Two midweek matches in England had a backdrop of war and geopolitics, but only one drew large protests
H
ow would you feel if the owner of the football club you support was implicated, even as those implications are repeatedly denied, in famine, ethnic cleansing and the deaths of 1,500 men, women and children?
Compare this with the more familiar list of bad things football club owners do, the real sack‑the‑board stuff. Failure to buy a striker. Inadequate Showing Of Ambition. The hiring and/or firing of David Moyes. Mike Ashley was pretty annoying. He had shops full of quilted coats hung really high up close to the ceiling.
Somehow, allegations of complicity in a genocidal war do feel like another level. So what’s the response? Boycott games? Protest? Investigate? Not give a toss? This might seem like a hypothetical. But it is literally right there in front of us, and wearing the colours of Manchester City. Welcome to football in the year 2025, a place of wild cognitive dissonance. Why aren’t we screaming about this? This week I went to two football matches in two days, both complex and compromised occasions, in effect a regional bloodshed double-header, only one of which seems to have elicited any public concern.
