The belief that politics and sport do not mix is a flawed concept, as can be shown when people in power grace sporting contests in cheap publicity grabs and princes hand out rugby trophies. So what exactly offends people when a sportsperson makes a stand?
The sporting community is more than accustomed to politics creeping into their beloved hobby, they may just not realise it.
Nelson Mandela used rugby to heal a nation, Muhammad Ali stood up for his beliefs and is now heralded for his once derided stance, Peter Norman stood united with Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics, while Nicky Winmar bravely stood up to his tormentors.
Whether you agree with them and their beliefs is irrelevant, though it helps that they were trumpeting worthwhile causes. In retrospect it can be argued that sport provided a necessary platform to assist change.
What matters is that you can distinguish the difference between admiring sportspeople’s on-field exploits and respecting their right to hold personal viewpoints.
The latest incident where a sportsperson was criticised for displaying a political viewpoint concerns footballer Jamie McClean.
Hailing from Derry, a town deeply affected during The Troubles, and the location for the horrific events of Bloody Sunday in 1972, McClean continually refuses to wear a poppy to commemorate Remembrance Day. It is a stance he has explained in detail previously.
While the entire Premier League wore special jerseys with poppies on the weekend, McClean chose to abstain during West Brom’s visit to Old Trafford.
Manchester United fans reportedly booed him, and vitriol spilled forth over Twitter.
Unfortunately that is not the worst McClean has experienced, receiving death threats a few years ago for his stance, and also copping condemnation earlier this year when he dared to ignore the raising of a English flag during a friendly match in America.
Slowly, however, views are changing towards McClean. Thankfully more fans appeared to support the winger on Twitter following his decision, drowning out some of the negativity. Yet it is a concern that people still feel a need to criticise sportspeople for sticking to their beliefs.
Australia has two sportsmen who were recently given grief for daring to express their opinion on society – David Pocock and Adam Goodes.
Many are sick of the subject, many want it to go away. One reason being that politics and sport should not mix, and that the talk should be reserved for on-field events.
So there is little point going into what Goodes and Pocock have said or done in the past to cause such a widespread division of opinion.
Rather, it must be asked why it is wrong for a sportsperson to have a life outside sport, and to express their personal views.
Pocock has just come off a stellar World Cup, one where he was a tournament standout both on and off the field. As Andy Bull recently argued in The Guardian: Pocock has shown that sport and politics can mix.
Has public opinion changed since Pocock returned to the field and performed for his country? Or are there those still concerned about whether he will use his celebrity standing to support gay rights and renewable energy?
When Pocock pushed gay rights into the sporting headlines earlier this year, The Australian‘s Wayne Smith argued that his “mere presence in the Wallabies now threatens to have a polarising effect”.
That has surely been debunked following his and the Wallabies’ performances at the World Cup. It seems Pocock’s teammates, just like the rest of us, were able to ignore his personal opinion (if they were even concerned in the first place) to retain a decent working relationship, and most likely an off-field friendship, too.
We do not demand our friends or work colleagues to hold similar political and moral views as our own, and we do not demand that they keep their mouths shut about it either. So we should not demand the same from our sports stars.
Sporting idols do not have to be apolitical, we no longer live in an age where discussing your voting intentions is considered taboo. This is 2015, after all.
As Voltaire once penned: “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too”. That should also be transferred to letting others, anyone, speak out for themselves.
Pocock is a refreshing change from the cliche-ridden sporting landscape, as is Goodes. McClean should equally be respected for having an opinion and enough guts to stick by his beliefs despite possible derision.
If politics and sport should not mix, then arguably Remembrance Day and Anzac Day commemorations should be separated as well. We cannot accept one side and not the other.
The Australian football community has already seen one respected journalist hounded out of work due to his views on Anzac Day ‘celebrations’. Let us hope we never see a similar example occur on the field – and not just because a player has kept his mouth shut.
Every person deserves to express their beliefs. If an employer thinks that reflects badly on their company, then so be it. They will likely face a date in court, however.
All that should matter for you, as a sports fan, is what players do on the pitch. Their opinion should not offend or disgust you to a point where you call for them to keep quiet. Similarly, no one should demand a sportsperson to wear a poppy, or even a ribbon.
It makes a poorer world when anyone, let alone a sportsperson, is silenced due to public outrage.
jbinnie
Guest
Republican - An interesting question although your use of the term "native" when describing those born in that beautiful island makes it a bit difficult to answer.I did a little research on the "net" but it is hard to differentiate as there appears to be other causes at work when it comes to recruitment..According to what I found there has always been movement from Eire by young men interested in joining a military unit,the closest being of course the British Army ,which still has a famous regiment called the Irish Guards.There is mention of a more recent "Irish Army" but that does not appear to have successful recruitment rates when compared to young men and women being drawn to what appears a more "active" armed force in Britain. This was still the "status quo" as late as 2010. I did find one figure that may help in answering your question,in 1914 there were an estimated 80,000 Irish born men joined the British Army and approx. half of those were from Eire.You will note I said "joined" for my investigation also said that "conscription" as introduced by the British government was never introduced into Ireland. There appears to be quite a lot of information available if one is to "surf the net" but I never came up with casualty figures. Sorry. jb ps. Enjoyed your first comment,brought back memories of one of the best books I have ever read "Trinity" by Leon Uris jb
jbinnie
Guest
Janek- Cannot for the life of me understand why "England" gets singled out as the country that was involved in 2 world conflicts.I did take great care in my response to you to point out the countries who were "forced " to supply the men and materials against a foe,or foes who to all intents and purposes appeared to have some sort of European,if not world domination as their driving force. You mention a "Treaty" as being the reason for WW1 starting, history disagrees and actually mentions a murder of a member of royalty in the Balkans as being the "flashpoint" that kicked off the conflict. I do agree that there were political considerations and "side-taking" that brought things to a head but even then Britain was a '"Johnny come lately" to that state of affairs the main protagonists being Russia,Germany,France,Serbia and the Austrian/ Hungarian Empire,all with views of expanding their territories in Europe. It is not so hard to get the start of the second war ,the little corporal simply marched into Alsace,Czechoslovakia.Poland France,the Low Countries Denmark, and Norway leaving no one in any doubt as to his intentions. Now enough of the historical / political shenanigans. What I obviously failed to get over in my comment to you was that the "troubles" as you refer to them, a localised event between 2 small countries, has little or no connection to the wearing of a poppy in November,an act of remembrance to those (among them great numbers from both Eire and Northern Ireland) who died to preserve the life style we enjoy today. If someone can change that "act of remembrance" into something evil then I fear for the future of mankind. jb ps. Don't know if you noticed but in my attempt to list participating allies in alphabetical order I forgot to mention England and Wales.Sorry to those peoples. jb
Janek Speight
Expert
JB, thanks for the thought-out response. However, I think you're falling into the trap of assuming there was 'good' and 'evil' in WWI. England were not the good guys, no one was. In fact, you could say those involved in the Treaty of Versailles were the true enemies in the whole mess, it was a major reason WWII was made possible. Back to sport (sorry), I can't fault McClean for refusing to wear a poppy during a football game. I never grew up in an area such as Derry where the aftermath of The Troubles is still affecting the community, so it's hard to criticise him.
Republican
Guest
....actually they were still part of GB under sufferance during 1914 so GB were conscripting from what was to be the Republic as well. This was a very divisive war as far as Eire was concerned while Most of the patronage naturally came from those with protestant heritage. I would be interested to know the number of native Irish who died.
Republican
Guest
Big Al Not the Irish mate but the Scotts Irish from the north, the ones that were transplanted by perfidious Albion to populate that which lay beyond the pale, the partitioned and British occupied Northern Ireland. This is an important distinction for many of my persuasion anyway, since those from the lowlands of Scotland were selected quite provocatively because they were culturally and religiously polarised from the native Irish and ruled by a Dutchman, King William of Orange to make for a very volatile cocktail as we all know. The Republic have remained overtly neutral during both campaigns and if anything, went out of their way to be a thorn in the side of GB. Apols for being such a pedant but Its personal in respect of my Australian Irish heritage.
BigAl
Guest
Way more Irish died fighting for Britain than against it.
marron
Roar Guru
no worries jb, wasn't having a go, just pointing out a couple of things. would love to continue the discussion but you're probably right - no politics on the sporting pages!
CG2430
Guest
Booing and jeering IS a legitimate form of expressing opinion. It's not especially nuanced, granted, but who gets the opportunity to present a long-winded argument while watching sport at the ground. I was not attempting to praise Pocock except to say that, in fairness to him, he doesn't actively bring his politics into his sport as others do. The Potgeiter reference was conceivably non-political - despite probably being motivated by Pocock's own political beliefs - because it was a transgression of competitions regs and/or the laws of the game anyway. And to be clear, I have no praise whatsoever for Adam Goodes' behaviour on the field. I don't necessarily agree with many/any of Pocock's views either, but live and let live.
Republican
Guest
Marron, the more I read your posts the more I sense a kindred ethos. Thanks for your contributions.
jbinnie
Guest
marron -Thanks for the reply You appear to have read my comment and formed thoughts based on different parts of it. The remembrance day poppy thing is in fact a show of respect for those who died ,firstly in the first world war, (hence the poppy fields pf Northern Europe being signified) and ,probably because of the relative closeness of the second ( 18 years later ) has "grown" to include the casualties of that conflict as well and in fact has probaby now included the Korean and Vietnam conflicts as well.. These 2 conflicts WERE politically motivated for we were told by our politicians that there was a "threat to world order" comiing from communism which brings politics and religion squarely into into the discussion. You mention the Easter Uprising surely a "localised event" based on a political stand using religion as a basis for it coming into being and nowhere did I suggest that that matter was not important to those that took part but surely you must agree that it has much less significance to the rest of the world than the 2 conficts that did affect most of the civilised world. The reference to "Nazi jackboots" was as you say a reference as to what may have happened if the would be "world dictator" had not been stopped in his tracks by peope fromall around that same world who decided that the "little corporal" had to be stopped somewhere. I have no desire to get into a political discussion about the rights and wrongs of events that have taken place all around our world since "politics" as it now known manipulated common peoples into events that really are a disgrace,not to the people who took part but to the people who engineered mankind into believing THEY were right and the remainder of the populations,who were left to carry the can, were WRONG. My comment was not based on right or wrong just a defence to those people who care to remember those who died in defending what the popular media now like to term "our freedom",were they American,Australian,Canadian,Danes,Free French,Indian ,Irish,Maltese.Nepalese(Ghurkas),New Zealanders, Poles,Russia,Scots or other who contributed to fight in an "underground " manner.Those people desrve some respect & to me that is what the poppy signifies,respect, respect,&even more respect. If our present education system does not get that message over then to me that is remiss of those who set currculae. Lets us,you and me ,stick to sporting discussions of today,that is the purpose of this blog. Cheers jb
marron
Roar Guru
THere was a bit more spontaneity 2 weeks prior also.
marron
Roar Guru
You talk about the young people having no memory jb but that's part of the problem in a way; poppy wearing and flag waving is on the increase as a result. Nobody is alive to tell us different and so the poppy can become a symbol of nationalism and. Also you can't talk about Ireland and ww1 without talking easter uprising. And while the two things are linked, you can't conflate ww1 (ignoring British interests) with the jackboot of fascism.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
This pretty much sums it up. I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone expressing their political views, but by doing so they put their own head on the chopping block. By putting your opinion in the public arena, you take the risk that an element of the public may exercise their right to disagree with you. If you're prepared to cop that, then fine.
jbinnie
Guest
Janek - Let's examine why poppies are worn. It is an act of remembrance to those who died on the poppy fields of France and the low countries expecially in World War 1 which was fought in the years 1914-18.That was approx 100 years ago so it is probably correct to say that any of what could be termed the younger generation of today probably have no memory ,or lack the education , as to get the real meaning behind such a gesture, Now while it is correct to say the actual cause of the war was political, started over a murder in the Balkans (most wars are) it does not take away from the fact that "England" didn't start the conflict but in the end,(just like World War 2) had to fight back with many allies to defeat the oppressor who had recognised the occurrence as a way of expanding their existing empire. Having just recently visited those same fields in Belgium I too find it incredible that thousands of men from countries all over the world had to die to procure the lifestyle we have enjoyed ever since.That does not mean I would ever dream of criticising those who choose to "remember" and if it takes a "poppy' to show that thought then so be it. To get back to young McClean for a moment.He obviously has some anti-British thinking in his mind but I would take this opportunity to remind him that there were thousands of his countrymen from the republic ,volunteered to fight ,and perhaps died, in these wars. Maybe if he understood that factor then he would recognise the fact that if the Nazi jackboots had prevailed there would be no guarantee that his "republic" would be in existence today. They say time is a great healer of course but sometime I think it is also a great memory killer.Pity there are still thinkers like him around,for his thoughts are totally misplaced when taken out of the environment. he was born into. jb
spruce moose
Guest
Exactly. So so right.
marron
Roar Guru
The message being, views like this are fine.... As long as they are part of the carefully controlled and constructed PR machine. dont forget this is the organization that splashes active groups all over their promo material and then clamp down on them. It's all about control. Which to go full circle is why you don't see the players themselves going "off message" too often. More power to the ones that do.
lester
Guest
That is a great program they are implementing but they are contradicting themselves by confiscating Refugees Welcome banners.
lester
Guest
Poppy Fascism is alive and real in the UK.
aladdin sane
Guest
exactly
AZ_RBB
Guest
"If a sportsperson should publicly express a political viewpoint, then they should be prepared to be judged by the public" Of course. But booing and jeering is not a form of expressing an opinion. It's primitive and thoughtless. "As for David Pocock, I cannot recall him making a point during a match (save for maybe the Potgeiter incident earlier this year), which distinguishes his behaviour from Adam Goodes’." So you can't remember a time when Pocock made a point during a match, except for the time when he did make a point during a match which makes him just as honourable and worthy of credit as Goodes.