The pressure to conform to society’s loving embrace of the LGBT movement can be overwhelming. But the bravery of one player at Manchester United is a breath of fresh air. In a recent controversy, Moroccan-born Noussair Mazraoui, refused to wear an LGBT armband and citing his religious beliefs. Mazraoui’s act will hopefully inspire more players to come out of the closet to declare that they do not feel comfortable wearing LGBT armbands during matches.
You can almost picture the vivid moment where Mazraoui dared to utter the word, ‘no’. It must have been a very awkward and uncomfortable moment for all, including the player. But moments of discomfort are moments most needed. Not everyone is obligated to support the LGBT movement.
While the marriage of left-wing politics and sport has sailed long ago, it’s about time that mass hysteria receives the backlash it deserves. It is okay to say no and I am sure there are other professional athletes out there who feel their integrity is compromised by the incessant pressure to conform to something they do not support or believe in.
This time, the absurd move to make players emblematic stooges of the LGBT movement finally backfired on the club in its effort to advertise, sell and promote the LGBT brand. But Mazraoui’s decision forced the club to cancel plans to have the entire team wear the armband. The Moroccan showed courage to decline and individuality is critical in times where conformity is the norm.
Would it have been uncomfortable for the Moroccan? Probably. Would other players look at him differently? Almost certainly. But is Mazraoui right to stand up for this religious convictions? Absolutely and unequivocally.
The sad truth is that professional football clubs are on a moral crusade to support and pledge allegiance to the LGBT movement in every way they can.
But this is where the waters get muddied: what do we mean by ‘support’? No one is suggesting that by refusing to wear the armband, players are supporting the abuse or ill treatment of the LGBT community; that would be wrong and a strawman of the objection.
Manchester United needs to get on with the business of winning football matches. Instead, they are attempting to demonstrate how inclusive they are; the fans, who are long awaiting the glory days of the Ferguson era, are not concerned about how diverse the club is; they are concerned about Man Utd’s current form.
The 74,310 Manchester United supporters that travel do Old Trafford each week do not do so to see their team supporting any moral or social cause for that matter. They pay to see their team perform and win matches.
Man Utd officials responded to the matter in poor form.
“Shortly before the game these jackets would not be worn.”
“The reason being that one of the matchday squad had refused to wear the jacket on the grounds of their personally held beliefs.”
“Therefore, to maintain the team ethos and togetherness, none of the players would be wearing them.”
“We respect the right of this player to have his own views while also feeling disappointed that he put the rest of the squad in a position where they felt they couldn’t wear their jackets.
We also worry what kind of negative effect this incident might have on any player at the club who may be struggling with their sexuality.”
I understand the argument of player welfare. But just because a team decides not to wear an armband does not mean players’ well-being will be adversely affected.
Why is this the hill they choose to die on? Why don’t professional football teams in the Premier League wear armbands about the dangers of alcohol, drug addiction, or suicide? Are those not also pressing societal concerns? And why has the Premier League now become the LGBT rainbow league?
Partnering with charity Stonewall, the Rainbow Laces campaign has made its stance clear. It is on the bandwagon of all things pro-LGBT.
Players are employed to win football matches; that’s it. Manchester United’s football fans must be tired of these kinds of charades. The incident came at a time where Manchester United is struggling to maintain form on the pitch. In it’s infinite wisdom, the club did not need to cause this distraction at such a critical time for the club. Nevertheless, if it’s in the name of the LGBT cause, somehow, everything is justified.
How athletes live their lives off the pitch is entirely their own business, and clubs should stop trying to present themselves as the beacons of moral light and facilitators of inclusion and diversity, especially when those clubs are not even performing as they should be on the pitch.
Since Alex Ferguson left the club in 2012, Manchester United has been in a steady free fall. Yet over a decade later, in the midst of its string of poor performances in the Premier League, the club places its energy into LGBT diversity and inclusion campaigns when it should be first and foremost focused on winning football matches.
Profit is the bottom line in professional sports. But when you blend politics with profit, you are going to receive some backlash. More players should have the courage of their convictions to speak up like Noussair Mazraoui did.
The ecstasy of celebrating all things LGBT kills common sense.In a statement, a spokesman for Stonewall said, “It’s incredible to see so many football teams and players at all levels of support.” Helps people feel safe and welcome both on and off the pitch.”
It would be incredible to see Manchester United focus all of its efforts on actually winning Premier League titles and returning to top form. The last decade for Man Utd has been a shambles—hiring and firing managers, buying players that are not top-flight footballers, and consistently failing to win titles.
Football clubs should focus on winning, not preaching and clubs like Manchester United ought to leave politics off the pitch.
