(War Minus The) Shooting From The Hip: On Football, Poppies & Remembrance

16 By Ian  |   The Ball  |   November 9, 2011  |     16

And so it ends. Ninety-three years of England’s ignominious and unpatriotic failure to wear poppies on their shirts comes to a deserved end, and a nation can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that now football has fallen into line, people will actually start wearing poppies for the first time ever. Or something like that. Football is not ignorant of military matters. Help for Heroes were the official charity supported by the Football League in 2009, whilst FA Cup final pre-match shows are really adverts for the practiced drilling of the armed forces, whilst uniformed comrades take care of the silverware, bringing it to view before the match to mass acclaim, and bringing it to the balcony before it is presented to the winning team. All this, and three seats for the Armed Forces within the FA Council.

Yet despite this, and despite knowing for months that England would be playing Spain the day after Armistice Day, it seems to have only occurred to them last Saturday that it was a matter of supreme importance to a nation’s remembrance and sense of itself that the England teams have a poppy embroidered onto the shirt. That this was after a lot of people – journalists included – had seen all Premier League club do this in their last round of games before November 11th, is doubtless a crazy coincidence. FIFA, ever alive to opportunities to play the pantomime villain for their friends in the English press pack refused, citing their blanket ban on all commercial, political and religious messages on the shirts worn in matches which take place under their jurisdiction.

FIFA rightly have long-standing rules in place, mindful of the power of the game to be used to further dark agendas, and equally mindful of the nature of political matters to be judged very differently depending on where one stands. Would that they have been in place in 1938 to save England’s players from being advised to give a Nazi salute before playing Germany. But sadly – for many, many more important reasons than this – FIFA are perhaps the last people on earth to be able to survey the high ground of principle from their strong fortress of legitimacy.

What FIFA actually practice is the highest and most powerful example of politics of all – the ability to decide what is and is not political. Behind the canard that sport and politics shouldn’t be mixed lies the pure power to decide what is and isn’t political, and so what will, and will not be tolerated in mixing with sport. Racism was political – and not to be mixed with sport – when the old guard stonewalled developing world pressure to tackle apartheid. The new guard who understood that sensibility changed tack, and now FIFA’s stance is that anti-racism isn’t political and can be mixed with sport. It’s a welcome change, of course, but on no level can it be seen as apolitical.

Commercial matters are most definitely not political in FIFA-land; certainly not how FIFA ensures host countries for World Cups give them carte blanche to pretty much do as they commercially please, and rewrite their laws and tax codes. It also isn’t political to allow national teams to display the logo of the kit manufacturer, a commercial message if ever there was one. Adidas, after all, would expect nothing less from the people they groomed for power back in the day. A similarly conflicted bunch joined the debate in the form of a phalanx of politicians, all anxious to say that commemoration of the dead of wars is not political. Whilst the wars in which those people die are a matter for debate and decision by politicians, it will always be political, and it is specious to claim otherwise.

Never mind that the Chief Executive of the British Legion said “The Legion never insists that the poppy be worn or insists that others allow it to be worn.” But who cares what that pen-pushing pinko thinks, when there’s a jingoistic juggernaut on the move. Either stay still and be run over, or get on board and watch it magically become a bandwagon. When Prince William also joined Cameron and for a tantalizing few hours, we wondered whether, inspired by the Roses, Becks would rejoin the band and bring back the inglorious days of The Zurich Failures, ready for one last crack at breaking FIFA.

And then there’s the FA. Despite having had months to think about it, they also failed to think about other things they could do. They might have demonstrated support towards military charities by encouraging all the players to donate to them; perhaps their pool fee from the commercial revenues the FA earns from their presence, or – heaven forfend – the wages we know they will earn from their clubs whilst on international duty. The FA could itself donate proceeds of the match, were it not for the fact that they haven’t got the ability to be so generous with their funds as we might like of the governing body in the richest footballing country on earth.

In the same vein, Government itself could, you know, actually support the families of the dead and the wounded in wars they have sent them on, rather than needing the amelioration of the greatest sacrifice to require an annual begging bowl to be passed around. But this isn’t a time for practical actions which will actually make a difference, or judiciously picking one’s fights with the global governing body in order to bring about the reforms desperately needed. This is a time for gestures. A gesture to want to place the poppy on the shirt and a gesture to make it the acme of Blatterite perfidy.

It’s a convenient time for a gesture, it must be said. With little domestic football, it’s a slow news week and all media eyes will be turned to the forthcoming friendly as they seek non-stories to fill the burgeoning print and online football press. What to write about? There’s Rooney’s ban from 2012, the hardy perennial of the coach’s salary and future intentions and, most troublingly, the fact that a senior members of the squad and former national captain is currently subject of an investigation by the police into whether he racially abused a player. Poppygate has certainly enabled the FA to avoid the kind of glare they’d have found unwelcome as they tiptoe through the legal, moral and commercial minefield of Terrygate.

But it’s not just that. There’s a something bigger here, more political than mere serendipitous public affairs management. The shrill calls for compulsory observance might be a relatively new development, but they’re awfully reminiscent of the criticism the game got some 98 years ago for unpatriotically not setting an example for the chaps needed to enlist to bash the Bosch. The four clubs who did not get poppied-up for their pre-Armistice Day match last year were hauled over the coals for their failure. They were in line the next-year, but papers must be sold though a new target lined up in the form of the England Team. They assented to wear the poppy, so the gaze moves to FIFA. And if its not this issue, it’s the referee who had the temerity to apply the laws to the national team’s detriment.

But there’s even more here than even this – a sense that it’s not even just media cynicism and hyperole making it into the issue of the day.  Witness the USA, where there has been a conscious effort use sport to promote the military and, crucially, its actions, at a time when the morality and wisdom of those actions are fiercely contested and very far from unanimously shared amongst fans (but pretty unanimously shared amongst those who own the clubs). As a result of their enforced co-option, sports grounds become places where the debates and disputes in wider society get played out, often with great tension. We’re not there yet. One of the strengths of the Poppy Appeal has been the way in which by focussing on the fallen, it moves the focus away from the contentious politics of the war in which they fought and onto the human scale. Family histories can link the sacrifice made by individuals to the defence of the very best values of democracy and the very worst way in which fascism forced them to be defended.

One of those values was freedom, which at its base must, surely, mean the freedom to choose. That includes the freedom of fans to choose whether to support or not foreign policy actions in their own way at a time of their choosing rather than find they’ve gone to watch a sporting event and become co-opted in military boosterism. It should include the freedom of players to not be compelled to remember fallen in wars that have no meaning to them, or carry very different meanings due to their nationality. Maybe some would like to wear a white poppy (unlikely), or no poppy at all (likelier).

But most of all, it should include the freedom to be able to choose to remember, so that when people wear a poppy on their lapel, it is because they truly, authentically wish to take a moment to remember the fact that their forebears gave their lives in ways that delivered millions from tyrannies and miseries. In short, the freedom to trust remembrance to be genuine, something threatened by the hue and cry to never mind the sentiment, just get the goddamned symbol on.

You can follow Dave on Twitter by clicking here. You can follow Twohundredpercent on Twitter by clicking here.



Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

  • November 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Kev, Swansea

    Hearing some of the incredulous reactions to FIFA’s policy on this the last few days has been nauseating. The poppy is a political symbol, it’s about remembering the war dead, and in each war there are conflicting ideals. Witness the reaction to the actions of some Celtic supporters last year with their anti-war protest. I’m not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of that, but it does illustrate that it is a political issue. And yet, that’s not even the main issue – it’s about the right to choose, the right to free expression, that’s a key outcome of any war. And those rights include the right to protest against war, and to hold whatever political views you want. Pressurising people into a mandatory wearing of a poppy renders it meaningless as a symbol of remembrance. The whole poppy on the shirt debate has been nothing more than a diversion from other matters that the FA and from the Government should be addressing. And as for Alan Brazil… man alive.

  • November 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Bunk Moreland

    Excellent piece. Sums things up pretty well indeed.

  • November 10, 2011 at 12:24 am


    Fantastic piece.

  • November 10, 2011 at 5:52 am

    Mike Bayly

    Excellent article. This would make Alan Brazil’s disgrace-ometer blow up.

  • November 10, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Not political

    @Kev, “The poppy is a political symbol” – absolute tosh.

    I wear one every year and it is simply not political in reasoning.
    Remembering people who have suffered is not a political gesture.

  • November 10, 2011 at 10:17 am


    I really hope they do the same for red-nose day.

  • November 10, 2011 at 10:48 am


    “Not political”. Do you remember those that suffered AT OUR HANDS? Those executed/bombed/mailed with OUR bombs?

    Or are there worthy deaths and unworthy deaths in your worldview?

    ALL victims should be remembered but the innocent ones who didn’t sign up to be trained killers, who had the misfortune to not be able to leave their OWN COUNTRY to avoid the death squads deserve it more than those doing the killing.

    But you won’t see THAT in the media.

  • November 10, 2011 at 10:49 am


    The poppy used to be about remembering the dead of two world wars. That’s non-political, and no one should have a problem with it.
    In recent years, however, the poppy appeal has become polluted and perverted to the extent it now has more in common with the US’s Veteran’s Day (celebration of victory, honouring those who serve, glorifying war) than remembrance of the dead. It has been politicized by politicians and the tabloid press, who wished to justify their wars by associating them with the poppy appeal. One of this year’s posters, featuring a gurning Andy Murray, reads “Remember those who don’t return.” If it were pure to the meaning of Remembrance Day, it would of course, read “Remember those who didn’t return.” The inclusion of recent and current wars is a perversion. Are we honouring the dead of Suez now?
    Now a prescedent has been established, I look forward to the Argentinians wearing armbands with a map of Las Malvinas on them.

  • November 10, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Simon John Cox

    Excellent article. The annual media poppy storm seems to get louder every year, and I seriously wonder how many people really wear it as a symbol of remembrance (and indeed how many people only think about the war dead for just one day a year). I don’t wear a poppy, partly because I think it has been hijacked by various parties for cynical purposes, and partly because its meaning seems diminished when there is such a (perceived) culture of enforcement.

    I’ve got a photograph in my hallway of my granddad in his navy uniform during the Second World War, along with his campaign medals, so I’m gently reminded every day of what he and so many others went through. I think that means more than wearing a poppy for a few days each year.

  • November 10, 2011 at 11:05 am


    It _is_ a political gesture. You can choose to remember WITHOUT wearing a poppy. Being bullied into wearing one doesn’t do anyone any good. And it’s not just happening in sports. At my girls’ school they are being nigh on forced to wear poppies – every morning for the last week you haven’t been able to get into school without having a poppy tray and donation box waved in your face, and there’s nothing like peer pressure when you’re little.

  • November 10, 2011 at 11:10 am


    @Not political You’re right. One man, wearing a poppy in solemn remembrance of those who died in combat so that he may live in freedom is not political.

    But eleven people, instructed to wear one, on an international stage is. If it were not political there wouldn’t have been this brew-haha in the first place.

  • November 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Nomadic U

    Fantastic article, can’t disagree with any of that. And if the FA are so concerned with the poppy, why don’t they give some of the revenue from Saturday’s game to the RBL. Much more meaningful than a sticker on a shirt

  • November 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    The poppy is the amphetamine of the respectable moaning classes « Llandudno Jet Set

    […] all in cahoots to snuff out our traditional British spunk. The pressure accelerated after Monday, as Two Hundred Per Cent succinctly describes; “But who cares what that pen-pushing pinko thinks, when there’s a jingoistic juggernaut on […]

  • November 11, 2011 at 1:20 am

    Shall we not remember? « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog

    […] front pages, but the 385th British serviceman’s death in Afghanistan wasn’t. There is excellent comment on this at the Twohundredpercent blog. Please read […]

  • November 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm


    Agree with most of the other commentators, an excellent article. I only wear a poppy on Armistice day itself, I totally disagree with the current fashion (and that’s exactly what it is) of wearing it in the weeks leading up to the 11th.

    I think this has all been an advance ploy to detract from the fact that England are going to get pasted by the Spanish. Searching for some kind of moral sense of superiority as England are clearly lacking in any sporting ability.

  • November 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    (War Minus the) Shooting From the Hip | Dave Boyle

    […] published at TwoHundredPercent on the media storm over whether England’s footballer should be permitted by FIFA to wear […]

Leave A Comment

Also available on…
Speek Yo Branes
Socialise With Us