FIFA and Poppygate

chrispy108

They have defined it. Then countries are choosing to break the rules, then complain about it.

Politicians should keep out of sport - those are FIFA rules too, and sport should keep out of politics.

I really don't understand why people are using this as an opportunity to whinge about FIFA corruption. What is corrupt about applying your rules as they are written?

ToneControl

MattBanshee said:

ICBM said:

The poppy is not a political or religious symbol.

It's particularly appropriate in an England-Scotland match too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_F.C._and_World_War_I

There were some English teams who also signed up en masse, or close to it, as well I think.

The poppy is 100% political. I refuse to wear one for as long as they lump the murderous Blairite warmongering illegal invaders in with the people who fought to DEFEND the borders of this country (last seen in the Falklands, never since).

The poppy  is to show and give support to British armed forces, which most would accept fought for "the right side" in  WW1 & WW2 
But there are plenty of countries around the world where  we  deployed them  in very political ways, and not always  virtuously.  I'm sure there are plenty of international matches where England turning up with poppies on the shirts would be  seen as political

How would England fans like it if Ireland played against them with that Easter Rising badge?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37872020

ToneControl

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

They do .. but the government needs to do more. Thousands of ex-servicemen are homeless and in need of specialist medical care.

This too. The government treats ex-servicemen disgracefully - ideally there should be no need for charities to help them.

I always  thought it disgusting that  a charity was necessary

Emp_Fab

I have mixed feelings about the poppy.  For me, it ought to be exclusively about the men and women who died while carrying out their jobs as members of the forces.  The people themselves who are now dead because they were doing what they were ordered to by politicians.  Whilst I see there is a definite element of that in the poppy campaign, it has been hijacked to represent something else - an unwavering support for the military and all they do.  I won't wear one for that very reason.  I'll put money in the tin but I don't wish to appear as if I'm backing militaristic ideals.  There is too close a proximity between wearing a poppy and waving a union jack and talking about the 'glorious' dead.  There's nothing glorious about getting killed, and the sooner the focus turns more to the folk who died and away from the 'parading down the Mall in full military regalia' the better.

It has become impossible to tell if the person wearing a poppy is doing so because they genuinely feel for those who died - the people underneath the uniform, those that just wear it as a show of support for "the forces" and those that wear it out of fear that not wearing one might put them in a bad light, with little or no thought for what it's supposed to represent.

The right thing to do instead of wearing a red bit of paper on a green plastic stick to remember the dead is to do all you can to stop the politicians from putting them in the firing line to start with.  Some wars are just unnecessary (pretty much everything post VE day).

ICBM

ToneControl said:

How would England fans like it if Ireland played against them with that Easter Rising badge?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37872020

That's also about remembrance rather than being political. The Easter Rising is part of history now, not politics - or the Queen wouldn't have laid a wreath in memory of the dead rebels when she visited Dublin.

And agreed with Emp's post - although I've never seen the poppy as a symbol of support for the military. You can support the servicemen without supporting the military, or more importantly the politicians who start the wars.

EricTheWeary

And in this case we are talking about England vs Scotland where both sides want to wear a poppy. 

  ToneControl said:

MattBanshee said:

ICBM said:

The poppy is not a political or religious symbol.

It's particularly appropriate in an England-Scotland match too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_F.C._and_World_War_I

There were some English teams who also signed up en masse, or close to it, as well I think.

The poppy is 100% political. I refuse to wear one for as long as they lump the murderous Blairite warmongering illegal invaders in with the people who fought to DEFEND the borders of this country (last seen in the Falklands, never since).

The poppy  is to show and give support to British armed forces, which most would accept fought for "the right side" in  WW1 & WW2 
But there are plenty of countries around the world where  we  deployed them  in very political ways, and not always  virtuously.  I'm sure there are plenty of international matches where England turning up with poppies on the shirts would be  seen as political

chrispy108

EricTheWeary said:

And in this case we are talking about England vs Scotland where both sides want to wear a poppy. 

Right. Like if both sides wore swastikas when Austria played Germany in the past? Or if two countries wore ISIS flags today?

Both sides wanting to make a political display doesn't make it right.

Politics has no place in football.

chrispy108

Glad to see the BBC wardrobe department make sure no one complains but sticking a poppy to everyone.

https://i.imgur.com/NBQTxN4.jpg

even the dog
https://i.imgur.com/YLv5jTc.jpg

Emp_Fab

Can't they just PLAY THE FUCKING GAME THEY'RE PAID SQUILLIONS TO DO ?  Wear the fucking poppy on your Gucci shirt as you're driving from the stadium in your gold-plated Range Rover Sport, put a giant poppy on the front of it, get your arse down the British Legion and pay for the place to be redecorated, but demanding the right to be able to be seen on Match of the Day wearing an armband (which is what it's really about) is frankly rather narcissistic and an insult to the dead, because I don't think this fuss is really about them at all.

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

How would England fans like it if Ireland played against them with that Easter Rising badge?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37872020

That's also about remembrance rather than being political. The Easter Rising is part of history now, not politics - or the Queen wouldn't have laid a wreath in memory of the dead rebels when she visited Dublin.

And agreed with Emp's post - although I've never seen the poppy as a symbol of support for the military. You can support the servicemen without supporting the military, or more importantly the politicians who start the wars.

I don't think the Easter Rising is  uncontroversial, even now. Why bring it into a football match. Would they wear it for a game against Northern Ireland?

I think many do view the poppy as unconditional support for "our boys". If it were uncontroversial, we wouldn't be on page 4 of this thread

ToneControl

EricTheWeary said:

And in this case we are talking about England vs Scotland where both sides want to wear a poppy. 

  ToneControl said:

The poppy  is to show and give support to British armed forces, which most would accept fought for "the right side" in  WW1 & WW2 
But there are plenty of countries around the world where  we  deployed them  in very political ways, and not always  virtuously.  I'm sure there are plenty of international matches where England turning up with poppies on the shirts would be  seen as political

So do we  have to  arrange talks before each match  every year to decide which symbols are OK between the teams?
Better to not  do it I think, on reflection. A minutes silence and a hymn would be more fitting I think (even though I'm not religious as far as I can tell)

chrispy108

Emp_Fab said:

Can't they just PLAY THE FUCKING GAME THEY'RE PAID SQUILLIONS TO DO ?

It's not the players making a fuss. I've not seen a quote from a player about wanting to wear a poppy.

Its suits in the FA wanting to be seen to do the right thing.

EricTheWeary

They have had a discussion between both FAs before the match and decided the poppy is okay. This is two UK teams playing each other on armistice day so they had the conversation and the precedent is there for them to have poppy arm bands. So, it's exceptional circumstances and it has been done before.

I'm not sure I give a monkeys either way TBH but this is FIFA re interpreting the rules - changing the, ahem, goal posts if you will - so I think it's reasonable that the English and Scottish FAs should be annoyed.

ToneControl said:

EricTheWeary said:

And in this case we are talking about England vs Scotland where both sides want to wear a poppy. 

  ToneControl said:

The poppy  is to show and give support to British armed forces, which most would accept fought for "the right side" in  WW1 & WW2 
But there are plenty of countries around the world where  we  deployed them  in very political ways, and not always  virtuously.  I'm sure there are plenty of international matches where England turning up with poppies on the shirts would be  seen as political

So do we  have to  arrange talks before each match  every year to decide which symbols are OK between the teams?
Better to not  do it I think, on reflection. A minutes silence and a hymn would be more fitting I think (even though I'm not religious as far as I can tell)

Drew_TNBD

ToneControl said:

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

How would England fans like it if Ireland played against them with that Easter Rising badge?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37872020

That's also about remembrance rather than being political. The Easter Rising is part of history now, not politics - or the Queen wouldn't have laid a wreath in memory of the dead rebels when she visited Dublin.

And agreed with Emp's post - although I've never seen the poppy as a symbol of support for the military. You can support the servicemen without supporting the military, or more importantly the politicians who start the wars.

I don't think the Easter Rising is  uncontroversial, even now. Why bring it into a football match. Would they wear it for a game against Northern Ireland?

I think many do view the poppy as unconditional support for "our boys". If it were uncontroversial, we wouldn't be on page 4 of this thread

The reason you're on page 4 of this thread is because you all love bickering instead of playing guitar.

Now I'm off to do exactly that!

p90fool

Emp_Fab said:

I have mixed feelings about the poppy.  For me, it ought to be exclusively about the men and women who died while carrying out their jobs as members of the forces.  The people themselves who are now dead because they were doing what they were ordered to by politicians.  Whilst I see there is a definite element of that in the poppy campaign, it has been hijacked to represent something else - an unwavering support for the military and all they do.  I won't wear one for that very reason.  I'll put money in the tin but I don't wish to appear as if I'm backing militaristic ideals.  There is too close a proximity between wearing a poppy and waving a union jack and talking about the 'glorious' dead.  There's nothing glorious about getting killed, and the sooner the focus turns more to the folk who died and away from the 'parading down the Mall in full military regalia' the better.

It has become impossible to tell if the person wearing a poppy is doing so because they genuinely feel for those who died - the people underneath the uniform, those that just wear it as a show of support for "the forces" and those that wear it out of fear that not wearing one might put them in a bad light, with little or no thought for what it's supposed to represent.

The right thing to do instead of wearing a red bit of paper on a green plastic stick to remember the dead is to do all you can to stop the politicians from putting them in the firing line to start with.  Some wars are just unnecessary (pretty much everything post VE day).

I totally agree. I've personally raised £220 for the poppy appeal this year but I don't wear one. 
The symbol itself makes me a feel a little uncomfortable if I'm honest. It's a bit like the England flag, it's not the symbol itself, just some of the associations. 

chrispy108

EricTheWeary said:

They have had a discussion between both FAs before the match and decided the poppy is okay. This is two UK teams playing each other on armistice day so they had the conversation and the precedent is there for them to have poppy arm bands. So, it's exceptional circumstances and it has been done before.

I'm not sure I give a monkeys either way TBH but this is FIFA re interpreting the rules - changing the, ahem, goal posts if you will - so I think it's reasonable that the English and Scottish FAs should be annoyed.

So what if they've agreed? If two countries want to wear a symbol that represents an issue you disagree with would that be ok, because the countries have agreed?

FIFA haven't re-interpreted their rules at all, they are just enforcing what is written down.

Basic compulsory equipment
The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or, statements or images will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

I don't see how that can be clearer.
You might argue the poppy isn't political, but it is certainly a statement.

seany65

Posted by chrispy108:

"Basic compulsory equipment
The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or, statements or images will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA."

I'm just wondering when that rule came in.

Did they try to stop the players wearing poppies last year?

If they did not, and this rule was in place before last Novenber, why are they doing this now?

Handsome_Chris

chrispy108 said:

EricTheWeary said:

They have had a discussion between both FAs before the match and decided the poppy is okay. This is two UK teams playing each other on armistice day so they had the conversation and the precedent is there for them to have poppy arm bands. So, it's exceptional circumstances and it has been done before.

I'm not sure I give a monkeys either way TBH but this is FIFA re interpreting the rules - changing the, ahem, goal posts if you will - so I think it's reasonable that the English and Scottish FAs should be annoyed.

So what if they've agreed? If two countries want to wear a symbol that represents an issue you disagree with would that be ok, because the countries have agreed?

FIFA haven't re-interpreted their rules at all, they are just enforcing what is written down.

Basic compulsory equipment
The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or, statements or images will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

I don't see how that can be clearer.
You might argue the poppy isn't political, but it is certainly a statement.

Handsome_Chris

And that statement is that they are supporting a charitable organisation.  I believe that the RBL are no more political than Children In Need. 

EricTheWeary

Haven't they allowed the arm bands now? I haven't kept up. 

 The rule could be clearer because we have at least two examples of where FIFA and UEFA have interpreted it differently in the recent past.And, yes, if two other teams agreed to both wear the same symbol ( particularly something not overtly political) that was supporting a worthwhile charity/ cause I can't see that I'd have a problem with it. Professional football has a terrible public image and using a high profile match to support a good cause seems good PR. It's also rife with corporate sponsorship, we get company logos on shirts ( not at international level although we still get the maker's logos which is effectively advertising ), hoardings, back walls of press calls, etc. FIFA  seemingly happy with images with a bit of cash attached.


EDIT : They are wearing them in defiance of the ban then. Okay, made a storm in a tea cup more interesting.

Handsome_Chris said:

chrispy108 said:

EricTheWeary said:

They have had a discussion between both FAs before the match and decided the poppy is okay. This is two UK teams playing each other on armistice day so they had the conversation and the precedent is there for them to have poppy arm bands. So, it's exceptional circumstances and it has been done before.

I'm not sure I give a monkeys either way TBH but this is FIFA re interpreting the rules - changing the, ahem, goal posts if you will - so I think it's reasonable that the English and Scottish FAs should be annoyed.

So what if they've agreed? If two countries want to wear a symbol that represents an issue you disagree with would that be ok, because the countries have agreed?

FIFA haven't re-interpreted their rules at all, they are just enforcing what is written down.

Basic compulsory equipment
The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or, statements or images will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

I don't see how that can be clearer.
You might argue the poppy isn't political, but it is certainly a statement.