Poppies are political

WE can’t quite decide whether it’s cognitive dissonance or rank hypocrisy that was behind Football Association Chairman Martin Glenn’s assertion that “poppies are not political symbols”. The only person he’s kidding with a statement like that one is himself.

It probably is the case that the poppies were once merely a means of supporting veterans’ charities – a worthy thing – and an act of remembrance and respect for those who fought and died in two world wars – again a worthy thing – but it’s pretty clear that in recent years what was supposed to a personal act of remembrance has curdled into something a lot more nationalistic and jingoistic.

The wearing of the poppy has become practically obligatory across the Irish sea every November, as the reaction to anybody who chooses not to wear one proves. The near annual vilification of James McClean is a warning: get on board or face the consequences.

So whatever about its original intent, the poppy has morphed into a political symbol – in hindsight a canary in the coal-mine for the Brexit vote – and just because it’s a political statement the FA happens to agree with (or is at least willing to go along with) doesn’t make it any less of a political symbol.

Any attempt to draw a distinction between the poppy and Pep Guardiola’s yellow ribbon – worn in support of those Catalan independence leaders currently imprisoned by the Spanish authorities – by Glenn is transparently self-serving.

The FA has ended up tying itself in knots because of its refusal to bow to FIFA’s original edict about the poppy, leaving it in the preposterous position it now finds itself, speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Just this alone has left Guardiola on the moral high ground in his stand-off with the FA and, besides, there’s a difference between a symbol stitched into a jersey and what a manager wears upon his shirt or jumper (under a jacket too for the most part it should be noted).

There’s also a big difference between a person – in this case a manager – opting to make a statement and for players to have a statement made for them by their national association. Most might be happy to go along with it, but some might not be. No sporting body should ever make assumptions on its players’ behalf. Guardiola, on the other hand, is a proud Catalan nationalist and, in our view, perfectly entitled to make a political statement on his own bat if that’s what he wants to do. He should, however, be ready for the consequences of doing so. When he spoke last week about Catalonia’s right to freedom and self determination and the sanctity of the vote, he should have known what was coming next. He was asked about how he could square such noble sentiments with working for an arm of the government of the UAE, hardly a bastion of democratic and human rights.

“Every country decides the way they want to live for themselves,” was his pat response, leaving him open, straight away and justifiably so, to charges of hypocrisy. It’s a fair criticism to make, but it’s more likely, as Ken Early noted on Second Captains last week, that the City boss simply hadn’t thought about the apparent contradiction before now.

So while Guardiola may have been hypocritical, his hypocrisy pales in significance compared to that of the FA and the poppy brigade.