-
It is interesting but does appear cynical and lacking in nuance.
It’s perfectly possible that Marcus Rashford was only interested in cash/profile when using his game to get the government to u-turn but isn’t it at least as possible that, given his upbringing, he did advocate for an issue with personal resonance and any resulting increase in profile was a byproduct rather than the driver?
Similarly with Tyrone Mings calling out Patel’s racism, good on him if he monetised that.
Big_Ted-
Agree it's not the whole picture.
It's interesting in the way it shows that when the situation is so clearly win - win - then why not. No one loses out. On balance, these players have been a force for good. It fair to point out though, that as soon as the equation is win-lose, these players are fine to lower their moral standards. Not a single player in world football has (as far as I'm aware) ruled themselves out of this tournament on ethical grounds.
At the same time - and what the article misses completely- is that they're just people who have worked their entire lives in the hope of playing at the pinnacle of the sport - so who could begrudge them that experience. Is it their role to sacrifice all that effort at the altar of a political statement? Shouldn't that job be done by those who claim to care for the sport as a whole? I think so.
The one guy who can certainly get in the bin is David Beckham. Joe Lycett's got that one bang on.
Scrabble
I thought this was an interestingly considered take on the state of the game / players.
https://twitter.com/Will___lloyd/status/1594633231344746496