Joe Lycett - Qatar/Beckham debate

Dirk Diggler said:
The yellow card was the perfect opportunity to raise awareness; what's a protest without sacrifice? Their armbands were a hollow gesture and a demonstration that they aren't prepared to go beyond lip service - that's how they've ended up there in the first place - any one of them could have withdrawn from the squad on principle.

The Iranians may face a lot harsher rebuke than a yellow card, so your comment is a bit misplaced, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes but just like Joe not targeting the squad (public blowback) or the BBC (his employer) there's priorities, hence he went with Beckham.

No one wants the kind of penalties they can't endure.

Getting carded falls into the public blowback area, many won't care about the protest but they will get extremely ****** that you sabotaged the national team.

And finally, the whole team seemed to be very much on board with that protest. I did not hear the same was true for the teams who dropped the armband protesting. How are you meant to play with your teammates if they're not on board with you risking the performance of the team by kneecapping yourself.
 
StriderX said:
international event
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up. a lot of people find it hard to believe that every world cup isn't taking part in Europe. They will also find it hard to believe that not everyone can fly around the world so taking the tournament to them is key, wherever they may be and whatever the government may he doing.
 
That may well be the case, they are just being fans after all, that doesn't change the fact that conditions pre and post-build have been pretty inhumane, as all this coverage and interviews are now showing.
 
jamoor said:
This pretty much sums it up. a lot of people find it hard to believe that every world cup isn't taking part in Europe. They will also find it hard to believe that not everyone can fly around the world so taking the tournament to them is key, wherever they may be and whatever the government may he doing.
Click to expand...
Sure if the selection process was fair and incorruptible, but that's not true is it?

If there was a raffle (live and independently verified as honest) with every eligible country (two+ groups based on GDP competing for a few slots on the raffle) along with a pool of funds for countries that can't possibly deliver the infrastructure needed to host by themselves then I'd have very little to critique about this shambles of an organisation.
 
StriderX said:
Sure if the selection process was fair and incorruptible, but that's not true is it?

If there was a raffle (live and independently verified as honest) with every eligible country (two+ groups based on GDP competing for a few slots on the raffle) along with a pool of funds for countries that can't possibly deliver the infrastructure needed to host by themselves then I'd have very little to critique about this shambles of an organisation.
Click to expand...
Well none of this is anything to do with Qatar then. If they bought it why was it for sale.
 
Hotwired said:
Yes but just like Joe not targeting the squad (public blowback) or the BBC (his employer) there's priorities, hence he went with Beckham.

No one wants the kind of penalties they can't endure.

Getting carded falls into the public blowback area, many won't care about the protest but they will get extremely ****** that you sabotaged the national team.

And finally, the whole team seemed to be very much on board with that protest. I did not hear the same was true for the teams who dropped the armband protesting. How are you meant to play with your teammates if they're not on board with you risking the performance of the team by kneecapping yourself.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

England’s armband activism was heroic – until it met the mere threat of a yellow card | Marina Hyde

Vague, hashtag-friendly and easy to take off: the OneLove armband was the perfect non-protest for the Qatar World Cup, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Ahleckz said:
As someone who has recently looked more at their drinking habits, I’d suggest if you’re getting so upset about not being able to have a beer for 120 minutes whilst you’re at a football game; you may want to have a look at your drinking habits and dependency.
Click to expand...
it isn't about whether beer is allowed or not. their country their rules. it is about not being up front about it when they asked for the WC and worst still letting people buy tickets before changing the rules .
trying to make our that those dissapointed about it must have a drinking problem is.... if I am being kind..... missing the point imo.
 
ykgOvEm.jpeg
 
Lysander said:
Can someone break down for me what happened? Was any player who wore the armband threatened with a yellow card?
Click to expand...
They were all talk about the Captains of England and Wales both wearing a rainbow Captain's armband to show solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community. FIFA said they'd get a yellow card if they did it, so they folded like a pack of cards.
 
Last edited:
Dirk Diggler said:
They were all talk about the Captains of England and Wales both wearing a rainbow Captain's armband to show solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community. FIFA said they'd get a yellow card if they did it, so they folded like a pack of cards.
Click to expand...
as they should! they said all along they would take a fine but it would be wrong for them to make winning even harder on themselves. people have money on them winning.
 
So Beckham is the bad guy because he's in some promotional role... but this Alex Scott person has flown out to Qatar and is also earning money from the World Cup by reporting for the BBC... she's a hero because she wore an armband.

She also doesn't have any issue with spending her own money taking a holiday in Dubai, a country that has the death penalty for homosexual acts.


This whole thing is just turning into virtue signaling, everyone already knew that Qatar was an Islamic country which follows Islamic rules, they're not going to change just because some virtue signaller types are upset with them. The people they should be getting upset with are corrupt FIFA officials not random private individuals like Beckham.

The BBC and other broadcasters will carry on covering the thing, we'll all carry on watching it, a bunch of the celebs condemning it will still make money from either it or from the organisations participating in it (including Joe Lycett - he won't boycott the BBC or other broadcasters or do anything that actually puts future income at any real risk, he just wants Beckham to.)

It's just pure virtue-signaling BS of the worst kind, they're all just massive hypocrites and I'm not even a big football fan or someone who would care much at all about David Beckham... I just think it's utter nonsense that out of all the people involved in this World Cup he's somehow become a target!
 
Yeah, I don't see any UK team refusing to take part so that's an empty threat... If they were gonna do it then they would have already
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom