Since I first found myself, as a high-profile footballer and England international, in the public eye one of the rules I have tried to live by is this: speak from a position of strength. I believe if a player speaks publicly, on any issue, while they are not performing well it will always enrage some fans and the power of their words will be lost. Supporters will think: “Focus on the pitch rather than on your pet cause.” Though some of the people Mesut Özil has angered by posting on social media about China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims won’t care particularly about his form, many will just be happy to have another excuse to criticise him.
It is not the first time Özil has been vocal when his career has not been going well. After last year’s World Cup, when Germany were humiliatingly eliminated in the group stages and he had been the subject of personal criticism for his poor performances and for posing for a photograph before the tournament with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, he claimed he had been subject to “racism and disrespect” as he announced his retirement from international football at 29. Again, this brought him more criticism.
But at worst it is only his timing that could be deemed problematic. Players have beliefs and ideals just like anybody else and so long as they are not discriminatory or offensive they have the right to express them without reprimand. They can use social media to bring attention to certain things that are going on in the game, but they are members of society too and should not be restricted to commenting on football. Özil should be able to say what he likes about the subjects he cares about – because everybody else certainly is and, sometimes, by speaking out, players can be a force for positive change.
Raheem Sterling started a massively important debate when he posted on Instagram about the treatment of black players in comparison to white players by the media. This was a perfect example of a player speaking from a position of strength: the treatment he was complaining about had been going on for years, but whether or not he consciously waited for this moment he did not make his frustration public until his team, and himself, were performing at the very highest level, so nobody could dismiss his comments as scapegoating or sour grapes. He could hardly have used the traditional media to make his point, given it was precisely what he was complaining about.
With social media he got his message out immediately, without risk of being misquoted and forced the newspapers to question their behaviour.
From Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists at the 1968 Olympics, to Billie Jean King and the fight for gender equality in tennis and, more recently, Colin Kaepernick’s protests about America’s treatment of minorities, sportspeople have used their platform to make their voices heard and have an effect on society. They cannot and should not be censored. Sometimes, they are the changemakers we need. There are many issues cultural figures can have way more impact on than politicians and history shows that it is worth players speaking up to support whatever cause they believe in.
In an era of social media nobody can be silenced. The media can no longer choose who has a right to speak. Megan Rapinoe has just won the Ballon d’Or and has repeatedly used her fame this year to speak out about politics, racism and homophobia in the game.
Rapinoe, Sterling, Jürgen Klopp and many others have taken stands on issues other than football and had a positive impact. I spoke to authority in the game, stood up for what I felt was right, and I’d like to think I came out of it with respect. A couple of years ago the charity Common Goal was launched, whose mission statement is to “unite the global football community in tackling the greatest social challenges of our time”. I am one of many players to have signed up to give 1% of our earnings to their charitable fund, but footballers can make a difference by effectively using their voices, as well as their money.
China’s treatment of the Uighurs has not received the attention in this country that it deserves. I think it has not helped Özil that the issue he is passionate about is one that is not on the radar of a lot of British people, and is not seen as being as relevant as British politics or British culture. People say that is why he should not be talking about it, but to me it is no different to talking about racism here, or supporting the people affected by the Grenfell fire. If he had complained about Arsenal having a gender pay gap, he’d have been applauded because that is a topic of debate here. But Özil is one of the most followed Muslim sportspeople on social media and he will be conscious of the pressure that brings. Given his background, it is no surprise this is an issue that affects him deeply. If the Uighurs are being discussed now in a way that they weren’t a week ago, Özil’s intervention has made a difference and has already been worthwhile.
Arsenal distanced themselves from their midfielder, insisting they “have always adhered to the principle of not involving itself in politics”. But they have made political decisions, in choosing who they are happy to affiliate themselves with. Is Arsenal’s sponsorship by the Rwandan government not political? Or Manchester City’s many connections to the United Arab Emirates? Should Barcelona have accepted sponsorship from Qatar Airways? What about the 10 current Premier League clubs who wear the logo of a gambling company on their shirts?
Clubs make political and moral decisions all the time, they just do it silently, by choosing to quietly accept money, wherever it comes from. There is an issue here of speaking from a position of moral strength. Clubs should be very careful indeed before they try to censor players or distance themselves from their own players’ voices, because when it comes to affiliations in modern football, nobody is clean.
