Sport and Rememberance

[RussUK]

**********Disclaimer: please note this post is in no way meant to be either political or religious*****

 

So, its that time of year again for us European Football (soccer) fans when we have the international break and the matches this year coincide with the period of rememberance leading up to Nov 11th. 

Our local club teams are proudly displaying poppies on their football shirts (my local team are to auction them off to raise money for the poppy appeal and help for hero's).

For me this is a thoughtful and touching gesture, however, it was announced on the news the other day that the England V Scotland game, which will be played during the same period as the beginning of the battle of the Somme (one of the most significant battles of the Great War), will not be permitted by Fifa to have poppies on their shirts or they may face points deductions. Both teams have decided to ignore Fifa and wear black armbands with poppies on them.

Now, im not sure if similar things are done at sporting events at this time of year in Amercia but am i the onlt one that thinks Fifa has gone a little too far?

[Patch]

As with any sport, I sometimes think the organisers, and their rules committee tend to over regulate their sport. It's like they have to come up with "something" to justify their jobs. 

I dont know that much about soccer. I have never understood that offside rule,  even after watching all the games our kids, and grand kids have played through the years. However, in the instance you discribed, I think fifa is probably stretching things a little too far.  

[David in FL]

I apologize, but I'm not quite understanding.  What is the significance of the poppies?  By "appeal and help for heroes", do you mean that the proceeds help war veterans?  What is the reasoning behind the Fifa decision?

 

[RussUK]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I apologize, but I'm not quite understanding.  What is the significance of the poppies?  By "appeal and help for heroes", do you mean that the proceeds help war veterans?  What is the reasoning behind the Fifa decision?

 

No need to apologize. The wearing of the poppy originally came about afterthe end of the first world war as a way to remember those who gave their lives on all sides of the conflicts (the poppy was the flower that grows in the somme area). Its now used to remember the fallen in all conflicts up to the present day. 

You are spot on with help for heroes. Proceeds go to veterans who have suffered in both physically and mentally due to combat.

Fifa's decision, to me, seems very strange. The current fifa secretart, Fatma Samoura stated that players "equipment should not carry any commercial, political or religious messages. The English and Scottish FA's do not believe poppy tributes to Armistace day constitue the above and i agree. Her other argument was that her country, Senegal, has seen years of conflict and their team does not commemerate the falled so why should any other country.

[mcanadiens]

In the world of sport organizing bodies,  FIFA must have the worst reputation. Those guys make the scum that run the NCAA (our major college sports organizer) look good.

In the U.S. I'm not really sure there is anything that is as universal as the poppy is for British football. Different teams will occasionally get permission to do something special. The NFL encourages some pink elements for a breast cancer awareness month.

At the root, I agree with you that a tribute to a nation's war dead is not commercial, political or religious.

[jamo]

FIFA is horrendous, and consistently misses opportunities like this to foster good will.

[DaveP043]

I don't know about FIFA, but I do know that some of the US sports leagues sign contracts with clothing manufacturers.  The manufacturer provides uniforms, and I'm sure a boatload of money.  In return, those contracts usually require the league to make sure that the clothing manufacturers logo is the only thing that gets advertised.  Even things like headbands and wristbands have the supplier's logo visible, and there are hefty fines for players who wear non-approved gear.  It seems entirely possible that FIFA isn't entirely to blame for banning the commemorative armbands.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, jamo said:

FIFA is horrendous, and consistently misses opportunities like this to foster good will.

This.

U.S. teams do stuff like this all the time. They have their tone-deaf moments like caring about what kind of shoes Antonio Brown wears (I get the idea of having the same uniform, but the shoes? Not everyone needs to wear a neck roll or gloves or their socks the same exact way, and some wear high-tops or different manufacturer shoes…), but generally they're fine with honoring "the men and women who served" or that type of thing. It's not seen as political.

Maybe it's more "political" there, but if both sides are doing it… tougher to make that case. Enlighten us, @RussUK?

[Groucho Valentine]

Kinda tone death by FIFA, but i can understand why they issued the warning. FIFA is an international organizing body, and the wearing of poppy is a decidedly english gesture that could be construed as political or imperialistic by someone from another nation. I think they just don't want any part of endorsing the statement. Good or bad. 

[RussUK]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

This.

U.S. teams do stuff like this all the time. They have their tone-deaf moments like caring about what kind of shoes Antonio Brown wears (I get the idea of having the same uniform, but the shoes? Not everyone needs to wear a neck roll or gloves or their socks the same exact way, and some wear high-tops or different manufacturer shoes…), but generally they're fine with honoring "the men and women who served" or that type of thing. It's not seen as political.

Maybe it's more "political" there, but if both sides are doing it… tougher to make that case. Enlighten us, @RussUK?

Its not a political thing over here. Most of our club teams display a poppy on their shirts. The kit suppliers usually stipulate the poppy cannot cover the manufacurer logo so is normally printed on the middle of the shirt.

Its not compusory as some players who may not agree with the senitment often dont participate but generally most do out or respect, and thats what it's all about at then end of the day, showing respect and gratitude for those service men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their countries and the wearing of the poppy and the 2 minute scilence is a small but fitting way to do it.

Both England and Scotland have agreed to wear a black armband with a poppy embroidered on it even though both teams are to be docked world cup qualifier points. Some things are just more important than a world cup and rightly so.

[RussUK]

29 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Kinda tone death by FIFA, but i can understand why they issued the warning. FIFA is an international organizing body, and the wearing of poppy is a decidedly english gesture that could be construed as political or imperialistic by someone from another nation. I think they just don't want any part of endorsing the statement. Good or bad. 

In 2011 Fifa agreed that any nation that wanted to could have a poppy on an arm band so that it was effectively not part of the kit. It just seems a little disrespectful (in my opinion) that the new Fifa secretary decided to completly outlaw it. And i, for once, agree with the British PM Theresa May that the decision is, and i qoute, "totally outrageous"

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, RussUK said:

No need to apologize. The wearing of the poppy originally came about afterthe end of the first world war as a way to remember those who gave their lives on all sides of the conflicts (the poppy was the flower that grows in the somme area). Its now used to remember the fallen in all conflicts up to the present day. 

You are spot on with help for heroes. Proceeds go to veterans who have suffered in both physically and mentally due to combat.

Fifa's decision, to me, seems very strange. The current fifa secretart, Fatma Samoura stated that players "equipment should not carry any commercial, political or religious messages. The English and Scottish FA's do not believe poppy tributes to Armistace day constitue the above and i agree. Her other argument was that her country, Senegal, has seen years of conflict and their team does not commemerate the falled so why should any other country.

I can't understand how the governing body of any sport could object to something like that.  Just the opposite.  I would think such an observance would help unify, not divide.

[CarlSpackler]

38 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I can't understand how the governing body of any sport could object to something like that.  Just the opposite.  I would think such an observance would help unify, not divide.

It's a crazy world we live in. Anything that could be offensive to a small group of people is forbidden. Things that offend a majority position seem to be acceptable. 

[RussUK]

12 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

It's a crazy world we live in. Anything that could be offensive to a small group of people is forbidden. Things that offend a majority position seem to be acceptable. 

It certainly is a crazy world. In an ideal world we would all be tolerant, or at least respectful, of everyones beliefs, customs and traditions etc. but i cant see that  happening any time soon.

[CarlSpackler]

Just now, RussUK said:

It certainly is a crazy world. In an ideal world we would all be tolerant, or at least respectful, of everyones beliefs, customs and traditions etc. but i cant see that  happening any time soon.

I hear ya. Here in the states, NFL players have been fined for not using the proper brand of headphones. Erik already mentioned the clothing. Until people exercise their option to turn the TV, buy tickets to games, or buy NFL/FIFA/Whatever Sports gear in protest, things will not change.

[jamo]

20 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

It's a crazy world we live in. Anything that could be offensive to a small group of people is forbidden. Things that offend a majority position seem to be acceptable. 

I don't think FIFA actually sees it as offensive. That would indicate that FIFA is acquiescing to some sort of perceived societal pressure. FIFA doesn't do that. FIFA controls. Their logic for shit like this is like the NFL: you can't do it because we said so.

[mcanadiens]

[RussUK]

2 minutes ago, jamo said:

I don't think FIFA actually sees it as offensive. That would indicate that FIFA is acquiescing to some sort of perceived societal pressure. FIFA doesn't do that. FIFA controls. Their logic for shit like this is like the NFL: you can't do it because we said so.

Think you may be right there. Glad we have deiced to rebel against the oppresive forces of Fifa