Never mind that the three games England has played to coincide with Remembrance Sunday in recent years have not seen them wear the poppy, this time it was crucial.
But equally crucial, some might say, and with justification, is FIFA’s political, cultural and religious neutrality. This would be compromised if England took to the field with the poppy. It may start with this genuine gesture, but where does it end? Could we see the Palestinian national team play with a similar item commemorating suicide bombers who murder Israelis? Or something equally reprehensible?
Clearly, a soldier fighting a war in which they had no say is different from someone who wonders into the centre of Tel-Aviv and intentionally kills as many civilians as possible. But to prove this through the medium of items worn on football shirts would mean compromising the political neutrality of football. It would be fundamentally political – this is unacceptable, and for once, FIFA was right.
FIFA has always been tough on political involvement in football, and recent years have seen a number of countries; from Bosnia to Belize, threatened with or actually banned from international football because of politicisation of their national teams.
Similarly last year the Iranian women’s team was banned for wearing a hijab – an inherently religious symbol.
There is currently a proposal being worked on to allow the Islamic headdress to be worn, though it would appear highly unlikely to pass given the clear religious and political nature of the attire.
So this is a rule for everyone, and yesterday in particular saw the worst of English football diplomacy. Politicians with little understanding of how FIFA works waded into the debate, and the most embarrassing part of the day was when Prince William, our future king, wrote to the organisation representing a large number of nations we once colonised asking them if we could be given a special exemption to wear a poppy commemorating the sacrifice our soldiers have made. And I am as proud of those soldiers as anyone else, but will the Ghanaians or Argentines really be as keen to see their sacrifices honoured, given the negative impact English imperialism has had on them during the age of colonisation?
No. They won’t. And it was remarkably ignorant to go ahead with this high level pressure, as well as using politicians to claim that the issue was not political. England, along with the other home nations, still has more power in theory than any other nation in FIFA. They form half of the International Football Association Board which makes up the rules of the game. This board were the ones who created the very ruling – that teams can’t wear clothing with a religious, political or cultural symbol – that FIFA turned round and insisted on sticking to yesterday. The irony here should not be lost on anyone, and for England to behave as though deserving of some unique right above all other nations, we should not be surprised if this increases antagonism in the rest of the world and worsens our already poor standing in the world of football politics. Football does not revolve around Wembley. The sooner we all realise that, and recognise and appreciate the hereditary superiority we hold in having a guaranteed vice-presidential position as well as a spot on IFAB – something not granted to Brazil, Spain or any of the other 201 non-British nations – the better.
