From the injuries to the disappointing performances, the attack has screamed for assistance for years. Although Arsenal scored 121 goals across all competitions in the 2025/26 season, there were still many games where Arsenal had scraped the win, or needed extra firing power to finish a game off.

Arsenal still have the likes of Gabriel Jesus, Fabio Vieira, and Reiss Nelson contracted at the club – the squad is clearly congested and needs to make way before an incoming. But as the window emerges its closing, has Arsenal missed an opportunity in this window?

This transfer window has felt odd to me; it seems that there is a finite amount of world-class options in most positions in football. Either the best teams already have the best players, or the good players are going for extortionate prices that are simply unjustifiable. Arsenal attempted to obtain Vinicius, though it was completely dependent on his renewal talks with Madrid that ended positively. Arsenal have also been linked to Bradley Barcola, Yildiz, and Julian Alvarez.

The Barcola saga is awkward; it seems that he is more Liverpool-bound, yet there haven’t been many updates for either side. Also, PSG's asking price could probably buy you an island somewhere, seriously. Although Barcola is a good player, for me, this price does not make sense. He is essentially a squad player going for the price that could buy you a Neymar nine years ago. Yet, do you buy a player because you need to fill in a space, or do you wait until you find a better option? (though what are the better options?!)

NM: The fact that after winning the league last season, there are still concerns about the attack does not fill me with the most joy, and it seems as though the club does want to improve, but is reluctant to just buy anybody. Now, in most cases, that’s okay, but when there is a glaring issue in front of you, you can’t put your eggs in one basket. I feel as though Berta has perhaps missed out on talented players in a bid to keep options open, which now feels like it could have a detrimental effect on how our attackers perform this season, especially if last season is anything to go by. One injury to any of them, and you’re instantly in trouble, whereas if you look at other teams and their options, though maybe less talented, the fact they have those options is where we fall short. #notideal

Julian Alvarez

Alvarez saga is also very odd. He has made it known to the highest degree that he wants to leave, but not on a British Airways flight. AM refuse to sell to their Catalonian rivals (rightfully so), but as the saga drags along, he was booed and whistled in the AM last game at the Metropolitana.

It seems that if any team were more likely to bid for Alvarez, it would be Arsenal at the moment. Particularly as Barcelona as an option is a right off for Atletico. However, as the player does not seem as open to a return to England as to staying in Spain, do Arsenal take the gamble and bid for the Argentinian?

NM: I agree.

Does the signing also mean anything for Gyokeres’ future?

HE: There was mumbling of a swap between Arsenal and AM, and also Gyokeres to Barca. I’m unsure if there are any legs to the news; however, much discussion on whether he is the right fit for Arsenal has grown within the fanbase. Although the top goal scorer in the Premier League for the North London club, his playing style does not impress many Arsenal fans. Although such a huge signing, it will be interesting to see how his second stint at the club will be. With a fit Havertz, Merino, and an alleged incoming, this may be a season that makes the narrative known.

Saka is my winger, Martinelli never was.

HE: Finally, it is looking like Gabriel Martinelli may leave the club to join Al-Hilal. Our highest contributor in the Champions League that heavily contributed to our journey to Budapest this year, his one singular goal has sent him a one-way ticket to Saudi.

HE: Martinelli is one of my favourite players at Arsenal. His passion, his connection to the club, the fact he came here at age 18 and has grown up, made a family at N5, I will always love the boy. He has given us fantastic moments. Although the one goal, the equaliser against City, is a goal to remember, and a goal that started our title charge, and represented the resilience of our squad that year. His penalty against Liverpool in the Carabao Cup in 2020, his goal against Leeds, his late winner against Manchester City in the 2024/25 season, and his iconic solo goal against Chelsea in 2020. This Brazilian was one to remember.

NM: From Ituano to immortality in N5. Gabriel Teodoro Martinelli Silva, if this is goodbye, then you can leave with your head held high. Essentially looked at as a Hale Ender, you emerged in 2019, and in 2020, it was you, Saka and Smith Rowe who stepped up to get Arteta a vital win against Chelsea, in what proved to be a turning point, not just for the manager, but for you as a player. You went from strength to strength and were rewarded for your efforts by scoring the most PL goals in a season of any single attacker that is contracted to Arsenal Football Club to this day. A record that has yet to be matched.

NM: My personal favourite moment from you HAS to be when you scored against Madrid to win the game, and completely ice the tie. They said that 90 mins in the Bernabeu was a long 90, but you blitzed away from their defence and finished expertly into the corner, for what still is one of our best moments in CL history. Personally, if you are leaving, you do deserve to leave on your own terms, and maybe not in the way it’s looking like. While accepting that this is football, you deserve a proper send-off. Yes, the team does need to grow, and maybe that is without you, but I personally will not forget what you did contribute to the club, and don’t worry. Sakanelli will live on forever.

You’ll be missed, meu irmão.

Does he “deserve” to be sold?

HE: I feel that Martinelli still has a lot to show. His profile for me hasn’t been maximised by the coach. He is not a touchline winger; his strengths suit a striker more. However, when the manager prefers to use Havertz and Merino before Martinelli in that role, it is difficult to see him getting that opportunity. He does play off the left, but drifts quite a bit centrally. Examples include the 2022/23 season, still his best return in an Arsenal shirt, with 15 Premier League goals, when the team’s shape gave him more licence to attack the box rather than hold the touchline. Trossard has often been picked ahead of him for the touchline role because the team wants genuine width there, something Martinelli has never really offered. Arteta has instead turned to Havertz and Merino to solve his centre forward problem, converting two midfielders instead - Merino admitting publicly it was the first time in his career he had played in that position.

HE: When Martinelli’s own game, cutting inside and arriving late in the box, already resembles what he’s asking of them. However, at the end of the day, the way Arsenal play has changed, and it may just not suit Martinelli.

NM: Goals against Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Manchester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, as well as defining moments which helped us also get to only our second ever Champions League final (his assist for Kai Havertz against Sporting Lisbon was the only goal scored across the two legs) mean that he categorically cannot be a bad footballer. I’m afraid that as much as he may have regressed, I am still a firm believer that better profiling of his skill would have got the most out of him. There’s a reason the back-to-back Champions League winners wanted him in Paris.

NM: Somebody with such natural goal-scoring instincts shouldn’t have to be subjected to requirements that evidently don’t marry with his skillset, and so the conversations that have surrounded him following his potential departure have been nothing short of egregious. The club will do very well to find a player with an instinct for goal like him, and if the sale of him goes ahead, Arsenal will have just let go of two players who contributed to over 100 goals scored for the club between them, in exchange for playing new signing Tzolis, (insert left winger option here), and Ebere Eze, somebody who himself has had minutes reduced since joining.

HE: For me, his selling isn’t an indication that he is rubbish or not good enough, but rather that he does not suit the team as much anymore with the way the manager wants him to play. Though Saudi-bound, I see Martinelli coming back to Europe soon. Only 24, the world is your oyster, son.

So as the day stands, no attacking option signed yet. The Alvarez rumour continues to strengthen; I wonder if Arsenal get it done. A few days left, Arsenal, tic tac tic tac – and also… please sell the others.

Best of luck, Gabriel Martinelli.

The documentary covered the periods of Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan, Real Madrid, and Chelsea again. Though there was limited coverage in the second half of this career - which was unfortunate, particularly as he had continued relative success at United and Roma.

One thing stood out to me in the documentary. In the final episode, Mourinho insinuates that his childhood is irrelevant to speak about. He stated that one’s life story should include minimal details of their childhood. I do find it fascinating that, as “emotional” as Mourinho comes across, he avoids digging deeper, as usually how someone reacts to conflict stems from the tales of their past.

In the documentary, the only part in my opinion where he shows raw emotion, was speaking about his father’s death (he passed in 2017).

He holds himself back from crying in his confessional. Before this moment, in the first episode of the documentary, he speaks highly of his father. His father was a manager of River Ave and was highly respected at the time. However, his father was sacked on Christmas Day in 1984. Mourinho has spoken about this story many times to the media.

I say this to make this observation. Mourinho avoids speaking about the preliminary part of his life, but I think this is what has shaped him to be the “Special One” character that we know.

His father was highly respected; naturally, any son who sees this would want to emulate his achievement. But when it comes crashing down, on a special night like Christmas Day, that level of sadness and impact is life-changing. For me, this was the birth of Jose Mourinho.

Secondly, when Mourinho was a “translator” at Barcelona, in the documentary he says he was more than this. He was working in several departments, earning the trust of Sir Bobby Robson and van Gaal. Reducing his technical contribution and assistant-managerial responsibilities to the sole term of “translator” is dismissive of his actual contributions. This term was used against him by Barca fans before and after he became the Real Madrid manager.

Furthermore, he touches on the fact that he did not make it in football; he had to work twice as hard as his peers to secure managerial roles in football. To make up for his playing career meant creating significant waves in football and outworking everyone else. To become Special.

He tells the story of his father finally picking him for a game against Sporting Lisbon; however, the President of River Ave apparently overruled this decision due to “nepotism,” which led to Mourinho Senior and Junior leaving the club to join Belenenses in 1982.

(This was before he rejoined River Ave and got sacked).

Phil Harrison, in his Guardian article, heavily critiques the documentary. He insinuates it to be quite surface level and also agreeing that it avoids vulnerability.

He links the above quote of not belonging to a tribe to Mourinho’s “inferiority complex” of his unfulfilled playing career and the shadow of a father who was more loved.

I’m inclined to agree with Harrison. Though some elements of the documentary touch on deeper discovery such as the feud with Casillas, it does not go beyond what we already know of Jose Mourinho. This is why I find it interesting that he outwardly stated that his childhood is irrelevant to speak about. The one thing he refuses to touch on, is what would reveal and explain everything else.

He says “I was so proud to be [Felix] Mourinho’s son... He’s the opposite of me in that everybody loves him.”

Does Jose prefer to protect his heart and be feared rather than loved? Particularly as, regardless of his father’s respect, betrayal was still inevitable. I feel that Mourinho still aims to be loved like his father, but simultaneously prefers to be in control of his narrative, before someone else does. He would take the pre-emptive strike before you strike at him. If he feels that he is doubted, he either proves you wrong, or he implodes. This links to the “siege mentality” that Phil Harrison spoke about in his article.

To do more can make you feel more, but yet, you still feel unfulfilled. This is the paradox of an overachiever, and the experience of a never-filled void.

So was the Special One a character birthed to combat the vulnerability of rejection from his early years? To establish such confidence to deflect pressure and control his own narrative?

He still remains one of the greatest managers of all time, as we await the Q4 era of his career, with his second reign in Madrid.

But how long will he stay Special for?

Based on what I have witnessed, a lot of discussion throughout this World Cup on social media has been about the choice to support certain teams. In my last article, I dive into why some Black Brits, particularly diaspora, avoid supporting England. The most common response centred on the English media’s treatment of Black players.

However, what I have found interesting in the last few days, is the discussion regarding Argentina.

It seems this WC in particular, anti-Argentina rhetoric has never been higher.

In the NY times article, it found that Latin America usually rallies behind whoever’s left in the tournament. Sweden fans backed Norway when they went out, the same happened across Africa during the African team’s runs. However, while Argentina is the last Latin American team standing, their neighbours have been rooting against them.

A Colombian fan told the paper he wanted Argentina to win in 2022, for Messi. Not anymore. He’s soured on the fans he’s met and a team he feels looks down on opponents, plus how many Argentines seem to identify as European over Latin American. Others point to the semifinal lineup itself. With England, Spain and France all still in it, some ask why Argentina isn’t standing with the region against three imperialists that also colonised them all. A Mexico City shopkeeper skipped the nuance entirely, calling it a supremacist, racist discourse.

To deny Argentina’s racist history and their active acts of racism in the present day would be silly and ignorant. From the national team singing racist chants after their WC win against France in 2022, to the Argentine fans saying questionable remarks to the streamer “Speed” in their match vs Capo Verde, and also a few months ago where various Argentinian tourists were arrested for being racist in Brazil too.

Argentina’s reputation turns many people away from wanting them to flourish on the pitch, and this is an understandable and justifiable viewpoint.

However….

Whilst Argentina can be berated for these reasons, I find it odd that others feel solace in supporting the opposite team under the guise of moral superiority.

Fábio Luís Barbosa dos Santos said that “if the issue is racism, then you couldn’t support Spain either.” He also references the cases of racism towards Vinicius from La Liga supporters - who would also likely be Spanish.

Nevertheless, racism isn't a problem exclusive to Argentina. It's an issue across South America. Brazil and Colombia have more diversity on their teams, but racial inequality and socioeconomic disadvantages still run deep. This isn't one country's problem. For me? This is continental.

When England faced Argentina, many were claiming that “Argentina are Zionists” and “Messi is a Zionist.” This has been repeated many times during the tournament.

Political commentator Mehdi Hassan on his podcast with Javier Bardem compared that the World Cup final felt like a “proxy war” representing the broader Israel-Palestine conflict.

I find this framing slightly problematic. It reduces the destruction and loss of life in Gaza to a proxy contest between two countries, turning a humanitarian catastrophe into a form of geopolitical point-scoring.

The irony is that Mehdi Hassan was wearing an England shirt during the podcast. The United Kingdom has been a significant military partner of Israel for years, licensing substantial arms exports since 2015.

Now as I said, there is no issue in avoiding to support a country based on your personal reasons. This is not what I have an issue with. However, what I struggle to come to terms with, is the calling out a State for reasons that their own country are at fault for too.

Milei and Israel

Argentina’s president Milei, has expressed very close ties with Israel and claimed he is “proud to be the most Zionist president in the world.” Naturally, it is understandable for those to claim the nation is Zionist, due to their leader’s links with Netanyahu and Israel.

However, a Pew Research Centre survey conducted between 8 February and 13 May 2026 found that 55 percent of Argentinians held a very or somewhat unfavourable view of Israel. Only 21 percent viewed it favourably. It seems that the relationship between Israel and Argentina is more of a reflection of their leader, rather than the population.

Netanyahu himself said that:

England fans calling Messi a Zionist while they have licenced half a billion pounds in arms to Israel since 2015 isn’t necessarily a gotcha. And England isn’t even the worst offender in that lineup. France was named Israel’s top arms exporter in the EU in 2024, with over €360 million in licences granted that year alone, including tens of millions in ammunition and bombs. French officials have spent the last two years insisting those exports are “components” and “dual-use,” a distinction that gets thinner every time someone digs into it. If Milei calling himself a Zionist is enough to disqualify Argentina, a government shipping the hardware should also disqualify France.

Spain is the one exception worth naming. They froze new arms sales to Israel back in 2023 and has been cancelling contracts, banning Israeli firms from arms fairs, moving toward a legal embargo. Their current Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, has also been very open about supporting Palestine. And whilst this is the case, this also doesn’t take away the issues in Spain too.

A report released in January 2025 by SOS Racismo lays it out. Racism in Spanish sport isn't just name-calling on the pitch. It's direct (slurs, abuse, assault), indirect (no accommodation for religious practice, language barriers), and structural (lack of representation in coaching and leadership roles). The report found Black African athletes carry the heaviest burden of this compared to other racialised groups. And migrants without regular status face their own wall - getting a federation licence is often impossible, which shuts them out of sport altogether. While Spain has its progressive foreign policy, it doesn't cancel out what's happening in its own backyard.

My point is simply that personal moral thresholds for supporting a team should be applied consistently, or not invoked at all. Otherwise the stance becomes hypocritical, especially given how many of these States engage in their own forms of objectionable behaviour. I have no issue with people disliking Argentina for whatever reasons they may have. But if we are going to condemn a country on the basis of its leader or its political climate, we would struggle to justify supporting any state in the tournament.

To be clear, none of this is a defence of Argentina. It is a plea for fairness. Many of these nations that people are eager to cheer for have racist and colonial pasts, some that have continued in their present too. At the same time, supporting teams like France or England - whose squads reflect the diversity of their populations and offer Black and mixed‑heritage fans a sense of belonging, makes perfect sense. I am simply noting that the pot can call the kettle black…just a little bit.

So who should you support?

Whoever you want. Your country of birth, your parents’ country, the team with the player you love watching, the underdog nobody else is backing. None of that needs justifying to anyone. From Spain, France, Portugal, the US, Argentina, even the Latin American countries, there are cases everywhere of bigotry and hate in their history and in present day - that should never be denied.

Supporting a football team does not require endorsing everything a state has done or continues to do. What matters is acknowledging those realities, remaining informed, and being willing to engage with them honestly. As long as we stay educated and do not turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, people should be free to support whichever team they choose.

So support whoever, and for any reason - just stay “woke.”

Nationality is a legal status. Race is tied to phenotype. Ethnicity refers to “a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions.” In lived experience, these categories overlap.

This overlap explains why debates about players’ national allegiances or diasporic fans’ choices provoke controversy. People struggle to separate legal belonging from cultural acceptance.

A Black Nigerian man born and raised in England may identify as British through both nationality and lived experience. Yet his Britishness and his Englishness are treated differently. Englishness has historically operated less as a civic identity and more as an ethnic one that quietly defaults to whiteness. This is why someone of BAME heritage, who speaks with a Mancunian accent and holds a British passport can still be asked “but where are you really from?” His nationality is secure, yet Englishness is conditional.

The issue with this is that to be English is not as civic as other groups. Scotland, Ireland and Wales have more civic identities, meaning that being Scottish or Welsh is often understood through where you live and what you contribute to that place, rather than who your ancestors were. Research from Oxford's Sundas Ali and Anthony Heath, commissioned for the UK Government's Foresight project, support this point. They argue that ethnic conceptions of a nation place emphasis on ancestry and characteristics fixed at birth, while civic conceptions place emphasis on things you acquire, like citizenship, respect for institutions and speaking the national language, and that ethnic conceptions tend to be more exclusive while civic ones are more inclusive.

They also found that a strong Scottish identity acts as a kind of social glue, tied to civic duty and support for fellow Scots, and linked to more open attitudes rather than closed ones. And emphatically, having a strong sub-national identity like Scottish or Welsh doesn't crowd out a British one, since exclusive ethnic minority identities are actually less common than exclusive Scottish or Welsh ones. Englishness has historically worked differently. It is more aligned towards whiteness; to a specific version of "native" that never had to explain itself because it was rarely questioned, as it is more phenotypically "evident."

Being Welsh-Sudanese

As a Welsh‑born Black Sudanese woman, I feel a strong patriotic attachment to Wales. My sense of Welshness comes from growing up learning the language, taking part in Eisteddfods, singing Welsh songs from childhood through my teens, and experiencing the collective emotion of the national anthem at rugby and football matches. These cultural practices shaped my identity. When I am outside Wales and someone asks where I am from, I instinctively say Wales or Sudan depending on the context. I have never been told I am not truly Welsh. Welsh identity feels accessible. English identity often does not.

Results and Findings

Football makes these dynamics particularly visible. Euro 2020 was a turning point for many Black Britons. The racist abuse directed at Saka, Sancho and Rashford revealed how quickly Black players’ Englishness can be revoked.

In my survey of Black Britons living in England, respondents repeatedly described the same pattern. Black English players are embraced as “one of us” when the team wins and treated as foreign, other or “just Black” when the team loses. Several people used the phrase “loved when winning, hated when losing” independently of one another, which suggests this sentiment is widely internalised rather than fringe.

From the survey, the overwhelming majority of them are diaspora (91.9%) and living in England (95.2%), though only 65.5% were actually born here. This is worth noting, as the consistency of responses across both native born and first generation participants suggests the disconnect identified is not primarily a function of birthplace, but of treatment.

Nigerian heritage accounted for the largest single group (27.4%), followed by Ghanaian and Jamaican heritage (8.1% each), with the remainder spread across Caribbean, Central African, East African and South Asian backgrounds. The consistency of findings across these groups suggests the pattern identified is not confined to one diaspora community.

On the question of allegiance, home country alone was the most common response (46.8%), followed by dual support for both England and home country (27.4%), with England alone the least common (21%). Given that most respondents were born and raised in England, this points to something other than birthplace or upbringing driving the disconnect.

The qualitative responses clarify what that “disconnect” is. The most consistent theme is the conditional nature of acceptance.

The Themes

Players and fans alike are treated as English in moments of victory and reassigned to their racial identity in moments of defeat. Euro 2020 was cited repeatedly as the moment this became explicit, following the racist abuse directed at Saka, Sancho and Rashford after the final. Several respondents produced almost identical phrasing to describe this without any prompting, which suggests a shared rather than individual grievance.

A second theme concerns media coverage. Respondents pointed specifically to the differential treatment of Sterling and Foden as evidence that identical conduct is reported differently according to race. This shifts the analysis from fan behaviour to institutional themes, indicating that the conditionality of Englishness is reproduced not only socially but structurally.

A third theme is structural. Respondents named the FA, football's institutional culture, and the association between the England flag and far right politics as barriers to belonging independent of any single match.

This is worth setting against Sunder Katwala's argument for British Future, made in response to Suella Braverman and Konstantin Kisin's comments about Rishi Sunak. Katwala calls the current consensus "inclusive nativism." His case is that you become English if you're born in England and you identify as English, and that most people in England will accept you on that basis.

He backs it with statistics, stating nine in ten agree that England-born people who identify as English should be accepted as such, and that number has grown over time. He goes further and names names, arguing it's essentially unthinkable that anyone would say Marcus Rashford or Jude Bellingham are too Black to be English.

The gap between these accounts is revealing. Katwala's polling asks a hypothetical - whether people would accept someone born in England and identifying as English as genuinely English? The survey asks whether that acceptance survives a bad result. Rashford is evidence for both in opposite directions. For Katwala, he shows the consensus exists. For my respondents, he shows how fast it can vanish. The two findings aren't contradictory. Inclusive nativism may be the majority view most of the time, but "most of the time" is doing a lot of work. Self identification is necessary for Englishness, yet not sufficient. This evidences that acceptance is circumstantial, not fixed.

France

The survey revealed a consistent theory about France. Respondents did not simply say France feels better. They pointed to specific mechanisms. French national identity is framed as civic and assimilationist. You are French because you belong to the republic, not because of ancestry. The French team has had a large and visible Black playing population for decades, and French culture is perceived as allowing Black and North African players to be unapologetically themselves in celebration styles, music and cultural expression without being told to mute parts of their identity.

Added Context

It is important to note that France is officially anti-communautarisme. The state does not recognise ethnic or religious communities in the way Britain does. A 1978 law makes it illegal for the government to collect data on race or ethnicity on the basis that recognising communities is seen as a threat to the republic. Yet in practice France is full of communities with vastly different backgrounds living alongside one another. This means the French model is not simply more progressive. It is a gap between policy and lived reality. It is also about scale. Paris has the largest Black population in Europe and a seemingly significantly large population of North Africans (no official numbers due to anti-communautarisme). These demographics shape social dynamics in ways that do not map directly onto England.

Respondents also highlighted the strong community ties of French players. When Dembélé won the Ballon d’Or, he returned to Evreux to be honoured at the town hall before visiting the stadium where he first played. He and Dayot Upamecano later invited people from their neighbourhood to watch them play in the Champions League and covered their travel themselves. Mbappé is still known as “the boy from Bondy,” and in his open letter to young players he wrote that there is no Kylian Mbappé without his family, community and friends. English footballers, especially Black English footballers, rarely maintain or publicly celebrate such ties. Respondents linked this to the United Kingdom’s class system and the controlling nature of British media, which often scrutinises rather than celebrates players’ backgrounds.

A significant portion of respondents moved beyond individual behaviour to name institutions. The Football Association, football’s structural pyramid, the England flag being used by the far right, and England’s association with hooliganism and exclusionary nationalism were all cited as factors that make supporting England socially uncomfortable for Black Britons. Some respondents even referenced specific political figures (Nigel Farage) who contribute to this discomfort.

A minority pushed back against the racism‑centred explanation. Some argued the disconnect is about comfort, pathways and infrastructure rather than identity. Players grow up in the England system, or representing a home country requires practical steps many cannot take.

One respondent argued that English players in general feel disconnected from the national team compared to France regardless of race.

Another attributed the issue to generational differences rather than a singular narrative.

So are we just Black British, or can we be more than that? The comparison with France offers the clearest answer. In France, national identity is treated as something you can step into. In England, it is something you have to keep proving, or perhaps cannot prove at all to some people.

The definition of what counts as English, although often described as an ethnicity, goes deeper than genetic roots and remains culturally ambiguous.

To me, being English goes beyond ethnicity and operates as a social nationality in its own right. To others, it remains an ethnic group and nothing more.

So is it a case of being able to feel English but not be English? It is an open conversation, one that is subjective rather than strictly factual. But hey, it might come home guys.

Although, Viva la Mexico in my opinion… (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿)

This year’s WC expanded to 48 teams. An extra 16 teams, 40 more games - though some weren’t happy about it.

Alexander Ceferin claimed it would make the tournament “uninteresting.” Carlos Quieroz (Ghana’s head coach) said it made it “vulgar and ordinary.” And look, the dead rubber criticism isn’t completely out of touch. Norway rotated 10 players against France, Turkey vs USA meant nothing for either side.

But here’s what the expansion also did, it gave African football the platform it was always owed.

Africa

9/10 African teams that qualified have made it to the round of 32. The highest ever for the continent at a World Cup, and some qualified in style.

Algeria drawing 3-3 with Austria on the final matchday. DR Congo beating Uzbekistan and making history for their country. Senegal needing a 3+ goal win against Iraq and delivering. Cape Verde making it through on three draws. These were not teams “stumbling” through. These were fighting to make their presence known and create history for themselves.

“Shut your mouth we are killing ourselves for Africa” a statement said by Nicolas Jackson that made many of us laugh, but an important sentiment at that. To be African is to show great pride for not only yourself, but for your community, your people. This is not a burden, it gives them purpose to show up.

Riyad Mahrez in a post-match interview with Sky Sports said that he is proud of the African countries, as African football is “not always described as really good football.” And with that, he is right.

Gennaro Gattuso at the time of him managing Italy, said Africa should have “less WC spots,” a complaint dressed up as concern about Europe’s qualification process. Though with his complaint, 7 of out of 10 of the African teams are within the top 50 ranking (14%) and now 9 out of 10 have made it to the next stage.

Furthermore, Bastian Schweinsteiger described African football as “wild”, “unorthodox” and “perhaps not tactically driven” before Germany’s match in Toronto, then naming it “football analysis. No more and no less.”

But this is exactly the issue. Why is this terminology commonly used against African football?

It is subconsciously the assumption that African football can’t be/isn’t tactical. The instinct to immediately align Africa with pure physicality rather than acknowledging quality, organisation, or intelligence. Schweinsteiger dismissing Ivory Coast as wild and unorthodox isn’t analysis. His words carry undertones that have followed African football for decades, and ultimately enables ignorance.

From the goalkeeping performances from Cape Verde. Ivory Coast making the knockout rounds for the first time. DR Congo shocking Portugal in their opening game. Ghana working hard for a draw against England. In January, I wrote a piece called “The Problem when AFCON becomes a Meme” (published by Versus) and how the mockery of African football downplays not just the real quality of African football, which can become dangerous overtime. That argument hasn’t changed.

We can debate about the expanded format all we want. But one of its outcomes is that African football is on the biggest stage it has ever had, and Africa is not wasting it.

Arsène Wenger said it himself that there is no “gap” and that the marginal differences are very small between African football and everyone else.

We should not dismiss African football, in fact, it should be praised even more.

Word to Nicolas Jackson, shut your mouth, we are killing ourselves for Africa.

Suit up for the round of 32.

Allez l’Afrique, Yalla ya Africa, Vamos Irmãos.

Earlier in the same year, they suspended Russia from competing in sporting tournaments due to its invasion of Ukraine.

All in all, the media were not afraid to call out Qatar. This is objectively not an issue nor a problem. As reported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, migrant rights were exploited to the highest degree. Many unexplained deaths were barely acknowledged by Qatar.

But the main issue is hypocrisy. While many vilified Qatar for its hosting, not many have called out the US for similar issues.

Media Coverage

A study published in the Asian Journal of Public Opinion Research by Normahfuzah Ahmad and Omar Al-Zoubi looked at how BBC and CNN covered Qatar’s hosting. Around 70% of BBC reports carried a negative tone. Just one BBC article was classified as positive throughout the entire tournament.

The authors suggest that the focus was overwhelmingly on Qatar’s morality - homosexuality laws, alcohol bans, and dress codes. Not the football. Not even a serious breakdown of labour rights. Just a repeated message that Qatar didn’t share Western values. Researchers called this out as orientalism; essentially, judging a non-Western country by Western standards and presenting those standards as universal.

What’s more telling is what the coverage left out. CNN’s reporting on migrant worker abuses never once mentioned that many of the construction firms actually building those stadiums were Western companies.

Ironically, the same outlets hammering Qatar on LGBTQ+ rights had little to say about the fact that hundreds of anti-trans bills were being introduced in the United States at the same time.

2026 World Cup - USA, Mexico, and Canada

As the hosts of the 2026 World Cup, controversy has known no bounds regarding the US (in every capacity).

The recent news of the banning of the Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan has taken the football world by storm. Although the reasoning has not been clarified, it is suggested that due to the travel ban imposed by the Trump administration, it may have some influence on the decision.

Artan was named CAF referee of the year in 2025. He has been a referee since 2018. This is a man with much experience and qualifications behind his belt.

FIFA have announced:

In 2022, FIFA suspended Russia from international competition following the invasion of Ukraine. It justified this on security and competition integrity grounds. At the same time, Amnesty International was explicitly calling on FIFA and UEFA to suspend the Israeli Football Association over clubs based in illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. FIFA declined, invoking neutrality.

FairSquare, a human rights organisation, and former UN official Craig Mokhiber described this as a “stunning level of hypocrisy and double standards.” The same bodies that acted decisively against Russia are now hiding behind neutrality when the political cost of action is higher.

The Artan situation follows the same logic. FIFA acted against Russia because it could absorb the consequences. It stayed silent on Palestine because it couldn’t. It enforced armband rules in Qatar because the reputational risk of non-enforcement outweighed the legal exposure. And now it disclaims responsibility for US immigration policy because challenging the Trump administration carries consequences FIFA has no appetite for.

In 2023, the United States introduced at least 510 anti-LGBTQ+ bills across more than 40 states. This is nearly three times the number introduced the year before, with 84 signed into law, according to the ACLU. The same outlets that spent weeks dissecting Qatar’s homosexuality laws had not commented much on this matter.

Qatar was rightfully condemned for the deaths of migrant workers on stadium construction sites. Whereas in the US, as of March 2026, 46 people have died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody since Trump returned to office. This is the deadliest period in ICE detention history in over two decades.

Furthermore, a CNN investigation found many of those deaths were preventable. The condemnations have been quiet.

On press freedom, the US now ranks 64th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index - its lowest ever position, described as a “press freedom crisis.” Qatar ranked 119th in 2022.

It seems unlikely that the BBC would boycott this year’s opening ceremony over this.

The disparity is clear, and the hypocrisy is rife. From East to the West, the goalposts move depending on who is holding the ball.

FIFA’s response to Artan is the institutional representation of that same narrative. Language changing depending on who’s asking and who’s affected - this fickle behaviour undermines any argument that politics should be separate from football. From the exclusion of Russia to the banning of referees in the Global South, politics overrules football when it is expedient for the Federation.

FIFA’s own Statutes, Article 3 and Article 4, commit the organisation to respecting human rights and using its leverage to protect them. This is the same institution that had the regulatory precision to ban a rainbow armband at dawn on a match morning with no written ruling and no right of appeal.

Inconsistency is in the hands of those who regulate the biggest sporting event in the world, yet those who watch the sport maintain that politics should be separate from it.

Politics is in everything you watch, read, buy, and see. Sit back and think for me, are politics really free?

The topic regarding the relationship between football and politics has always been contentious. Many traditional football fans feel that these two entities must be separated and act independent of one another.

However, one does not realise their intertwining relationship. Politics and human rights cannot act separate in football conversations especially as they affect each other. How can we dismiss human rights in a sport that directly involves human beings?

FIFA and UEFA have long hidden behind the principle of neutrality. A protective shield which is deployed whenever the conversation gets uncomfortable or when diplomatic pressures threaten to cost them. But let us be clear about the meaning of “neutrality” and if these institutions reflect the true meaning of that standard.

In international law, the principle of neutrality originates from the Hague Conventions of 1907. It was designed for states during armed conflict. A neutral state cannot aid, favour, or engage with either side of a dispute. The moment you act, you are no longer neutral.

FIFA is not a state, they are a private entity. But by claiming neutrality, it sets a standard it must be held to. And it fails spectacularly.

When Gianni Infantino gifts a “peace” award to President Trump, that is not neutral. When FIFA attempts to broker dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian representatives at the 76th FIFA Congress, that is not neutral. When Qatar was awarded the 2022 World Cup despite credible accusations of human rights abuses and the deaths of migrant workers, that was not neutral. When FIFA and UEFA banned Russia after their invasion of Ukraine, that was not neutral. When FIFA and UEFA threatened sanctions against the English and German captains for wearing the OneLove armband in support of LGBTQ+ rights in Qatar, that was not neutral. When UEFA has resisted calls to suspend Israel from competitions despite the same logic being applied to Russia, that was not neutral. These are all choices, and they’re all political ones.

The political reach of football does not stop at governing bodies. When Iran faces potential exclusion from the World Cup, and when fans from countries on the US travel ban cannot attend a tournament their national team qualified for, it is genuinely difficult to understand how anyone could argue that sport and politics should not be discussed together. Politics affects every aspect of life. And yes, that includes the sport you enjoy watching eleven people kick a ball around for ninety minutes…and maybe a little more at extra time.

So the next time someone tells you to keep politics out of football, show them the examples above. Ask them honestly…does this seem neutral to you?

To claim neutrality is to exercise a privilege that most people simply do not have. The fan who cannot attend the World Cup because their country is on a travel ban does not have that luxury. The migrant workers who built the stadium did not have that luxury. The player threatened with sanctions for wearing an armband did not have that luxury.

Neutrality is a privilege. It is available only to those who have nothing to lose from staying silent. For some? The game is the game. For others? The game goes beyond. It was always personal. It was always political. And it always will be.

However, those arguments, while still valid, have now been undermined by CAF’s actions last night.

CAF released a statement, transferring the AFCON win to Morocco based on Article 84 of the Regulations which results in Senegal forfeiting the game and the result being 3-0 to Morocco due to the “pitch leave.”

Article 82: "If, for any reason whatsoever, a team withdraws from the competition or does not report for a match, or refuses to play or leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee, it shall be considered loser and shall be eliminated for good from the current competition."

Article 84: "The team which contravenes the provisions of articles 82 and 83 shall be eliminated for good from the competition. This team will lose its match by 3-0 unless the opponent has scored a more advantageous result at the time when the match was interrupted, in this case this score will be maintained. The Organising Committee may adopt further measures.”

Why this sets a dangerous precedent

The issue here is not simply about the rules. It is about when and how they are applied.

The AFCON final took place over three months ago. A decision to overturn an on-field result after such a significant period is quite frankly, unreasonable. Yes, rules are rules, but three months also allows time to assess the situation in its entirety. That clearly has not been done in a way that respects the integrity of the competition.

Senegal won that match on the pitch. Morocco did not score. The final whistle went, celebrations followed, and the trophy was lifted. That moment mattered. It carried meaning and legitimacy.

Overturning the decision does not rectify what was already settled for Moroccans, it attempts to fill a void that was patched up after their loss in the final.

CAF, in attempting to enforce its authority, has set a dangerous precedent. If results can be rewritten months after the fact, what does that mean for the credibility of the competition going forward?

More importantly, this decision risks undoing the very progress that has been made in challenging dismissive narratives around AFCON. A tournament that already faces scrutiny is now once again exposed to dismissal and mockery. In trying to satisfy its critics, CAF may have instead validated them.

AFCON is a competition that showcases some of the best players in the world. It should not be reduced to “administrative” controversy. Yet decisions like this shift the focus away from the football and back towards the same narratives that have long undermined its legitimacy.

A competition that platforms their best African players has been made a laughing stock again, and we can only sit back and watch.

As a football fan, many people from intersectional backgrounds find inspiration when they see players who look like them, speak like them, or come from similar communities. This sense of familiarity brings comfort, belonging, and representation. The men’s game is a strong example of this. Players from working‑class backgrounds, children of immigrants, members of diasporic communities, or those who grew up in the “ends” are able to make a name for themselves at the highest level. This diversity of backgrounds is a significant part of what makes football “the beautiful game.”

However, this level of intersectional representation is not reflected to the same extent in women’s football. While this is not necessarily the fault of women’s football itself, it is difficult, as a Black woman, to watch the same sport in which my gender is represented, yet still struggle to see myself reflected within it. The issue lies not in a lack of ability, but in the accessibility of facilities, resources, and development pathways for a wider range of people.

This is not to suggest that there are no talented Black female footballers. Players such as Bunny Shaw, Michelle Agyemang, Khiara Keating, Sandy Baltimore, Jessica Naz, and Grace Geyoro are clear examples of elite‑level players of Black or mixed heritage currently competing in the Women’s Super League (WSL). However, representation remains significantly lower in comparison to the men’s game. Show Racism the Red Card, citing The Athletic, reported that players from Black or minority ethnic backgrounds make up just 15% of the WSL. In contrast, the Premier League figure stands at 43%, nearly half of all players.

Former England international Kerry Davis has expressed similar concerns, stating:

“It is important to have visibility of people that look like you at the top of the game, so you can aspire to follow in their footsteps. If you see it, you can be it. It is very important to have visible role models.”

Likewise, Anita Asante highlighted the structural barriers facing young girls from disadvantaged backgrounds:

“It’s getting more difficult to get the right accessibility for disadvantaged groups of young girls, especially in inner cities,” she told BBC Sport.

“When you’re seeing so few [BAME players] making it to the elite level you have to question if the system is really working. Does it need reviewing to find where the gaps are?”

The lack of representation has been a discussion regarding the England squad too. In their 2022 Euros squad, there were only 3 players of black/mixed heritage. In the 2025 squad, it improved to just 4. Comparatively, in 2022, the France’s squad of 23 had 15 players of black/brown heritage. This shows that this is not an issue regarding accessibility to diverse talent, it is the diverse talent’s accessibility for the foundations to start a career in English football.

Arsenal Women

This makes it particularly disappointing that Arsenal Women are one of the least diverse teams in the WSL. Arsenal is a club historically rich in diversity, from its players to its fanbase and community. As a supporter, it is difficult to fully align myself with the team when I cannot see myself reflected within it.

As Anita Asante warns, the lack of diversity doesn't just stop girls from dreaming of playing, it affects the fans too. When you're sat watching a match and you can't see anyone on that pitch who looks like you, it's hard to feel like the game is really for you. That connection is a massive part of what football means to people. You support players you relate to, you invest in clubs that feel like yours. Take that away and something is lost. For Black women, women's football can end up feeling like a space that sees your gender but ignores your race, and that's an isolating place to be. You're not fully at home in the men's game, and you're not fully at home here either.

Simi Iluyomade highlights in their VERSUS article that Arsenal Women’s lack of diversity is not an isolated failure, but rather a reflection of a much wider structural issue within women’s football. By comparing the women’s squad to both Arsenal’s men’s team and the broader demographic makeup of elite men’s football, Iluyomade emphasises that diversity is achievable when access, scouting, and development pathways are properly resourced and inclusive.

The article makes it clear that the absence of Black and minority ethnic players is not due to a lack of talent, but rather systemic barriers that prevent young girls from disadvantaged and inner‑city backgrounds from progressing through academies and into elite football. For a club as historically diverse and community‑driven as Arsenal, this lack of representation feels particularly disheartening. As Iluyomade suggests, accountability from major clubs is an important step forward, but statements alone from the club are not enough.

Meaningful change requires long‑term investment in grassroots facilities, improved accessibility, and a genuine commitment to widening pathways for young girls from underrepresented backgrounds. Until these structural issues are addressed, women’s football will continue to struggle with representation, leaving many fans, myself included, finding it difficult to fully see themselves reflected in the game they love.

Arsenal lost against Manchester United on Sunday 25th January in a 3-2 loss which left the Gunners with a shortened four point lead ahead of Manchester City and Aston Villa.

Arsenal, on the back of winning against the Serie A leaders on Tuesday, were searching for their first Premier League win in three as they had drawn back to back against Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, both goalless ties.

There has been immense conversation regarding match-going fans and the atmosphere at the Emirates this season. For a club that has been leading for most of the Premier League season, top of the Champions League table and present in all domestic tournaments. The season on paper seems perfect.

So, why does the feeling seem dim?

Many reporters have commented on the lacklustre atmosphere in North London. Critics claim that fans are “too nervous” in the stadium, or “don’t cheer enough” to create an intimidating atmosphere, but journalists should not point the finger towards match-going fans. It is lazy.

The nervousness that people speak about is the anxious thoughts and feelings that many Arsenal fans can relate to. Unfortunately, the nervousness stems from years of disappointment and the weight of expectation to deliver. Arsenal haven’t won a major trophy since their FA cup win in 2020. Fans are desperate for success, and with desperation breeds frustration.

As Alex Howell in his BBC article stated that a reason behind this is a “rise in expectation from fans.” This tension is not a flaw in the fanbase, but a symptom of hope for glory.

Atmosphere does influence players, but it is reciprocal. When fans watch overly cautious, risk-averse football, it drains energy. Arsenal’s defensive solidity, deserves the outmost praise, and can not be dismissed. The likes of Saliba, Gabriel and Declan Rice have shown world class levels of performances and are key to the Gunner’s stability and structure.

But the lack of attacking creativity is evident. Arsenal were previously synonymous with fluidity, and expression. At present, pragmatism dominates. While control is not a flaw, the overemphasis of control has limited spontaneity in the team and has stifled intuitive play. This shows there is danger in being too safe.

However, scapegoating fans for poor performances is disingenuous. A few boos doesn’t detail a title challenge. What does? A lack of conviction on the pitch.

Some fans have even shifted blame onto those “not in their seats,” ignoring the obvious reality of queues for food and drink. This misplaced frustration is strange and avoids addressing the real issue. Fans need to become comfortable with confronting the truth: the root of their discontent lies in performances, not in empty seats.

It is misguided to discredit the match-going fans at the Emirates. Doing so deflects accountability from the real issue of on-pitch problems. Instead of examining the tactical shortcomings behind Arsenal’s recent uncomfortable performances, much of the discourse has fixated on atmosphere. Many journalists are focusing on the wrong factors, and it is baffling that any blame could be placed on the fanbase for that result.

Arsenal’s performances have not been good enough, nor convincing enough, to inspire unwavering support. They have bred a sense of anxiousness among fans, and that unease echoes through the hollow atmosphere at the Emirates. Can the atmosphere improve? Yes. But can better performances transform it? Absolutely.

Sexual crimes perpetrated by men in positions of ‘elevated status’ are far from rare; rooted in the exploitative dynamics of patriarchal power. The privilege granted by their status allows them to abuse it in ways that benefit their egos while harming people around them. While sexual violence is not limited to men of higher social standing, it is widely known that in a patriarchal society, men wield more systemic authority than women. This imbalance produces circumstances in which sexual violence is not only ignored but also dismissed.

In many entertainment industries, including sports, allegations of sexual violence rarely result in permanent consequences. Contrary to popular belief, such accusations do not always “end careers," nor do they “tarnish reputations." This claim is a misconception encouraged by apologists to undermine victims and prevent others from coming forward - especially if it’s a player they “stan.”

“Innocent until Proven Guilty”

The expression "innocent until proven guilty" has become widely abused, and there are numerous reasons why it’s problematic. Various individuals use this word to dismiss or discredit a victim's allegation. It is an attempt to silence and avoid further interrogation. Accused people with a specific social status are frequently given the "presumption of innocence" by the public, whereas victims are viewed as liars. This is an example of systemic misogyny.

Another false narrative is that accusers benefit from accusations. The reality challenges the belief that accusers benefit from claims, since many face internet harassment and social exclusion when trials result in acquittal.

There have been instances where complainants have lost employment or have faced blacklisting. This is particularly evident where the accused holds greater social, economic and institutional power, reinforcing the imbalance that discourages reporting as victims suffer more reputational harm. The Home Office suggested that around 3% of reported rapes may be false, highlighting that false allegations are rare compared to public assumptions.

The justice system has long faced criticism from both the public and legal professionals. What is particularly troubling is the widespread insistence among football fans that an acquittal proves the alleged harm never occurred. The CPS has clarified that “an acquittal does not automatically mean there was a false allegation.” This misconception reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system operates, particularly in cases of sexual violence.

The law can be inconsistent towards its application towards sexual crimes, especially when there is a significant imbalance of power, wealth and influence.

Courts operate within frameworks that fail victims of sexual violence due to biases and prejudices that favour the defendant. This continues very harmful myths.

The retrial of Ched Evans (R v Evans [2016] EWCA Crim 452) illustrates these flaws.1

The Court of Appeal allowed evidence of the complainant’s sexual behaviour with other men, undermining protections intended by Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.2

• According to Professor Joanne Conaghan and Dr Yvette Russell of Bristol University, this technique reinforces rape myths and incorporates gendered biases into judicial thinking. They point out that the alleged "evidential basis" for admitting sexual history evidence frequently relies on cultural assumptions about women's sexual activity, implicating the law in upholding patriarchal standards.3

Football culture often indulges the misogynistic trope of “women destroying men,” with public discourse focusing on the supposed “reputational damage” to accused players rather than the harm inflicted on victims. This narrative shifts blame away from perpetrators and reinforces the culture of victim-blaming.

Observationally, accusations do not always “end” football careers.

1. Achraf Hakimi was accused of rape in 2023 and actively a player for PSG.

2. Benjamin Mendy is still an active footballer in Poland for Pogoń Szczecin.

3. Thomas Partey, who was charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, is playing for Villarreal. He was also actively playing for Arsenal during the investigations.

4. Cristiano Ronaldo, in 2009, was accused of sexual assault in Las Vegas.

For some players, reputational damage may have occurred as they stopped competing at the “highest level,” which relatively impacted their careers. However, this decline rarely equates to true accountability; many continue to play professionally and maintain public support despite serious allegations.

Mason Greenwood.

The most recent and contentious example is Mason Greenwood. In 2022, Greenwood was accused by his partner, Harriet Robson, of assault. She shared photographs of her injuries and a distressing audio recording that captured the player demanding sexual intercourse without consent. He was arrested on various charges, such as suspicion of rape, assault, and threats to kill, yet the charges were dropped by CPS in February 2023 due to

Although the criminal proceedings had paused, it’s important to note that this does not exemplify acquittal.

Despite this, his career’s trajectory has relatively recovered. Since his suspension at Manchester United, he was loaned to Getafe and is currently employed by Marseille. His performances at the French club have reignited public debate over whether he should represent England, particularly as it is a World Cup year.

However, the discourse is really harmful. The consequences go well beyond football. Normalising sexual violence in the pursuit of sporting success creates a dangerous precedent. It demonstrates that the occupation of talent is more important than accountability. And it is ridiculous to prioritise benefiting the national team temporarily. Principle is the foundation from which dignity derives its strength; when this is disregarded, a victim’s suffering becomes secondary.

It is an insult to the women’s game, women football fans, and all victims.

The argument that Greenwood and his partner have “moved on” is irrelevant. Additionally, Robson was nineteen years old at the time. The evidence shared on 30 January 2022 does not vanish simply because they have reconciled.

In fact, Deborah J Anderson states that, ‘women are more likely to return to abusive relationships if they are economically dependent on their partners.’4 Reconciliations do not change the reality of the past.

Forgiveness, chosen or not, does not negate the harm caused.

What should Football Clubs do?

Clubs have shown a willingness to protect players accused or charged with serious sexual offences. Some continue to field them while under investigation, and others knowingly acquire players with documented histories of abusive behaviour. In prioritising success, profit, and competitive gain, sporting institutions perpetuate the idea that success will inevitably grant immunity.

Dominique McRae, Dominic Crossley, and Jamie Hurtworth from Payne Hicks Beach, in their article “How football clubs manage criminal allegations against players”, suggest that clubs making decisive decisions based on the criminal justice stage is “too rigid” as clubs are not courts. They must outweigh legal obligations, reputational risk and safeguarding responsibilities. While this is understandable, the reality demonstrates a troubling inconsistency where reputation and commercial interests often supersede ethical considerations. Everton and Manchester United have shown examples of clubs that have suspended/terminated contracts with the players during the preliminary stages of their “cases,” whereas other clubs enabled players to continue playing despite ongoing investigations. These contrasting approaches highlight how decisions can be shaped by optics rather than principle.

Reform?

The article calls for reform. A reference to the “stand down” policy in Australia’s National Rugby League is a possible suggestion. This policy bans players from playing when charged with offences that “carry maximum jail sentences of 11 years or more if found guilty.” However, this may be difficult to implement as certain cases would presumably be treated differently, relative to the facts.

Alternatively, Walker Morris suggests a more pragmatic approach. They suggested that suspension should be limited to 14 days, which can be extended depending on case complexity. While this model recognises the legal constraints clubs face, this approach still remains limited in its ability to safeguard victims. A short and limited suspension for allegations reduces the safeguarding concerns to merely procedural inconveniences.

Conclusion

It is difficult to balance employment law protections in player contracts with ethical responsibilities towards victims of sexual violence. However, employment law requires improvement in its approach to situations of this nature. Legal compliance should be treated as a minimum standard, and ethical responsibility demands greater protection for those harmed by sexual violence. In instances where football is more penalising towards betting scandals or doping investigations, this inconsistency must be addressed. Although achieving the balance between law and ethics is complex, such difficulty cannot justify frameworks that disadvantage victims.

Ultimately, a balance must be found, and football clubs must confront whose interests they are choosing to protect. Football, let’s wake up.

Subscribe now

They say there is truth behind every joke, and while there have been comedic moments over the years, the wider narrative produced through meme culture has been going down a slippery slope.

AFCON has long been subject to dismissive commentary from parts of the football world. Remarks from Jamie Carragher claiming that AFCON is “not a major tournament”, and Joey Barton jumping to his defence and attesting to his statement, it reflects how African football has been belittled by sections of Western media for many years. These comments do not exist in isolation; they contribute to a narrative in which AFCON is consistently treated as inferior to other competitions.

One of the most common justifications used to undermine AFCON is its timing. In recent years, the tournament has taken place during the European domestic season, leading clubs and managers to express frustration about releasing players. A recent example is Cesc Fàbregas’ reluctance to allow Assane Diao to join Senegal for AFCON 2025. Fàbregas claimed that Diao “should not go to AFCON”, arguing that he was concerned about the risk of injury given the player had featured in only four matches over eight months. However, Diao was later played at club level for Como and suffered an injury in the 38th minute, a situation that caused significant frustration among Senegalese fans. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a wider pattern of resistance towards AFCON call-ups.

This unequal treatment has been acknowledged by figures within football itself. Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, Ian Wright stated in 2021 that: “people don’t really give any respect to the Africa Cup of Nations." He emphasises that African national teams are “just as important as the European ones”. Wright questioned why African players are treated differently by clubs when travelling for international duty, particularly in relation to when they are allowed to leave and when they are expected to return. His comments highlight how concerns about timing are often used as a justification to devalue AFCON rather than to address scheduling issues fairly.

Timing alone should not be used to paint AFCON in a negative light. The 2022 World Cup also took place during the domestic season. Even though domestic leagues were paused, it demonstrated that tournament football occurring in the midst of the football season is not unprecedented. The issue, therefore, is not the timing of AFCON.

Nevertheless, there are deeper and more systemic racial biases towards African football that shape these perceptions. This is evident in the analytical language used to describe Black players, where physical attributes are often emphasised over intellect and technical ability. Through this language, the perception of AFCON as a “serious tournament” is undermined, as Black African players are subjected to essentialist stereotypes that portray them as lacking tactical intelligence or technical quality. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu in his “Racialised Stereotypes of the African Player” paper observes that the archetypal African player is framed as a “specimen endowed primarily with special physical qualities” presented as faster and stronger than European players but supposedly “less technical and less focused on the goal”. He further explains that within the global football economy, physicality is treated as the “default setting” of the African player. This perception strips African players of skill and reduces their success to merely physical traits. It is the fundamental basis behind the dangerous rhetoric towards black African players.

These stereotypes are not limited to footballing analysis. Non-football-related racial assumptions were evident in Alan Sugar’s 2018 tweet about the Senegal national team, in which he compared the players to beach vendors. Although Sugar later apologised, the incident revealed how African footballers continue to be subjected to racialised and demeaning narratives in mainstream discourse. When African players are spoken about in this way, it becomes easier to dismiss AFCON as chaotic, unserious or inferior.

It is within this context that the memeification of AFCON becomes particularly harmful. While many AFCON memes have been harmless and some moments are genuinely funny, others contribute to the same dangerous tropes. On social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, ordinary in-game moments have been turned into viral jokes, with captions such as “AFCON is not real” or labelled as the “first meme of AFCON”. Moments such as players arguing with referees or minor officiating errors are treated as uniquely comedic, despite being common across football globally.

Many users actively seek out moments to mock rather than engage with the football itself. This behaviour undermines the prestige and objective of the competition and allows those who do not watch AFCON to form negative perceptions based solely on viral clips. This is particularly damaging given that AFCON represents the highest level of competition in African football.

This is not an attempt to dictate what audiences should or should not find funny. Humour itself is not the issue. The problem arises when these moments are framed as exclusive to AFCON, reinforcing the idea that incompetence only exists within African football. This selective ridicule feeds into longstanding narratives that already undermine the competition.

It is especially concerning when Africans themselves engage in this discourse, as the internalisation of these narratives further shape how the tournament is received globally. The memeification of AFCON does not exist in isolation; it reinforces deeper biases that continue to influence how African football is perceived.

This is not about assigning blame for who incites specific jokes. As mentioned prior, it’s true that many African football fans, ironically, engage in this behaviour. This cannot be denied nor understated.

My point remains clear: the constant perpetuation of desperate mockery by football fans contributes to a subconscious undermining of African football. This, in turn, shapes how AFCON is perceived globally. Such undermining has been evident in Western media coverage, and when irrelevant jokes circulate, they provide more ammo for ridicule. Ultimately, this damages the image and credibility of the tournament.

In conclusion, greater care is needed in how African tournaments are discussed and represented. While perceptions of AFCON have improved globally over the years, it remains a competition that is systematically dismissed and ridiculed, irrespective of some of the world’s best players taking part. The memeification of AFCON is not harmless entertainment; it reinforces implicit biases that continue to shape global football discourse.