I believe it has least partially has to do with it, either giving black players the opportunity but they failed to step up or he was chasing the headline of "3 black lions" for an England win for the "good of the sport" I suppose he had good intentions but in the end, this shows up the fallacy of diversity over the best man for the job regardless of colour.
Can't say I disagree with anything you've written here. I believe that a multi-racial line-up was a consideration and potentially [emphasis -
potentially] cost us the match.
*incoming theoretical scenario*
First two scorers are white. Southgate thinks, "hmm, we need a black player" and believes Rashford could possibly do the job. If he can't, well, he'll get more experienced players in.
Rashford fumbles the penalty. Southgate thinks "crap, I could get Grealish in but if the next two are white then people will say I'm/we're racist because the black player failed the job".
He chooses Sancho, it fails.
He chooses Saka, it fails.
*theoretical scenario ends*
Maybe the players didn't take their medals off because of the fact they lost. Maybe it's because of how they lost. Maybe they weren't annoyed with Southgate as such, but the whole ridiculous system.
It's like e.g. Firefox hiring to meet a diversity quota and a few weeks later the security certificates expire on everyone's browser.
Wow some of you are way over thinking this. You seriously think the race of the players even entered his head for one second?
Well, the entire team did 'take the knee' before the match so racial equality is very important to them [as is making a display of it].
I'm not saying it categorically
is the case in my theoretical scenario above. Just that it could be.