FIFA & Poppies: to ban or not to ban?

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe a comparison

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37867436

[Sassy]

...says the woman who asks God directly, to act on Anchorman's life...


Hmmmm........

That was me DEALING with a problem, not having one with Anchorman.

Now you have it corrected move along nothing to see.

[Sassy]

Sass: Had you read this thread, you will note that I have stated that I will most definately wear a poppy (two if I can get a white one as well). But you know as well as I do that a poppy is a symbol of rememberance - and I wholeheartedly support this (though the name "Earl Haig" still causes contention, especially amongst veterans). However to impose the symbol as part of a uniform or sporting strip would cheapen the meaning of that rememberance.

Where do you get the crap from? No one imposing anything but FIFA trying to ban players WHO WANT to wear their poppies from doing so. You and what you would like to do or not do, do not figure at all in this discussion.  Having a poppy on the shirt would be a continual rememberance rather than a one day  year.  What is it about you centreing everything around yourself? You didn't fight in the wars and you certainly didn't die.

It must always be a matter of private reflection and personal choice whether to wear one or not.

Oh! and FIFA is actually allowing that.. Do you ever read anything without it being about YOU?

A nieghbour who served in the Navy was disciplined for refusing to wear one at Rememberance parade - because he remembered his father breaking down every time he saw the poppy (His dad was a D-Day veteran and refused to wear it). Out of respect for his dad, he would not wear it. Was he wrong in refusing to toe the line, Sass?

  Well his dad came back. But the poppy is about those who didn't who paid the highest price of service to their country and mankind with their lives. Tell me who figures most important in this for a reason the poppy should be worn. The man who came back and his Son or the families of/ the men who never came back who the poppies being sold support the families and soldiers today?

It is a no brainer the poppy and wearing it, is not about those who returned and their families who suffered no loss. It is about the families and the soldiers who lost their lives.Who lie beneath those field of poppies so to speak. No one should have to explain why those poppies need to be worn, NO ONE.

[Sassy]

Yes, a printed poppy on a football shirt is really bizarre.   It means that the individual's decision is being taken for him, by the club, I suppose.   

I had to laugh yesterday when I saw Theresa May pontificating about it, making it certainly political. 

I think FIFA have an interesting argument also that many countries have gone through terrible wars and revolutions, so presumably, they should be able to commemorate these things on their shirts.   I suppose FIFA are just saying no to any.

it would be a small embroidered poppy not a cheap print.

[Sebastian Toe]

That was me DEALING with a problem, not having one with Anchorman.

Now you have it corrected move along nothing to see.

If you say so.......

[Brownie]

As has already been said an embroidered poppy would mean everyone has to wear one so takes away choice and I don't like the idea of that though I see it wouldn't be practical for footballers to have an ordinary poppy pinned onto their clothes while they are playing.

Footballers can wear a poppy when they are not on the field, why don't FIFA just leave it at that?  It should be sufficient.  If we went swimming I don't think we'd have one pinned to our bathing costume.

I approve of poppies and will try to get a white one as well as a red but seeing everyone wearing one on TV (& there has been criticism in the past if someone has appeared without one, which is bizarre), when not every person we encounter in the street wears one seems a bit false to me.

[Nearly Sane]

As has already been said an embroidered poppy would mean everyone has to wear one so takes away choice and I don't like the idea of that though I see it wouldn't be practical for footballers to have an ordinary poppy pinned onto their clothes while they are playing.

Footballers can wear a poppy when they are not on the field, why don't FIFA just leave it at that?  It should be sufficient.  If we went swimming I don't think we'd have one pinned to our bathing costume.

I approve of poppies and will try to get a white one as well as a red but seeing everyone wearing one on TV (& there has been criticism in the past if someone has appeared without one, which is bizarre), when not every person we encounter in the street wears one seems a bit false to me.

FIFA are the ones saying there should not be poppies, Brownie. It is the individual Football Associations looking to have them. The poppies don't have to be on the shirt but can be worn as armbands.

[wigginhall]

FIFA's position seems quite consistent to me, as presumably they don't want lots of countries putting various symbols on their shirts.   Plenty of countries have had wars and other events, that they might want to commemorate, and the whole thing could become a mess, and could also become inflammatory.

However, I suspect that the British teams will wear arm-bands, and FIFA will object, and that will be that, until next year.   

[Nearly Sane]

FIFA taking action against the Republic



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

[Brownie]

It's all becoming ridiculous.  Tit for tat.

[wigginhall]

The irony is that the FA presumably voted for these restrictions.   Very sensible too, as otherwise every country in the world might want some slogan or image.   Well, you could go that way, I suppose.   A Palestinian football team could have 'death to Zionism' on their shirts, and the Israeli team could have 'Arabs stink'. 

[Nearly Sane]

It's all becoming ridiculous.  Tit for tat.

How is it tit for tat? FIFA are against all political symbols, it's in the rules

[Brownie]

Depends whether or not you see the poppy as a political symbol.  I know some do, we discussed this earlier in the thread, but many don't.  I might have felt that way at one time, certainly when I was young, but I've  thought a lot about where the money raised from poppy sales goes and approve of it.  My personal feelings about war and the military are irrelevant, there are people in need who will be helped as well as remembering those who died.  When I think of those who were conscripted in WW1 and had no control over their lives, I want to wear a white poppy as a statement of commitment to peace.

Just found this:  http://www.edu.pe.ca/southernkings/poppyanswers.htm
This one is about white poppies:  http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/white_faq.html

I see no conflict between wearing both.

Commemorating the Irish uprising is more of a political statement imo and as someone said earlier, if a team had anti-zionist emblems that certainly would be so.  So FIFAs argument for banning of anything that even hints at a political statement is understandable even if some feel it is misunderstood and unfair in some cases, like me and poppies .

[Sassy]

The irony is that the FA presumably voted for these restrictions.   Very sensible too, as otherwise every country in the world might want some slogan or image.   Well, you could go that way, I suppose.   A Palestinian football team could have 'death to Zionism' on their shirts, and the Israeli team could have 'Arabs stink'.

It isn't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
There is NOTHING insulting to any Country or person remembering the brave soldiers who gave their lives in war to defend their Countries.

There is NOTHING political or even just religious in remembering fallen heroes who paid the highest cost to protect their loved ones. However do you compare this with the above to represent the same thing?

Not a sensible idea by any account to suggest they are one and the same thing. Clearly they are not.

[Hope]

FIFA taking action against the Republic



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

So, FIFA take pre-emptive action on a symbol that is barely political, religious or commercial, yet seem to have ignored a blatantly political slogan in the poast.  Double-standards is what I call that.  They have (potentially) acted retrospectively simply because those double-standards have been highlighted by the poppy story.

[Brownie]

This might be of interest:

https://leftfootforward.org/2016/11/what-if-a-british-footballer-wanted-to-wear-a-white-poppy/

(What happened today, or rather, yesterday?  Did footballers wear armbands?)

[Nearly Sane]

This might be of interest:

https://leftfootforward.org/2016/11/what-if-a-british-footballer-wanted-to-wear-a-white-poppy/

(What happened today, or rather, yesterday?  Did footballers wear armbands?)

Nothing as the matches that are part of the discussion are next week.

[Harrowby Hall]

I received a Facebook message the other day. It showed a "poster" from an organisation called Leave.EU. It showed a large Union Flag and carried a message deprecating FIFA's statement.

I thought that this was inappropriate and sickening. Using the pretext that FIFA were implying that poppies are a political symbol, it politicised the problem itself in a most egregious manner. The clear implication was that FIFA was somehow connected to the EU - ignoring the fact that FIFA is based in Switzerland.

The individual that produced this scummy message is either malicious or lobotomised. I think I know which ....

[Brownie]

Nothing as the matches that are part of the discussion are next week.

OIC.
I got that afterwards. 

On Saturday night I caught the end of the news and there was a bit about football players showing their respect for the war casualties that day, and I thought it might be something to do with this subject.  I suppose it is, if not actually wearing of poppies.

HH, I think I know which too.

[Nearly Sane]

And fines imposed for this


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38368144

[jeremyp]

I still don't understand why FIFA thinks the poppy is a political symbol.

[Hope]

I still don't understand why FIFA thinks the poppy is a political symbol.

Probably because they can't think of anything else to get concerned asbout - like simulation, player abuse of officials or the proper application of gola-line technology (to name but 3)