A snippet below from an interesting article on this -
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... bow-shirt- - like with a lot in football you really could not make it up! If you don't wear a rainbow shirt/laces you face criticism/fines/bans/loss of sponsors - but if you/your team refused to play at a FIFA world cup or took a stance at [same world cup] played in a homophobic state or refused to play in the same league/tournament with clubs owned by homophobic states - you'd
also face criticism/fines/bans/loss of sponsors?!!! So er are EUFA/FIFA anti homophobia or not?! [
not] and I feel those ripping into Idrissa Gueye are picking on the wrong [soft] target.
Even Newcastle United players, who turn out each week for a club owned by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, wear rainbow laces. But how does this benefit the Saudi homosexuals facing the death penalty 4,000 miles away from St James’ Park? Do colourful shoelaces help Suhail al-Jameel, a gay Saudi social media influencer who was thrown into prison – and remains behind bars, nearly two years on – after he posted a topless picture of himself wearing leopard-print shorts?
As for Gueye, should we be angry at him for not playing in rainbow colours? Might it be better instead to direct our focus on his club, PSG, which is owned by Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar? Male homosexuality remains illegal in Qatar and the death penalty hangs over Muslims who engage in same-sex relations. At least one gay footballer has spoken out over his fears of playing in the World Cup later this year, which will be hosted by Qatar.
So my view is that until football cuts ties with homophobic states/sponsors it shouldn't preach to fans or players on such matters - and while I get the two are not mutually exclusive the point is just lost when the hypocrisy is laid so bare one could compare it to [say] a real push against racism [a good thing] while allowing a high profile wealthy Klu Klux Klan member to buy and own a football club *(in fact it is
just like that).