Social media martyrdom: Lessons to be learnt from the Paris Brown debacle

So, there we have it. The Daily Mail can now add the character assassination of a seventeen year old girl to its illustrious resume. Today Paris Brown, the country's first Youth Crime Commissioner, has resigned from her post thanks to the Mail's digging up of misadvised tweets she posted several years ago. A sad, but perhaps inevitable, end to what was the opportunity of a lifetime for the young teenager from Kent.

Clearly, the Daily Mail's comments about Paris being a "racist" and a "homophobe" and guilty of "hate speech" have sunk into the consciousness of many of those who haven't taken the time to properly analyse the offending tweets for themselves, who would have found, at worst, misadvised, immature posts and inappropriate words straight from the mind of a silly, careless and carefree young teenager who couldn't possibly have known what the future had in store for her.

Ironically, if anyone spent some time looking at some of the comments posted by, I presume, fully grown and responsible adults in the Daily Mail comments sections at the bottom of so many of the articles, teenage Paris' old tweets would probably be towards the mild end of the scale.

There is a video on satirical news site The Onion which discusses how, by 2040, every presidential candidate in the United States will be unelectable to political office due to their embarrassing Facebook posts.

Though a parody, this is exactly what has happened to Paris in this case - her immature and embarassing tweets have caused her to lose office just days after her appointment.

Crucially, lessons need to be learnt from this whole affair to ensure this doesn't happen again. Paris should have known that she was taking up a position in the public spotlight which would have been open to intense scrutiny, and as such, should have been more proactive in wiping her e-slate clean and deleting the offending tweets as soon as she was even thinking of applying for the role.

Likewise, Kent Police's procedures should have included the vetting of all the candidates' social profiles, to ensure that any candidate thrust into the limelight couldn't have been embarassed and demonised as Paris has been.

Ann Barnes, the police and crime commissioner for Kent, stated: "We used Kent Police's vetting procedures, which do not normally involve scrutiny of social networks for this grade of post." This needs to change immediately, to avoid giving predatory media outlets easy ammunition with which to destroy the reputation of anyone who enters the public arena.

As it stands, Paris Brown has had her reputation dragged through the dirt because of things she wrote when she was younger, she's sacrificed a role of a lifetime due to the untenability of her position, and Kent Police has been left embarassed because the whole affair was allowed to happen in the first place.

Paris herself said: "I hope this may stand as a learning experience for many other young people." In today's society, in which online conduct is just as important as real-life conduct, teenagers all over the country would be wise to listen to her words, because as Britain's first high-profile social media martyr, she knows all too well what it's like to have your real-life reputation of today destroyed by your online personality of yesteryear.

Paris Brown: How the media's hypocrisy and outrage led to a nation bullying a teen

Ah, the Daily Mail. One of Britain's most popular and well read newspapers. That bastion of free speech, which in the past has seen it victimise those on benefits, transsexuals, homosexuals, asylum seekers, migrants and many more, now finds itself spitting venom at someone who isn't even legally an adult.

Paris Brown is a typical British seventeen-year old girl from Kent. Now, I don't know her personally, but if you really have to come to a conclusion about someone's personality from social networking, such as Facebook or Twitter, then I would say she is a bit brash, immature, gobby, outspoken, and doesn't think before she speaks, or at least not before she took up the post of Youth Police Commissioner in her region, where media savviness will be crucial.

So, a normal teenager then.

Paris Brown with Ann Barnes, Police and Crime Commissioner for Kent

The Daily Mail has latched on to the fact that her tweets, now deleted, contained material of a sexual nature, of a violent nature, of a homophobic nature, and of a racist nature. The article, published online on the 7th April 2013, asked whether this "foul-mouthed, self-obsessed Twitter teen" was fit to become Britain's first youth police commissioner.

At this point I bet the majority of readers would be saying: "well then, she is totally inappropriate for the job! The Mail is right to condemn her!"

It's at this point that I ask you to consider a few things.

Consider how when you were a teenager, you were careless, care-free, and did or said a lot of stupid things which you regretted, and possibly still regret, as you matured.

Consider the informal gossip you're subjected to and possibly contribute to when you're in the office, or out with your friends, where politically incorrect things sometimes slip out and may even be the subject of a few laughs, but because of the verbal nature of the exchanges, the exact words are then lost in the ether.

And consider the nature of the media and peers that teenagers are subjected to on a daily basis, which will influence their still forming opinions.

Much as it would be good to live in a society where any racist, homophobic, sexual and violent conversations, actions, slurs and thought has been completely and utterly expunged, the reality is, it permeates throughout society.

A prime example is football, a topic close to my heart. Homophobia is still rampant in the sport, and I'm not talking just about the fans, I'm talking about the establishment, which is pushing through reforms at snail's pace, and veterans of the game, such as John Fashanu, who disowned his now deceased brother Justin for being homosexual, and to this day simply dismissed the whole affair as a lie, saying "he was not really gay".

Now, I dislike Paris' use of the words "fag" and "faggot", they're horrible words, but I seriously doubt she's the only one in her peer group, or her college, who's used that word in a derogatory context. Don't blame the one person in the spotlight, blame the wider causes in society that have allowed words like this to become "acceptable" curses. It's a word she would have heard on television, in movies and in class, and if she follows football and listens to radio, she'd likely have heard it when a famous footballer said it on a popular morning programme.

The Daily Mail's sole example of Paris' "violent" tweet was one where her brother hit someone in retribution for giving his friend a black eye. Funny that, as any violent crime reported on the Mail's pages results in a torrent of comments calling for corporal or capital punishment towards the concerned party. If anything, the Mail should praise her for her "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" approach.

Some of the highest rated comments on the Daily Mail story regarding the teenager

Sexual conversations? Oh well pardon me. Much as some puritans out there would no doubt love to push through Orwellian measures of "abolishing the orgasm" a la 1984, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, so they're not going to stop people, particularly hormonal teenagers, from thinking sexual thoughts, and potentially posting comments of a sexual nature on their newsfeed.

Now, onto racism. Britain has made great efforts to try and eradicate racism from our society. Overt displays of racism or support of racist individuals or organisations are in decline, and you just need to look at such examples as the declining influence of the likes of the British National Party and English Defence League, who 30 years ago were a serious threat to British society, as well as the widespread scorn over Sunderland's decision to hire Paolo Di Canio, who's publicly identified himself as being a fascist.

However, xenophobia still surfaces. The distrust and passive-aggressive attitude for certain elements in society of a foreign nature.

A common one is the view that immigrants are benefit scroungers and only come here and take British citizens' jobs and benefits. Please take a moment to think which media outlets are mostly responsible for this kind of view.

Another one I hear about regularly is the dislike of speaking to a customer service agent based overseas. Many a time I've heard either passive-aggressive comments about wanting to speak to a "British" person and even crudely imitating the agent's accent. Some of Paris' tweets mention the fact that "illegals" on the other end of the phone can't speak English.

Again, this is nothing she wouldn't have heard from people at school, potentially even her adult peers. I've heard people of all ages come out with similar statements. Anti-pikey slurs? I'm sure My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding did a great job demonising the traveller community nationwide.

Interestingly, typing "Daily Mail Gypsies" into a search engine brought out this story on the first page, lovingly entitled: "How to crush a gypsy camp French-style: It took us 10 years to clear Dale Farm but France's ruling have smashed six Roma camps in as many weeks. Guess where the gypsies want to come next".

So, here's a thought. After reading the above, can you guess who it is that helps perpetuate the majority of these ignorant views and sentiments onto society? If you haven't figured it out by now, I'll tell you who: it's the media.

The media that placed the blame solely on Britain's benefit culture for Mick Philpott's manslaughter of six of his children, tarring all benefit claimants with the same brush.

The media that pushed a transsexual teacher over the edge and to suicide.

The media that just couldn't accept that homosexual Stephen Gately's sudden death was not caused by sordid, seedy causes.

The media that regularly demonises immigrants, calling them scroungers, criminals, and unwilling to integrate.

Is it any wonder that, with a media like this, your typical seventeen year old girl, who is still growing and developing mentally, has the opinions that she has? She is merely mirroring the environment she lives and thinks in, one of the hundreds of thousands of teenagers with similar opinions who share their innermost thoughts, no matter how inappropriate, online as if they were just telling a few mates, or as if it was a diary.

The other issue is, of course, the fact that she could have avoided all this outrage by simply not posting what she did, but thing is, the majority of those hundreds of thousands of teenagers post equally politically incorrect or idiotic things every minute of the day and don't get pulled up on their immature, thoughtless tweets, as there's just so many out there.

Generations ago, what a teenager said and wrote only ever had an audience of a few people, a few dozen at most, or in the most extreme circumstances, a few hundred. Nowadays, a teenager's hormonal, immature thoughts are immortalised in the presence of hundreds of millions, and the minute one of those youngsters is put in the spotlight, then out come the claws and the venom, courtesy of the press and millions of people.

Paris is just a teenager. Prior to her getting this job, she was careless and a tad idiotic. She is not a racist, a homophobe, a thug, or a slag. She is young.

After the article was published, the reaction of the Daily Mail readers in the comments section was really something to behold, as people who have never met the girl, who may have had friends, sisters, daughters of the exact same demographic, vented their feelings towards the teenager. The type of people who think it's acceptable to insult the looks of someone who's not even an adult yet, by bitterly spitting "pass the crayons, I want some eyebrows like hers" or "what a scumbag" or even "what do you expect from somebody with a name like Paris?".

The outcry has driven this seventeen year old, who successfully beat 164 other candidates to win this job, to leave Twitter because of the abuse, to be driven to tears in an interview with the BBC as the public and the establishment succeeded in their mission to shame and humiliate a young girl because, years before, she dared to post some misadvised comments on a platform shared by millions of other young people whose viewpoints are directly and indirectly shaped by the media.

So there we go. That's another element which is sadly common in adolescence and in society as a whole: bullying. Something the Daily Mail, along with hypocrisy, has learnt to do very well.

The 39th Game, revisited.

It's been five years since the Premier League proposed a blueprint to develop and promote the league's brand overseas. This idea involved creating an additional round of competitive fixtures specifically to be played overseas, allowing the league's teams and players to showcase their talent in cities around the globe. "Game 39" was the name given to this international round.

Predictably, the news was met with controversy. Fans were dismayed at the prospect of their team playing competitively thousands of miles away, where local supporters wouldn't be able to attend, lest they have the money and time to travel halfway across the globe for the privilege.

Setting a precedent was another issue - what else would the Premier League be prepared to do to please the global market once the initial move of playing competitively overseas was a done deal?

Other criticisms included the logistics, the strain it would put on player and staff, and the fairness of the fixtures - if a relegation-troubled team who would have otherwise survived come the end of the conventional 38 rounds was forced to play Manchester United or Chelsea a third time in the season, while their rivals had easier fixtures.

It wasn't long before the proposal was discontinued. It wasn't just local supporters who voiced their concerns; officials from overseas opposed the blueprints too - Frank Lowy, chairman of Football Federation Australia, said: "FFA rejects the notion of another country playing a round of their domestic competition in Australia and intruding on the development of the Hyundai A-League and the game in Australia". Japanese FA vice-president Jungi Ogara echoed those sentiments: "We are, in principle, opposed to having Premier League games in Japan as we have to protect our league and clubs.

The Premier League is by no means the first sports organisation with a view to promote itself and its assets by hosting fixtures overseas; the National Football League, also known as the NFL, is a prime example of an entity which has not only followed through with this proposal, but has also been very successful in doing so.

The NFL points to several statistics highlighting American Football's success in the UK - a 154% rise in viewing figures since 2006, a 4.3m combined TV and radio audience for last year's Super Bowl, a 32% increase in its "avid fanbase" of two million UK supporters, alongside the fact five live games are now shown on British TV screens a week – three on Sky, and one each on the BBC and Channel 4. In addition, 2013 will mark the first year two NFL fixtures are played overseas in a single season, as Wembley is to host games on the 29th of September and 27th of October.

There are, however, differences between the two sports' setups and global popularity. Unlike the Premier League, which is one of many competing top-level football leagues worldwide, the NFL has a virtual monopoly on top-level American Football. You're not going to find the president of the Japan American Football Association or Gridiron Australia turning down the prospect of NFL games being hosted in their cities because of a conflict of interest or scheduling.

Wembley Stadium now hosts NFL league fixtures

A more appropriate example to compare to the 39th Game would be that of the Supercoppa Italiana, pitting the winner of the league - Serie A - against the winner of the domestic cup - the Coppa Italia - in a competitive fixture which serves as the domestic season opener.

This fixture has been played overseas several times, the first being in 1993, as Washington DC hosted Milan v Torino, as a way to market the league in the USA and draw fans to Calcio Italiano before the World Cup the following summer.

Nine years passed before the Supercoppa was hosted in Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, as Juventus and Parma battled it out in Tripoli's June 11 stadium - the arrangement no doubt an embarassment to the Italian football federation in light of what happened earlier this decade, but at the time a concession made as Al Saadi Gaddafi, the dictator's son, was trying to foster relationships with Italian football.

The following year, East Rutherford, New Jersey - home to many Italian-Americans - saw Milan and Juve compete for the cup, but afterwards, the fixture returned home, as the winner of the previous season's Scudetto saw their ground automatically allocated the game.

That is, until 2009, when, a year after the Olympics, a deal was agreed between the Italian football federation and Chinese sporting bodies to play the Supercoppa Italiana at the Beijing National Stadium.

According to Italian news agency ANSA, Maurizio Beretta, president of the Italian football league, confirmed the arrangement involved playing three out of every five Supercoppe in China, with the 2012 fixture purpoted to have made Juventus and Napoli 1.7 million euros each.

The enterprise involved in bringing the fixture to China, United Vansen International, also agreed a preliminary deal with the Spanish Football Federation in 2012 to bring the Spanish Super Cup to the Bird's Nest stadium. Spanish media reported that the deal, which has a seven-year duration, would net the RFEF around 40 million euros (32.10 million pounds).

So out of arguably the three biggest football leagues in Europe, two of these - Italy and Spain - have either experience of playing their Supercup fixtures overseas, or have signed up to do so. Which leaves England.

The English equivalent of the Supercup, the Community Shield, doesn't have the same prestige as other domestic trophies - several leading figures of the game have dismissed its importance, Mark Lawrenson calling it a "glorified friendly" and Sir Alex Ferguson labelling it a "barometer for fitness".

Now, as friendlies are often played abroad without any issues, if any fixture were to be exported overseas, surely one which is officially a domestic cup final but has the prestige of a friendly surely would be the best candidate?

Other cases for exporting the Community Shield include the fact it's at the start of the season, meaning the players would be quite fresh and that it wouldn't require a drastic change of calendar, that it's between the two most successful teams of the previous season, and that it ends with a trophy being presented to the winning team, meaning the fans abroad don't just get to watch two English teams, but also that one of them will be celebrating and lifting official silverware in front of their very eyes.

Traditionally, the Community Shield has kicked off at 15:00 GMT, although different kick-off times have been scheduled before, such as in 2012 when the game began at 13:30 to avoid potential scheduling conflicts with the London Olympics. Beijing is eight hours ahead of the UK, but this shouldn't be too much of an issue as the match could kick off at 22:00 local time, meaning we'd begin to watch it at 14:00 GMT.

Spanish football will see this year's Supercup played in Beijing

This idea would still bring up issues and criticisms, however. The Community Shield is a popular fixture among fans, which gives them a chance to see their team in action after those dull off-season months. Since moving back to Wembley in 2007, four of the five fixtures played there witnessed crowds of over 80,000 per game, so it's unlikely that all those fans, plus the hundreds of thousands watching on television, will want to see it offshored.

This is a view shared by the clubs' players and management over in Spain and Italy, where the move has already happened - Real Madrid and Barcelona have already said they wouldn't travel to China for the fixture, despite the RFEF having already signed the deal, while last year, Napoli's president initially refused to allow his team to go, before the football authorities convinced him otherwise.

Possibly the biggest issue, which is related to the bottom line of this whole exercise, namely money, has to do with the fact the new Wembley Stadium cost a staggering £800m to build, and the FA is desperate to see the venue used as often as possible and recoup the costs of building it, which just so happens to be the same reason Beijing wants its Bird's Nest stadium to stage lucrative events like the Italian and Spanish Supercups. By this logic, the FA would be foolish to ship this event overseas and deprive Wembley of a high-income payday.

So as a result, although Italy and Spain have already committed to playing their Supercups abroad, it remains to see whether England will follow suit. One thing is certain, though: the line of exporting competitive games has already been breached, and, to the bemusement of the Premier League and FA, they weren't first in, and are in fact now lagging behind, but with the one pioneered fixture being off-limits because of the need to service Wembley's debt, the English football authorities will need to go back to the drawing board to find ways to tap into the global market.

Amal Fashanu's documentary may just provide the crucial push needed to kick homophobia out of football

Last week, a documentary aired on BBC3, tackling the issue of homophobia in football. Presented by Amal Fashanu, niece of Justin, the only footballer in the UK ever to come out, "Britain's Gay Footballers" was also a challenging personal journey for her, who, in the programme, came to terms with the tragic events leading up to Justin's death, and tearfully confronted her father, former top-flight footballer John Fashanu, who publicly disowned his brother at the time of his coming out.

I was very impressed with the documentary. Even though obvious signs of discomfort and awkwardness were present in some of the interviewees, not least John McGovern, who declared that "(the word 'poof' is) another word for what we’re talking about, being a homosexual... I don’t even call that discrimination", and John Fashanu, who implied that "family honour" was more important than his brother's wellbeing, there were some positives to be taken from the programme.

First of all, the interview with the players of Millwall FC. The East London club isn't exactly everyone's second team (their own motto is "No-one likes us, we don't care"), but by being the first to invite Amal to their training ground, and having players Darren Purse and Steve Mildenhall publicly discuss the subject of homosexuality in football, they acknowledged and recognised the issue, rather than awkwardly sidestepping it or denying there's even a problem, as is usually the norm in football.

Surprisingly, a Premier League footballer also agreed to be interiewed by Amal. Previously, the lack of support from a top-flight player resulted in the Kick Homophobia Out Of Football campaign being scrapped, but Joey Barton, one of English football's most outspoken and colourful personalities, opened up to her about the subject, and in doing this, came across as a very mature, respectful and tolerant man, alongside being incredibly brave; until that point, not one top-flight player has said a word on the topic, most likely for fear of being ridiculed and called gay just for showing support - and unfortunately, some Twitter messages and photos hashtagged #britainsgayfootballers during and after the programme were pathetic examples of immature homophobic abuse aimed towards Barton and other footballers, the likes of which you'd maybe expect in secondary school.

Speaking of Twitter, the documentary proved a pretty apt litmus test of public perception. Although there were some making immature jibes about the programme and about several footballers who are probably not gay, the vast majority of people had nothing but positive things to say, praising Amal and the interviewees, especially Millwall FC and Joey Barton, so far unique in their recognition and support of homosexuality in football, posting tributes to the late Justin, and slating John Fashanu and John McGovern for their insincere contributions. Many big media personalities also chipped in with praises.

The documentary would lead to several interesting developments. The Sports Charter was launched by the Home Office in March 2011, with the intention of eradicating homophobia and transphobia from sport. Prior to the BBC3 broadcast, it had been slowly but steadily gaining signatures, with tennis star Billie Jean King and rugby veterans Ben Cohen and Gareth Thomas signing the charter in June, and Wycombe Wanderers FC signing it in October. The documentary then aired on Monday 30th January 2012. By Thursday, the entire Premier League had signed up to the Charter.

In a previous article, I stated that one of the first steps in kicking homophobia out of football was for the likes of the FA and the Premier League (the establishment, basically) to publicly condemn homophobia and ensure it becomes as taboo as racism, punishable by long bans, huge fines and prosecution.
Amal's documentary has opened the public's eyes - by having the likes of Gareth Thomas and other rugby players discuss how tolerant rugby is of homosexuality, and Anton Hysen talking about how his sexuality doesn't concern anyone, team-mate, fan or rival, in Sweden, it highlighted the backwardness and idiocy of the attitude in English football (Joey Barton put it best: "archaic"), and that the Premier League's lack of focus on homophobia is the exception, rather than the norm, in the sports world. By signing up to the Charter, the Premier League has recognised the problem and has formally committed to stamp it out. This is that first step.

In her Guardian column, Amal welcomes the Sports Charter as "long overdue" - I myself struggle to believe it only came into being less than a year ago - but also shows her skepticism in asking whether it's "just a public front amid growing concerns about (the football authorities') lack of effort to tackle homophobia and transphobia in sport" and "whether or not it will reassure any players wanting to reveal their true identity and having a safe environment in which to do so".

Maybe not just yet, but with these groundbreaking first steps now taken, maybe the FA will reignite the Kick Homophobia Out Of Football campaign (after all, Millwall's players and Joey Barton have publicly stated their support against homophobia, not to mention the Charter's Premier League signatures), and, by convincing everyone involved in the sport that the environment is indeed becoming safer and more tolerant, players may indeed feel comfortable to come out. And when this happens, we will be very thankful to Amal, who laid the groundwork for it to happen, and who helped ensure her uncle's tragic death was not in vain.

Why is it so unacceptable for straight people to stand up against homophobia?

I'm going to start by briefly talking about my sexuality. I am a heterosexual male. I find women attractive. My partner is female. My previous relations have been with females. When I settle down and raise a family, it will most probably be with a female. I am comfortable with my sexuality. Now, if I happened to find males attractive, physically or emotionally, then I would embrace it, as would, I'm sure, my friends and family, as they are mature and have sense and reason. But as it is, I do not. I happen to be straight. I was born this way.

What is the point of the above, you may ask? The above is the sort of statement many heterosexual people feel they have to make when they publicly claim to support gay rights, have homosexual friends, or even exhibit "gay" behaviour themselves, such as, say, enjoying music by LGBT-friendly artists, almost in a bid to justify themselves. Statements that I myself have felt that I have to make to some people, because I am strongly in favour of gay rights, and also enjoy music by Lady Gaga and the Scissor Sisters, swing dancing, and other things that may not be classified "macho".

There seems to be this mindset which says that, if you're pro-LGBT, you must be gay yourself. "Oh, why else would you care otherwise?" Now, I myself don't care about being labelled so. It can get annoying if people constantly say you're something you're not, but generally it doesn't bother me. I think I know myself pretty well.

However, there are many out there who feel the same way. People who are straight and believe homosexuals don't deserve the bullying, the name calling, the discriminating, the ostracising, the disowning, and even the violence they suffer on a day to day basis. But they're worried that, by actively taking a stand against LGBT discrimination, people will start questioning their sexuality and maybe they'll start experiencing ostracism and discrimination of their own.

In the public zeitgeist, racism is seen as outdated, hateful and ignorant. The majority of people acknowledge this and condemn it, and when they do, nobody says "why are they speaking out against racism? They're not of that race." We need to get to a point where the exact same applies for homophobia.

When South Africa declared apartheid rule in 1948, it wasn't long before the international community condemned the white minority government, and in the 1960s, imposed such sanctions as trade embargoes and exclusion from international sports tournaments, which were only lifted after the demise of apartheid in 1991. I doubt many asked why millions of white people across the world were condemning a system of law which would have benefited them were they living in South Africa. Sometimes, injustice and unfairness are plain and clear for all to see.

Helen Suzman, a white South African from a wealthy background, actively stood up against apartheid during her 36 years in parliament.

Things are looking up. It's been a very big week for LGBT rights worldwide, with Hillary Clinton explicitly stating that gay rights are human rights, and that reform will be encouraged using foreign aid and diplomacy. The likes of Iran, Zimbabwe and all other countries where homosexuality is illegal will have plenty of food for thought. In Belgium, Elio Di Rupo became the first homosexual head of state in the EU, and the second worldwide, after Icelandic Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.

Closer to home, England Rugby World Cup winner Ben Cohen launched his foundation, StandUp, in May 2011, which raises awareness against bullying and homophobia. He has been touring the United States, where it has proved incredibly popular. This week he announced on the BBC his plans to launch a UK wing in early 2012.
Ben but is aware of how prevalent bullying and homophobia is worldwide, and how it wrecks lives, and has decided to use his high profile to raise awareness of it.
On the related BBC article, Ben says: "We are looking to affect the next generation. We want to create cultural change and we are doing that by using our StandUp brand to communicate that it is not cool to bully, but it is cool to stand up... we want to engage the masses, those who stand by whilst others are suffering."

Crucially, Ben himself is heterosexual. He has a wife and children.

So, are we going to question why Ben is investing so much time and effort combating homophobia and bullying when he himself isn't gay? Should we stand by while others are suffering and collectively say: "Why should I care? It's nothing to do with me"? Should we look suspiciously at other straight people who speak up for LGBT rights, and simply assume that "they must be gay as well"?
Or, like Ben, are we going to acknowledge that many people who are gay, lesbian, bi, transgender and queer, who just want to get on with their lives, are being tormented, bullied, hurt and even killed because of their sexuality, agree that it's not right, and actively stand up and speak up against it?

Will football ever learn to accept homosexuality?

Modern football is, on the whole, a large melting pot. It's played in virtually every country worldwide, by all different kinds of people. If you look at the English Football League, you will find players of all colours, nationalities and creeds. Whites play alongside blacks, Catholics alongside Protestants, Muslims alongside Jews.

However, when it comes to sexuality, then the picture becomes very vague. In all ninety-two clubs of the Football League pyramid, there isn't a single openly gay player.

Statistically, about 6% of the UK population are gay or lesbian. Although it's not as simple as applying this statistic to football and assuming that 6% of all League players are gay, it still means that, in a sport where each team has 41 players on average on their books, not to have one gay player from a pool of nearly four thousand doesn't match up.

The unwillingness for gay players to come out is for a simple reason: football is steeped in homophobia. Many figures in the media, such as PR advisor Max Clifford - who claims to represent several gay footballers - and former Ireland footballer Tony Cascarino, believe a player's career would be ruined if he came out. He'd be singled out for abuse from the crowd, ostracised by his team-mates in the dressing room, bullied by the manager, and made subject of vicious gossip in the media.

There is a tragic precedent in Justin Fashanu, the only player in British football ever to come out. Even before he came out publicly, Brian Clough, who found out he was gay while at Forest, barred him from training with the first team, and condemned him for going to "bloody poof's clubs". Fellow professionals also castigated him, claiming a homosexual has no place in football, he was disowned by his own brother, and later on, accused of sexually assaulting a seventeen-year old in the US, which eventually led to Justin's suicide.

For all the problems British football has with homophobia, two things need to be considered: one is the culture of the sport itself within the country, and the other is the country's stance on homosexuality. Although football itself in the UK suffers from homophobia, our society, when compared to many other countries, is quite tolerant of the LGBT scene. Openly gay politicians exist (Peter Mandelson. Chris Bryant), as do media personalities (Stephen Fry), and even professionals in other sports. Gareth Thomas, one of Wales' greatest rugby players, came out in 2009, and the reaction to this was incredibly positive. Circulations such as Gay Times and Attitude are sold without problems, and the gay scene is thriving, with bars, clubs and Pride events operating and running smoothly.

Anton Hysen, only the second active high-level footballer ever to come out.

It may take several years, but I believe it's a matter of when, rather than if, a popular football figure in Britain, perhaps in the twilight of their career or retired from playing, decides to come out, which could very well set the ball rolling for the FA to relaunch the Kick Homophobia Out Of Football campaign (aborted because no player was willing to appear in it), to gradually change the zeitgeist of football fans, and to eventually convince many players, young and old, that being openly gay will not hinder their careers as footballers.

Now, the problem is convincing everyone on the international scene.

I believe the first active player to come out in the UK will be from a small team at the lower end of the Football League, because the media exposure won't be as great there. Initially, it may well garner interest from many countries, but it will die down quickly, just like the Anton Hysen story did, and because the fans of small clubs are usually tight-knit, almost a part of the club itself, it won't be a big deal for them - many may have even known it for a while already. Chances are they won't be playing in a European tournament, so all league and cup matches will be in England and Wales, where the FA and the League can monitor the games and promptly punish any instances of homophobic abuse.

Now, imagine if a first team player at a huge club like Manchester United, capped for his country, came out as gay. It would explode as global news and remain global news that would make front pages everywhere - including countries where homosexuality is reviled or forbidden. In eighty countries worldwide - around two fifths of the world - it's against the law. Seventy-two of those punish consenting adults with inprisonment, while five, including regional footballing powerhouses Saudi Arabia and Iran, have the death penalty. Would the player be issued with an arrest warrant upon touching down at the airport for an away game or international tournament? How viciously would the player be abused, verbally or even physically, by large groups of fans who may view him as sub-human or as an enemy of God? And what punishment would the likes of UEFA and FIFA, whose very own president Sepp Blatter advised gay football fans to "refrain from any sexual activity" at the Qatar 2022 World Cup (where homosexuality is illegal), administer to clubs and associations whose fans are guilty of homophobic abuse?

The customs and laws of certain countries, and subsequent reactions of its leaders and subjects, prove to be a strong enough deterrent against coming out, but even in countries and regions where things are generally more liberal, the football world manages to keep a high level of animosity and hatred towards homosexuals. If a major player or manager made a racist comment, they would be condemned by virtually everybody in the industry, and rightly so, but important, respected individuals, from players to managers to directors, regularly criticise homosexuals, and get away with it.

Quotes include: "A bunch of faggots is what you have in French football. There are so many homosexual players there, they always provoke you, they touch your thighs, your bum, to see if you will give some kind of signal", which was the reason given by former Argentina international Eduardo Berizzo for leaving Olympique Marseille in 2000, while in 2002, Brazil World Cup winning manager Luis Felipe Scolari said: “If I found out that one of my players was gay I would throw him off the team.” Steaua Bucharest owner and Romanian MEP Gigi Becali, stated in 2007 that if he became president of Romania, he would "get rid of all homosexual and lesbian clubs, and create special neighbourhoods for homosexuals and lesbians, so that they can stay there and leave us [alone]", while Croatian Football Federation president Vlatko Markovic declared in 2010: "while I'm... president of the Croatian Football Federation, there will be no homosexuals playing in the national team". Again, criticism didn't come from the footballing authorities, rather from gay rights groups.

The FA's Kick Homophobia Out Of Football video. This campaign was aborted because no player could be found to support it.

And aside from the player's wellbeing and safety being potentially affected, coming out would impact the player's and the club's marketability. While the likes of Macclesfield Town aren't looking to sell shirts abroad, the likes of Man Utd or Chelsea are, and any mass boycott of a club's merchandise or tickets in a lucrative country where homosexuality is illegal, because of one of the club's players coming out, would severely impact their income and their reputation, leaving other clubs open to exploit the market in their place.

Disgraceful as the above sounds, football is an international business where reputation is key - witness how many top clubs speak of being "brands" and just how much merchandise they have out - and bearing in mind how prejudist and close-minded the marketing industry is, and how breaching sponsorships is seen as a bigger issue than racism (from the Observer's Said and Done column from Dec 12 2004: "£6,769 - Real Madrid's fine for racist chanting and Nazi salutes during their Champions League match with Bayer Leverkusen. £34,500 - Arsenal midfielder Robert Pires' fine for wearing the wrong sponsored T-shirt on French television in October."), it wouldn't be surprising if gay players at top clubs were forced to keep their sexuality hidden until, at best, well after leaving the club.

Charlie Brooker exposes just how cynical the marketing and advertising industry is.

How could we expect a young, lone player to come out against such a torrent of hatred, ridicule and vitriol?

Because football is a global sport, it reins in all cultures and viewpoints of the world, which is a joy to witness, but unfortunately, it's the most bigoted aspects which cause the most noise and disturbance. This, combined with indifference from the establishment, and a desire for chairmen, directors and owners for whom their "team" is actually just a "brand", to carry on cynically targeting those markets where institutional homophobia is rife, at the expense of the wellbeing of one of their own players, render world football a very inhospitable arena for the LGBT community.

Gareth Thomas' homosexuality has been widely accepted and respected. Would this happen in football?

The key to combat this is to ensure that every aspect of British football, from the suits in charge of the establishment, to the international clubs who contest for the top trophies and target overseas markets, all the way down to the Sunday leagues and the fans and spectators, stamps out homophobia in the way racism has been, to the point where any displays of abusive behavour are swiftly condemned by all, and openly gay players become another ingredient in our melting pot, regardless of pressure and ridicule from the outside. And if we can then convince the likes of UEFA and FIFA to also condemn homophobia across the whole game and toughen their stance on all forms of abusive behaviour, including suspension from competitions, then we may be able to ensure a safe playing environment and private life for any footballers who just so happen to love members of the same sex.

It is such a shame regarding the current state of affairs because football, in its purest form, the game itself, doesn't have a sexuality. It doesn't hold any prejudice. It doesn't discriminate. The problem is, those involved in it do.

How can footballers' salaries be justified?

In the media, few professions (bankers and politicians aside) collectively cause as much ire as that of the footballer. Each day he gets up, goes to the training ground, does some light training, has a rest, some more training, then goes home. He often travels to other cities, sometimes to other countries, trains there, then once or twice a week he has to put his training into practice and play a full game of football, where he will be scrutinised by the crowd and the various media outlets. Some retrospective analysis, a shower and a meal and some drinks later, he will head home. A few press conferences to attend, some community activities to partake in, and if he’s particularly good, the odd awards ceremony. Not so much a job as part holiday, part exercise. His weekly exploits are regional news, sometimes national or even global. Okay, they have to work weekends and bank holidays, but it’s a tiny price to pay for all the perks.

The average person has to pay a few hundred pounds a year for the same exercise and many hundreds of pounds to rack up the same air miles. And on top of all this, the top league footballer gets thousands of pounds for the troubles. Not a year, not a month, not even a week, but daily. In October 2010, Wayne Rooney signed a deal at Manchester United worth around £160,000 a week basic, and features a “break clause” where he can leave for as “little” as £30m if Manchester United doesn’t meet its targets. You read that right - whereas in the real world, people lose their jobs if they don’t meet targets, in the world of football, it’s the employer that has to meet targets to stop losing its employees!

In addition to the wages and the job security, there’s bonuses, endorsements, sponsors and image rights - Rooney will become a wealthy man indeed, despite having contributed little to society. “Why do footballers get paid so much?!” moan the masses. “Why don’t soldiers or nurses get paid that much? They sacrifice their lives and/or save lives!”.

The simple reason why footballers get paid so much: it’s the nature of the industry.

Think about it: football is the biggest and most global single sport on the planet. The World Cup final in 2010 was watched by over 700 million people, with over 90% of Spain and the Netherlands’ viewing populations tuning in to watch their teams jostle for the trophy. The English Premier League’s overseas broadcasting rights deal between 2010 and 2013 stands at £1.4bn, and its games are watched in nearly 600,000 homes in 211 countries and territories worldwide. With so many people out there interested in football as a product, and willing to pay for it, this translates into astronomical sums of money to be made, and in turn, this means that football, by its very nature, will have astronomical sums swilling around in the industry.

The game has always been global. The first World Cup was all the way back in 1930, and with the advent of globalisation and technological advances facilitating communication and travel, it was always scheduled to become even bigger, but financially, it wasn’t always like it is. Back in 1968, the average wage in the English top division was £68 per week, although the wages of the standout superstar of his day, George Best, £1,000 a week, was an early sign of the impending marriage between football and global fame. Even as recently as 15 years ago, the average weekly wage was just under four grand. Today, it’s nearly thirty-four, and even this is offset by each year’s promoted clubs whose wage bills will be relatively modest - regarding the financially bigger clubs, Chelsea’s annual player wage bill is £174m, Manchester City £133m and Manchester United £132m.

On a side note, it’s only really top league footballers who get paid astronomical salaries - a BBC article in 2006 highlighted a substantial drop in wages down in the divisions. In England, League One players earned £67,850 pa and League Two £49,600 pa - that’s less than some doctors, managing directors or public servants. Also, footballers in England are lucky compared to other countries in Europe - third or fourth divisions in most other countries, Spain and Italy included, tend to be part-time or amateur, thus not making nearly as much money as their English counterparts.

Football, as a sport, capitalises on being simple to follow and to play, meaning it’s easy to take an interest in, and on the free-flowing, unpredictable, exciting nature of the game. Football means a lot emotionally to millions of people worldwide, who are prepared to invest a sizeable chunk of their income in order to follow and support their team. Stephen Tomkins of the BBC likened football to a religion in 2004, and seeing people’s faces contort from disbelief at the star striker’s penalty miss, to anger at the referee’s shocking decision, to tense agony at running down the clock on a 3-2 lead with 5 minutes to go, to euphoria when the referee’s whistle blows to signal the confirmation of the result, or despair when the opposition team bundles the ball in on the final kick of the game, it’s testament to how much it means to people. They identify with football.

Thanks to the above reasons, the money-minded of this world have figured out that such a captive, devoted audience is prime ground for profits, and thanks to such things as the formation of the Premier League in 1992, providing premium TV revenue for the top tier teams, advances in technology leading to saturation of football coverage, ie the voyeuristic nature of 24-hour football coverage on Sky Sports News and online sites, the front page headline-hogging, celebrity-mingling and scandal-perpetuating antics of the likes of David Beckham and Wayne Rooney, and the emergence of new global markets like China, India, the Middle East and Africa, football has snowballed into the global behemoth it is today.



David Mitchell's great satire of how Sky Sports sensationalises football just a bit too much.

Players which have marketability have a distinct advantage - Cristiano Ronaldo was bought for £80 million in 2009, and according to Real Madrid, his fee has already been repaid in merchandising sales alone. Likewise, whenever a major English player is traded in the transfer window, it’s like they’re in a market of their own, so skewed are the fees incurred by the “English Premium” (Andy Carroll for £35 million, anybody?). The reason? Big English players will more likely sell more shirts, as English fans will look up to them as England players as well as club players, the media will cover them more for the same reason, and also respect the club for “giving English players a chance”.

It’s got to a point where the actual competitive games, both in the league and cups, have become a bit of a distraction to the off-pitch aspects, like marketing, merchandise, transfer window activity etc. But, in the midst of all this, what it boils down to at the end of the day, both for the suits and the fans, is the 90 minutes (plus added extra time if necessary) of football between the two teams, the result which determines which team wins and which team loses, and the many possible permutations which determine, in the long run, who wins the trophy (and prize money), who ends up in which European competition (with varying degrees of TV and prize money), and who drops down a league and loses out on huge amounts of money. Money which, alongside being used as disposable income by everyone involved in the club, also ensures the future purchase and development of future players and staff, as well as paying back debts, and in some cases can keep a club in existence.

And although the managers, coaches, scouts etc play a big part in getting the teams ready, it’s the frontline troops, the players themselves, who have the last say on whether the above are or aren’t achieved. And as a result, it’s crucial to buy the best players, and because genuinely outstanding players are rare, it’s a case of who can bid the most, both in terms of transfer fees and in wages and incentives. And the more money there is to be made, the more money there is to lose, and with the stakes so high, paying £100,000 a week to a player whose twenty goals a season will ensure a club’s automatic qualification in the Champions’ League, or avoid a drop to the Championship, makes perfect financial sense.

In response to those who reckon a salary cap would be beneficial to football, I ask them to contemplate how such a scheme would be implementable worldwide, because if it was applied solely to the English leagues, then all the best players would simply move overseas to the highest bidder, as we are seeing with British rugby talent playing in the French league. Even a EU-wide ban would simply mean easy pickings for the likes of Qatar, the Emirates and Russia offering bumper contracts to players, who’d then move there en masse and preach about how competitive their league is, or how they’re proud to be part of a “new project” and “creating history”, and how they’re not in it for the money. And if money can persuade Samuel Eto’o, one of the most gifted footballers of his generation, to play in Dagestan, one of the most volatile regions in Russia, then what hope have we to convince other players to stay put in the UK or the EU if the money’s elsewhere?

Marquee players in the twilight of their careers have often opted for short-term contracts in leagues that offer high wages.

Football’s money does trickle down to communities. Typing in “Blackburn” in a search engine brings up several matches for the club before any article about the town, which makes you wonder if losing the club, and as a result the media interest, would severely impact the town’s economy. And likewise, Blackpool’s promotion into the Premier League in 2010 wasn’t only fantastic from a footballing sense, but it was also lauded by the town’s council, claiming their club’s top-flight status, and the visitors and media interest it would bring, would regenerate the whole town. As a result, we’re left in a position where people are rightly unhappy with the status quo and having footballers earn millions for doing something which isn’t greatly beneficial to society, but the only way of addressing that - enforcing a salary cap in the UK - would drive all the talent away, and with it the interest of the people and potential investors, and with it the money.

We can’t hate the players for accepting the money, we would do the same. We can’t hate the game of football, because it provides us with emotions. But hating what the game has become? The gentrification, the marketing, the hijacking from multinational corporations, dodgy tax-avoiding businessmen and even dictators, who abuse the masses’ love and devotion to line their pockets? The inability to enforce a salary cap, lest it destroys the quality of the league and deprives towns and cities of the trickle-down money which can revive enterprise and provide jobs and happiness? Yes, we have every right to hate that.