonising of the people on which these businesses rely, football fans. I realise that sounds like a strong statement but I, for instance, do not feel the need to be lectured on, or defined by any particular movement dependant on where I shop for instance. If Morrisons (closest proximity to me) were to start putting 'let's kick homophobia out of shopping' banners and rainbow flags everywhere it would get on my nerves to be quite honest and I may walk the extra 5 mins to Asda or Sainsburys so I can (most likely fail in) try to remember what the wife wants/has demanded for dinner. I do like companies which use ethical practices etc and I think they are worth my custom as I can see the benefits. I am not however likely to choose a more expensive product over another simply because one sticks a slogan or symbol on their packaging for, what I would perceive to be, purely financial gain.

3. It's football. Football fans have long been the pantomime villains in society and quite frankly the culture has moved on significantly. I can honestly say I could not conjure up an anecdote immediately regarding racism/nazism/homophobia etc. at Palace, I do go to the Den a lot however and that is a different story, and that falls into the realms of never-ending dimwittery you hear down there and tbh even then it's few and far between. That doesn't make it OK and I do not feel as though I provide the fairest insight given I am a young-ish White bloke etc. I would however argue that having Russian Oligarchs and Saudi Billionaires running clubs is of far more concern. Ukraine needs no explaining and didn't the Saudis execute something like 100 people yesterday? Even then though, they are military and political concerns, not sporting ones.

Football is the national sport, it does have a huge following and garner massive public attention, but that is because of what it is. IMHO the further we descend into some sort of Orwellian nightmare which focuses exclusively on conditioning people as opposed to educating or even just encouraging them the more I fear for society. As previously mentioned, people aren't as stupid as many would think, they know that it is all technically propaganda and hence they are becoming resistant to it, and rightfully so. Trying to badge this as a question of morality is ludicrous. If people went around with buckets for humanitarian causes, whatever they may be, all day long I'd happily chuck some change in them all then go on to watch the football, with far more enthusiasm then I would show for the waving of flags, banners, rainbow laces and kneeling. I'd much rather hand over my hard earned cash to support causes than have them hijack my weekend.

Just my two cents as always.

Edited by Nicholas91 (13 Mar 2022 1.17pm)

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

The withdrawal of broadcasting sporting rights in Russia over Ukraine is a very specific action intended to try to separate the Putin regime from the Russian people.

I disagree with it. But not because it is a political action. I think it's actually a missed opportunity.

If the Russian people want to watch the PL, then let them. It's going to be one of the only things they now see which isn't Putin propaganda. Let them see the Uranian flags. Messages on shirts and around the ground. Let the questions be asked.

Every journey starts with a single step. The PL could be taking it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I would combat that, as a suggestion WE not an informed and well evidenced opinion, by saying that perhaps the reduction of Russia to Pariah status, financially weakening them and the resultant affects on the population, would most likely be the motivation here and probably far more effective than whatever can be played off as 'Western Propaganda' or I'm guessing easily censored by the state.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Association football and politics are connected in club identities, clashes, and footballers who choose a career in politics. Association football has played a role in maintaining the differences which give each European country a distinct identity, while strengthening the bonds that bind Europe together.

According to Macon Benoit, European football underwent a massive transformation during the World War II era (1933–45). The game's sharp rise in popularity came at a time of high political intensity, leading to football's politicization.

Benoit writes that during this period, European football began to embody four main characteristics: 1) an agent of international relations, in the sense that the foreign policies of European nations became articulated in matches; 2) a source of political propaganda, as football was used to build national pride and establish the legitimacy of political movements; 3) a tool for social pacification; football gave people a place to focus their energy that was not political, and 4) an avenue for protest; mass gatherings at matches gave spectators a forum for the expression of identity and political sentiments.European football stadiums have assumed other roles as places of refuge and sites of political uprisings and terrorist attacks.

As European politics and relations have changed, football has remained a global means of political expression.

I believe the HF has been a strong voice for morality and is a good example of how football and politics are linked by the concept that localities find their voices in a club environment.