Gay footballers | Czech Republic international Jakub Jankto comes out as gay

[Rooney in Paris]

So apparently the issue is that he's a hypocrite. I don't disagree but most people are hypocrites and vast majority of people are not activists. Just because he supported a good cause it doesn't mean it should affect one of the biggest decisions in his life. I, like 99.99% of the people would have done the same. Comparing him to Mbappe is just silly.

Oh come on, surely you see the issue?

He can do whatever he wants, and he can face the consequences of that - which are as scathing as being called out by those advocacy groups and people from the community and being labelled a hypocrite, and being booed at Wembley. I'm sure he sleeps very well with the added millions to his bank account.

He also said he didn't go to Saudi because of the money.

He's a massive, massive hypocrite, and it's fine to call it out. And beyond that, these kind of behaviours can have a negative impact on advocacy issues (when it's so easy to turn someone from a cause as to offer a pile of cash, then yeah it's depressing for those causes).

 

[Rooney in Paris]

No, the issue is that he's not a perfect ally. If you're going to speak up for LGBTQ causes and further LGBTQ causes and offer words of encouragement to players who have publicly declared their sexuality, all that work goes down the drain if you go play in Saudi Arabia. It would be better if you never was an ally at all. The game is much better off with more players like Mane and Neves (who don't say anything), than players like Henderson (who say/do stuff and also play in Saudi Arabia).

So the logic goes.

Incredibly disingenuous but hardly surprising.

 

[BD]

No, the issue is that he's not a perfect ally. If you're going to speak up for LGBTQ causes and further LGBTQ causes and offer words of encouragement to players who have publicly declared their sexuality, all that work goes down the drain if you go play in Saudi Arabia. It would be better if you never was an ally at all. The game is much better off with more players like Mane and Neves (who don't say anything), than players like Henderson (who say/do stuff and also play in Saudi Arabia).

So the logic goes.

You talk some amount of shite on a range of issues. Impressive in a way

 

[adexkola]

You talk some amount of shite on a range of issues. Impressive in a way

We all can't camp in Werewolf threads all day, can we? Nice of you to get some sunlight and be triggered by another inconsequential post of mine

 

[Redlyn]

you can be supportive of certain cause until the point where it basically becomes a sacrifice for you. it doesn't mean you changed your views, it simply means the cause isn't worth losing the money for.

Pretty much.
Supporting a cause doesn't mean at all cost and where you each your limits doesn't necessarily invalidate all the support/ awareness you already provided to the issue.

 

[Alex99]

Anyone who read Henderson's interview with The Athletic should know how superficial his support of LGBT causes was, and how little he actually understands about the larger community and what happens to them in countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

"I wore the laces. What more do they want?" is almost a direct quote of his.

 

[BD]

We all can't camp in Werewolf threads all day, can we? Nice of you to get some sunlight and be triggered by another inconsequential post of mine

Right...

 

[adexkola]

Anyone who read Henderson's interview with The Athletic should know how superficial his support of LGBT causes was, and how little he actually understands about the larger community and what happens to them in countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

"I wore the laces. What more do they want?" is almost a direct quote of his.

I didn't get that vibe from the interview.

Crafton: This is something we heard a lot during the World Cup in Qatar, about having to respect the culture. When we talk about culture, I think of food, music, sport, art. And then I think about being a gay person, which is not something where you’ve woken up one day and decided you want to get into it. It’s something that you’re born as. You can’t change it. So, therefore, when people describe homosexuality as a culture, I think gay people really struggle with that because you’re basically being told you have to just accept living a life where you’re illegal.

Henderson: (Long pause) Now, I totally understand that. And I couldn’t imagine how that must feel. And that’s why I have so much sympathy and the last thing I want to do is to upset you or anyone who is part of the LGBTQ+ community. All I’ve ever tried to do is help. And when I’ve been asked for help, I’ve gone above and beyond to help. I’ve worn the laces. I’ve worn the armband. I’ve spoken to people in that community to try to use my profile to help them. That’s all I’ve ever tried to do. I’m not going to sit here saying, “Why are they criticising me?” I understand it. These are all the things I was thinking about, and I do care.

My take from this snippet of the interview (which is a good read in general), is that Henderson saw (and still sees) the LGBTQ cause as one worth fighting for. And the interviewer notes that he's actually put sincere effort into it, beyond generic quotes from football clubs that his peers rubber stamp. The laces and armband part was dim (that's bare minimum) but he seems to be someone that has genuinely offered support behind the scenes to different LGBT causes and organizations, in an effort to help, as an ally. Including calling a lower league/non-league player to offer support.

I'm just not getting the message "I've worn the laces, what the feck else do they want from me" from Henderson in this interview. He moved for the money, he sincerely supports LGBTQ people (no, playing in Saudi Arabia is not a litmus test), and as a result is in an awkward situation.

 

[Alex99]

I didn't get that vibe from the interview.



My take from this snippet of the interview (which is a good read in general), is that Henderson saw (and still sees) the LGBTQ cause as one worth fighting for. And the interviewer notes that he's actually put sincere effort into it, beyond generic quotes from football clubs that his peers rubber stamp. The laces and armband part was dim (that's bare minimum) but he seems to be someone that has genuinely offered support behind the scenes to different LGBT causes and organizations, in an effort to help, as an ally. Including calling a lower league/non-league player to offer support.

I'm just not getting the message "I've worn the laces, what the feck else do they want from me" from Henderson in this interview. He moved for the money, he sincerely supports LGBTQ people (no, playing in Saudi Arabia is not a litmus test), and as a result is in an awkward situation.

I think you're giving him far too much credit. Also, the interview was a complete car crash. I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve by doing it, other than, once again, demonstrating that he's never really understood the LGBT causes he's claimed to champion, or indeed why this community is upset that he moved to Saudi Arabia.

There's a whole bit where he basically says it'd be disrespectful for him to "wear the armband" or voice his (supposed) views in Saudi Arabia, with him repeating time and again that he believes his mere presence in the country as someone (supposedly) with these views was somehow good. This of course ignores the other side of that coin, in which the Saudis have managed to silence one of the only vocally LGBT supportive players.

However, and I think more telling of his actual understanding of the whole thing, was this bit:

I’m not a politician. I never have been and never wanted to be. I have never tried to change laws or rules in England, never mind in a different country where I’m not from. So I’m not saying that I’m going there to do that.

What exactly does he think he's been doing then, if not trying to drive change for these people? He hasn't a clue. His understanding begins and ends with "rainbow = good", but he even acknowledges (repeatedly) in that interview that he can't even go that far in Saudi Arabia, or he'll be seen as disrespectful.

As for the "laces" bit, I once again think you're giving him far too much credit. He claims to have "gone above and beyond to help" then his immediate examples are wearing rainbow accessories and speaking to people. There's no mention of him doing anything of any actual substance. There's obviously some benefit to having a high-profile sportsperson supporting your cause, even if it is only superficially, but that all goes out of the window a bit when their next career move is happily accepting money from a state that criminalises their very existence. It's all well and good him saying he does understand the criticism, but he's clearly not understood anything about his involvement in these causes.

Another example of his incredible lack of understanding was when he started talking about Qatar. He says something along the lines of, "everyone said it was horrible, but we went there and only saw good things." The interviewer then points out that they would have been shown a very manufactured, carefully staged image of the country, and his response his essentially, "yeah, but I had a good time."

I actually think he'd have been better off admitting that he went for the money, but in that very interview he denies that he did, and instead waffles a bit about building something and driving change (despite not saying or doing anything to drive such change).

To give him the benefit of the doubt, let's say he was and is very sincere in his support for LGBT causes. I don't think that really changes anything when it's clear he doesn't really understand them. Many see his superficial support as about as useful as no support.

 

[shoom]

I think you're giving him far too much credit. Also, the interview was a complete car crash. I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve by doing it, other than, once again, demonstrating that he's never really understood the LGBT causes he's claimed to champion, or indeed why this community is upset that he moved to Saudi Arabia.

There's a whole bit where he basically says it'd be disrespectful for him to "wear the armband" or voice his (supposed) views in Saudi Arabia, with him repeating time and again that he believes his mere presence in the country as someone (supposedly) with these views was somehow good. This of course ignores the other side of that coin, in which the Saudis have managed to silence one of the only vocally LGBT supportive players.

However, and I think more telling of his actual understanding of the whole thing, was this bit:



What exactly does he think he's been doing then, if not trying to drive change for these people? He hasn't a clue. His understanding begins and ends with "rainbow = good", but he even acknowledges (repeatedly) in that interview that he can't even go that far in Saudi Arabia, or he'll be seen as disrespectful.

As for the "laces" bit, I once again think you're giving him far too much credit. He claims to have "gone above and beyond to help" then his immediate examples are wearing rainbow accessories and speaking to people. There's no mention of him doing anything of any actual substance. There's obviously some benefit to having a high-profile sportsperson supporting your cause, even if it is only superficially, but that all goes out of the window a bit when their next career move is happily accepting money from a state that criminalises their very existence. It's all well and good him saying he does understand the criticism, but he's clearly not understood anything about his involvement in these causes.

Another example of his incredible lack of understanding was when he started talking about Qatar. He says something along the lines of, "everyone said it was horrible, but we went there and only saw good things." The interviewer then points out that they would have been shown a very manufactured, carefully staged image of the country, and his response his essentially, "yeah, but I had a good time."

I actually think he'd have been better off admitting that he went for the money, but in that very interview he denies that he did, and instead waffles a bit about building something and driving change (despite not saying or doing anything to drive such change).

To give him the benefit of the doubt, let's say he was and is very sincere in his support for LGBT causes. I don't think that really changes anything when it's clear he doesn't really understand them. Many see his superficial support as about as useful as no support.

Yes, exactly my thoughts on it, very well put. I'd even go further and point out that he will have benefitted financially from his association with the various causes he has championed. His well-manicured image is (or was at least) more marketable to his paying sponsors as a result of his high profile association with LGBT causes and with the NHS . That's not to deny the positive impact he will have had or to assume that he didn't have the right intentions himself when attaching himself to these worthy causes.

But to try and spin the lie that he's acting as some kind of underground agent of change in Saudi when he's too weak to do anything but equivocate when challenged on it takes the absolute piss.

 

[adexkola]

I think you're giving him far too much credit. Also, the interview was a complete car crash. I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve by doing it, other than, once again, demonstrating that he's never really understood the LGBT causes he's claimed to champion, or indeed why this community is upset that he moved to Saudi Arabia.

There's a whole bit where he basically says it'd be disrespectful for him to "wear the armband" or voice his (supposed) views in Saudi Arabia, with him repeating time and again that he believes his mere presence in the country as someone (supposedly) with these views was somehow good. This of course ignores the other side of that coin, in which the Saudis have managed to silence one of the only vocally LGBT supportive players.

However, and I think more telling of his actual understanding of the whole thing, was this bit:



What exactly does he think he's been doing then, if not trying to drive change for these people? He hasn't a clue. His understanding begins and ends with "rainbow = good", but he even acknowledges (repeatedly) in that interview that he can't even go that far in Saudi Arabia, or he'll be seen as disrespectful.

As for the "laces" bit, I once again think you're giving him far too much credit. He claims to have "gone above and beyond to help" then his immediate examples are wearing rainbow accessories and speaking to people. There's no mention of him doing anything of any actual substance. There's obviously some benefit to having a high-profile sportsperson supporting your cause, even if it is only superficially, but that all goes out of the window a bit when their next career move is happily accepting money from a state that criminalises their very existence. It's all well and good him saying he does understand the criticism, but he's clearly not understood anything about his involvement in these causes.

Another example of his incredible lack of understanding was when he started talking about Qatar. He says something along the lines of, "everyone said it was horrible, but we went there and only saw good things." The interviewer then points out that they would have been shown a very manufactured, carefully staged image of the country, and his response his essentially, "yeah, but I had a good time."

I actually think he'd have been better off admitting that he went for the money, but in that very interview he denies that he did, and instead waffles a bit about building something and driving change (despite not saying or doing anything to drive such change).

To give him the benefit of the doubt, let's say he was and is very sincere in his support for LGBT causes. I don't think that really changes anything when it's clear he doesn't really understand them. Many see his superficial support as about as useful as no support.

Oh I was just assuming he went for the money. I don't buy that he went there to drive change for one bit. That never made any sense. I don't dispute that he lacks some level of understanding, certainly. And he doesn't look like he's sophisticated enough to latch onto a popular cause for fame, so yes I'd say I've given him a huge benefit of the doubt on this issue.

I think the level of push back from many indicates that his level of support went beyond superficial. If that's not the case, why bother with his move? From the (what I would consider as) disproportionate coverage of his move there, I'd say that even in his limited understanding he did have some substantial level of impact, beyond the average footballer who just doesn't give a feck either way.

 

[calodo2003]

I wish I could find that gif of Henderson from a few years back looking completely befuddled as though Rodgers asked him to explain string theory to the team.

 

[11101]

Its very hypocritical of Henderson going to Saudi but I don't see why this guy feels like he's owed something from him.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

Its very hypocritical of Henderson going to Saudi but I don't see why this guy feels like he's owed something from him.

I think the thought is that when you very publicly hold yourself out to be an ally and advocate for a cause, that comes with certain obligations and expectations regarding your behavior. He probably feels personally aggrieved, given that he has personally interacted with these people, but it is also about the cause. The cause and the people affected thereby are owed these obligations because the most effective advocacy and the seriousness of the underlying issue demand them and, given the high visibility of Henderson as an advocate, any behavior that can easily be construed as running contrary to or undermining the message he puts forth as a public advocate can be deemed injurious to the efficacy of the cause as a whole. Taken out of this context, it was a similar phenomenon when celebrities and politicians would preach one thing about COVID and their private behavior would not align with that which they were suggesting for others. Why should the general populace do or believe a certain thing if these public advocates cannot even do it themselves?

Theoretically, there may be a way to reconcile the individual behavior with the thrust of the cause or to argue that such public advocacy is still a net gain even coupled with private action that might blunt its force, but it just makes it harder. Is it a reasonable expectation that public advocates will always privately (or even publicly) act in such a way that aligns with the causes they champion? Debatable, but probably not. Would most people in Henderson's shoes take the money like he has done? Probably. But I think the general principle is well founded that once you assume the mantle of being a public advocate, certain additional obligations and standards attach to your behavior.

 

[11101]

I think the thought is that when you very publicly hold yourself out to be an ally and advocate for a cause, that comes with certain obligations and expectations regarding your behavior. He probably feels personally aggrieved, given that he has personally interacted with these people, but it is also about the cause. The cause and the people affected thereby are owed these obligations because the most effective advocacy and the seriousness of the underlying issue demand them and, given the high visibility of Henderson as an advocate, any behavior that can easily be construed as running contrary to or undermining the message he puts forth as a public advocate can be deemed injurious to the efficacy of the cause as a whole. Taken out of this context, it was a similar phenomenon when celebrities and politicians would preach one thing about COVID and their private behavior would not align with that which they were suggesting for others. Why should the general populace do or believe a certain thing if these public advocates cannot even do it themselves?

Theoretically, there may be a way to reconcile the individual behavior with the thrust of the cause or to argue that such public advocacy is still a net gain even coupled with private action that might blunt its force, but it just makes it harder. Is it a reasonable expectation that public advocates will always privately (or even publicly) act in such a way that aligns with the causes they champion? Debatable, but probably not. Would most people in Henderson's shoes take the money like he has done? Probably. But I think the general principle is well founded that once you assume the mantle of being a public advocate, certain additional obligations and standards attach to your behavior.

See I never thought he was a public advocate so maybe thats why i view it differently, i had him as a footballer doing what his PR people tell him to do. I doubt many of them care much about the causes they put their faces to.

 

[Bole Top]

Henderson believes that gays should never be persecuted, just like other less vocal players. that's it. nothing changed with his beliefs, but the thing is, people obviously expected him and other players to reject jobs just because they agree on particular topic. he's still the same person, he just isn't what certain groups wanted him to be. he didn't make a certain sacrifice when he had a chance so now agreeing with the cause doesn't count anymore.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

See I never thought he was a public advocate so maybe thats why i view it differently, i had him as a footballer doing what his PR people tell him to do. I doubt many of them care much about the causes they put their faces to.

I mean, it's a cynical take but you're probably not wrong. Other people may attach more meaning when a big time, world class, generational, superstar talent like Jordan Henderson attaches their name to a cause near and dear to them.

 

[SilentWitness]

It sounds like Gerrard and Henderson made it personal with Daniels in terms of their support so it's no surprise he feels aggrieved.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I think you're giving him far too much credit.

He is - because he's done his usual thing of taking a contrarian position and trying to back it up with nonsensical arguments.

The reality is that it was a terrible interview which Henderson came out terribly from, and Crafton who seems like a nice guy in general just seemed very awkward about the whole thing and couldn't help himself from being critical despite clearly not wanting to take the gloves off.

 

[Rnd898]

Agreed he’s a hypocrite.
However at his age I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same. A footballers career is short

The career is short but the earnings at the top level are obscene. Henderson earned a minimum of £60M in wages during his time at Liverpool and that's just the basic salary over the years without even taking into account any bonuses or personal sponsorship deals, which realistically should add up to tens of millions as well. Take away taxes and he's still looking at £50M+ net career earnings before he went to Saudi-Arabia and he still had two lears left in his previous Liverpool contract that would have guaranteed him at least another £10M net if he'd stayed. If all that wasn't enough for him and his family to live in luxury for the rest of their lives then he's a moron.

The only thing the Saudi move changed for him is now he can afford to be a dumb idiot with his money and still never have to worry about running out but it's not like this new Saudi money will open doors for him that financially weren't available before.

I don't particularly blame Henderson for the cash grab but he should at the very least own it by admitting the offer was simply too good to turn down instead of outright lying about his reasons for going there.

 

[Alex99]

I think the level of push back from many indicates that his level of support went beyond superficial. If that's not the case, why bother with his move? From the (what I would consider as) disproportionate coverage of his move there, I'd say that even in his limited understanding he did have some substantial level of impact, beyond the average footballer who just doesn't give a feck either way.

Again, too much credit is being given. It's quite evident from the interview that he believed attaching his face/name to the cause was a tangible contribution. He literally admits that he's never tried to "change laws or rules".

I'd argue that the groups and individuals he's associated with are so disappointed precisely because his only contribution has been a superficial involvement. Such involvement is only great as long as his actions don't directly conflict with the cause, which a move to Saudi definitely does.

You can tell from the number of times he brings up his presence in Saudi "as a person who holds these views" as "a positive thing" that he had responses prepared ahead of time, and yet the best he could come up with to demonstrate his support was wearing laces and having a chat.

He is - because he's done his usual thing of taking a contrarian position and trying to back it up with nonsensical arguments.

The reality is that it was a terrible interview which Henderson came out terribly from, and Crafton who seems like a nice guy in general just seemed very awkward about the whole thing and couldn't help himself from being critical despite clearly not wanting to take the gloves off.

The bit where Crafton goes "I don't know" after what felt like the 50th time Henderson asked if it was not "a positive thing" that he was in Saudi Arabia and not a rampant homophobe perfectly encapsulated the awkwardness.

As did the bit where Crafton points out that Henderson's experience of Qatar will have been curated, and he wouldn't have been shown the bad bits, and Henderson just goes "yeah, well I enjoyed it."

I said it upthread, but I genuinely think Henderson would have been better off coming out and saying something like "I'm in the latter stages of my career and I'm never going to get an opportunity to earn this level of money for my family again. I understand the disappointment from LGBT supporters and groups that I've championed, and I want them to know that I'll continue to engage with their causes and donate X amount of my wage to charities, etc."

Denying he's gone for the money and trying to downplay how much he's earning there (and going as far to imply he doesn't know because he doesn't handle that side of it), then claiming to have "gone above and beyond to help" LGBT causes and citing wearing rainbow laces as a prime example of such "help", then going on to say he's never actually tried to change laws or rules so he certainly won't be doing it Saudi because it'd be "disrespectful", were probably among the worst things he could have said in an interview designed to repair his image and relationship with fans that felt let down.

 

[adexkola]

Again, too much credit is being given. It's quite evident from the interview that he believed attaching his face/name to the cause was a tangible contribution. He literally admits that he's never tried to "change laws or rules".

I'd argue that the groups and individuals he's associated with are so disappointed precisely because his only contribution has been a superficial involvement. Such involvement is only great as long as his actions don't directly conflict with the cause, which a move to Saudi definitely does.

You can tell from the number of times he brings up his presence in Saudi "as a person who holds these views" as "a positive thing" that he had responses prepared ahead of time, and yet the best he could come up with to demonstrate his support was wearing laces and having a chat.

He's lived and played most of his career in the UK. There are no rules or laws against LGBTQ people there. It's the stigma around it in football that's present, which is why coming out as a footballer is still an event in 2023. So to us, laces and slogans and reaching out may be superficial, but to get to the point where LGBTQ people and people is completely normalized in all aspects of life in the UK, well that's a part of it. Saudi Arabia is a different story but we agree he has a lot of learning to do

You say I'm giving him too much credit. I could plead guilty to that. Conversely, I'd say those bent on giving him disproportionate flack are trying too hard to paint him as a villain. Which doesn't make sense, especially when juxtaposed against the vast majority of footballers who don't even bother with being allies. Tactically, doesn't make from my pov to excoriate the few who've shown some willingness to further a deserving cause.

But agree to disagree on this one.

 

[rimaldo]

get off henderson’s back. you can still be not racist and go to a klan rally if the money’s good.

 

[Alex99]

He's lived and played most of his career in the UK. There are no rules or laws against LGBTQ people there. It's the stigma around it in football that's present, which is why coming out as a footballer is still an event in 2023. So to us, laces and slogans and reaching out may be superficial, but to get to the point where LGBTQ people and people is completely normalized in all aspects of life in the UK, well that's a part of it. Saudi Arabia is a different story but we agree he has a lot of learning to do

You say I'm giving him too much credit. I could plead guilty to that. Conversely, I'd say those bent on giving him disproportionate flack are trying too hard to paint him as a villain. Which doesn't make sense, especially when juxtaposed against the vast majority of footballers who don't even bother with being allies. Tactically, doesn't make from my pov to excoriate the few who've shown some willingness to further a deserving cause.

But agree to disagree on this one.

What flack is he actually getting though?

Most of what I've seen has been expressions of disappointment, which are very fair, and accusations of hypocrisy, which are also fair.

I wouldn't say anything has been disproportionate.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

get off henderson’s back. you can still be not racist and go to a klan rally if the money’s good.

What flack is he actually getting though?

Most of what I've seen has been expressions of disappointment, which are very fair, and accusations of hypocrisy, which are also fair.

I wouldn't say anything has been disproportionate.

Everything that has been said about him, taking the job in Saudi, and the interview is entirely fair and I would argue incredibly moderate. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. He's getting just criticism for his actions. He's not exactly been canceled or demonized. He did what he did and it's fine to call him out about it.

 

[Rista]

Oh come on, surely you see the issue?

The only issue that I see is people expecting too much from someone like him. He's not a LGBT rights activist. He mainly supported LGBT people in football and that's it, no? If advocating for a cause "brings certain obligations and expectations" from a person then maybe that's the reason why more people aren't doing it. Especially if those obligations include rejecting the biggest contract in your life solely based on where the employer is from. It's kind of like spreading awareness on climate change issues. Sure, if you're driving a big car you're a bit of a hypocrite but it doesn't mean you should be cycling to work or your message is worthless otherwise either. Henderson going to Saudi Arabia to play football doesn't mean his opinions on LGBT people have changed in any way.

 

[Mike Smalling]

The only issue that I see is people expecting too much from someone like him. He's not a LGBT rights activist. He mainly supported LGBT people in football and that's it, no? If advocating for a cause "brings certain obligations and expectations" from a person then maybe that's the reason why more people aren't doing it. Especially if those obligations include rejecting the biggest contract in your life solely based on where the employer is from. It's kind of like spreading awareness on climate change issues. Sure, if you're driving a big car you're a bit of a hypocrite but it doesn't mean you should be cycling to work or your message is worthless otherwise either. Henderson going to Saudi Arabia to play football doesn't mean his opinions on LGBT people have changed in any way.

No, it means he was fine with completely ignoring those opinions for a big payday. The owner of Henderson's club Al-Ettifaq is listed as the Saudi Ministry of Sports. His employer is basically the same government, which outlaws all homosexual activity.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Jordan Henderson.

 

[Spark]

The only issue that I see is people expecting too much from someone like him. He's not a LGBT rights activist. He mainly supported LGBT people in football and that's it, no? If advocating for a cause "brings certain obligations and expectations" from a person then maybe that's the reason why more people aren't doing it. Especially if those obligations include rejecting the biggest contract in your life solely based on where the employer is from. It's kind of like spreading awareness on climate change issues. Sure, if you're driving a big car you're a bit of a hypocrite but it doesn't mean you should be cycling to work or your message is worthless otherwise either. Henderson going to Saudi Arabia to play football doesn't mean his opinions on LGBT people have changed in any way.

That's exactly the reason why more people aren't doing it, because it does bring certain obligations and expectations. E.g. not going to work in a country that is stands in violent opposition to what you supposedly believe in.

Whilst I don't agree with what Henderson has done personally, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with working in Saudi Arabia vs anywhere else in the world. You can poke holes in almost any country (although Saudi more than most admittedly).

However, when you have purposefully put yourself out there as an ally of a certain group and then decide to go and work in a place that specifically persecutes that very same group shows that, for Henderson, his support had a specific price. He is trading in his support for cash, effectively bought off.

That, to me, is a pretty hypocritical and selfish move.

 

[adexkola]

That's exactly the reason why more people aren't doing it, because it does bring certain obligations and expectations. E.g. not going to work in a country that is stands in violent opposition to what you supposedly believe in.

Whilst I don't agree with what Henderson has done personally, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with working in Saudi Arabia vs anywhere else in the world. You can poke holes in almost any country (although Saudi more than most admittedly).

However, when you have purposefully put yourself out there as an ally of a certain group and then decide to go and work in a place that specifically persecutes that very same group shows that, for Henderson, his support had a specific price. He is trading in his support for cash, effectively bought off.

That, to me, is a pretty hypocritical and selfish move.

The bolded only applies if he never ever says a word about LGBTQ rights ever again, or now becomes neutral/antagonist on the topic, turning into a bigot. As of now, it seems all he has done is not speak about such topics in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Alex99]

The bolded only applies if he never ever says a word about LGBTQ rights ever again, or now becomes neutral/antagonist on the topic, turning into a bigot.

He literally says in the interview you quoted that he won't say anything (at least while he's in Saudi) because he doesn't want to be disrespectful.

They have quite literally bought his silence on it.

 

[Spark]

The bolded only applies if he never ever says a word about LGBTQ rights ever again, or now becomes neutral/antagonist on the topic, turning into a bigot. As of now, it seems all he has done is not speak about such topics in Saudi Arabia.

He has become neutral on the topic by the fact he is now not speaking about it. You're describing a situation where Henderson is picking and choosing when he decides to support a "cause", in this case due to financial implications. Those financial implications are he won't be able to play in Saudi Arabia and earn £700k per week.

Therefore, he has been bought in quite a literal sense.

 

[adexkola]

He literally says in the interview you quoted that he won't say anything (at least while he's in Saudi) because he doesn't want to be disrespectful.

They have quite literally bought his silence on it.

That applies to everyone visiting Saudi Arabia (or the Middle East). Don't say anything about it. "Respect our culture" (a ridiculous suggestion, we can all agree on that).

But when I'm in Dubai I don't do or say certain things. Not because I'm suddenly a bigot or because I now think different, but because I want to make it back to a regular society without any issues where I can smoke weed/openly support LGBTQ rights

The assumption is that they actively seek out LGBTQ advocates in football and look to silence them by inviting them to play in Saudi Arabia for loads of money. I'm assuming otherwise, that his silence is a benign byproduct of going for the highest bidder to a place where you can't speak about such things while there, unless you want to risk the end of your lucrative contract.

 

[Alex99]

That applies to everyone visiting Saudi Arabia (or the Middle East). Don't say anything about it. "Respect our culture" (a ridiculous suggestion, we can all agree on that).

But when I'm in Dubai I don't do or say certain things. Not because I'm suddenly a bigot or because I now think different, but because I want to make it back to a regular society without any issues where I can smoke weed/openly support LGBTQ rights

The assumption is that they actively seek out LGBTQ advocates in football and look to silence them by inviting them to play in Saudi Arabia for loads of money. I'm assuming otherwise, that his silence is a benign byproduct of going for the highest bidder to a place where you can't speak about such things while there, unless you want to risk the end of your lucrative contract.

This isn't about me or you visiting or even working in a country.

This is about a millionaire footballer, captain of one of the world's most popular teams, positioning himself as a supporter and advocate of LGBT rights and causes, going as far to claim that he has "gone above and beyond to help", turning around and accepting even more money than the massive amounts he was already earning to move to a country where the very existence of the people he claims to support and advocate for is illegal.

I'm also not suggesting he was deliberately targeted because they wanted to silence his views, it's just a nice side effect for the Saudis that this project has silenced someone claiming to support LGBT people. His silence has been bought, regardless of whether that was a motivating factor behind his contract offer.

It's really not hard to understand why a high-profile sportsperson, that had previously aligned himself with a marginalised group, accepting a chunk of money to compete in a country where that very group are treated as criminals for merely existing, has been met with a degree of backlash. Backlash, that it should be noted, doesn't actually extend much further than very fair expressions of disappointment and fair and factual accusations of hypocrisy. The latter is especially true when you consider his framing of the Saudi treatment of LGBT people as being a culture worthy of respect. No one forced him to move there.

He's not a bigot for moving there, but he can't have his cake and eat it either.

 

[adexkola]

This isn't about me or you visiting or even working in a country.

This is about a millionaire footballer, captain of one of the world's most popular teams, positioning himself as a supporter and advocate of LGBT rights and causes, going as far to claim that he has "gone above and beyond to help", turning around and accepting even more money than the massive amounts he was already earning to move to a country where the very existence of the people he claims to support and advocate for is illegal.

I'm also not suggesting he was deliberately targeted because they wanted to silence his views, it's just a nice side effect for the Saudis that this project has silenced someone claiming to support LGBT people. His silence has been bought, regardless of whether that was a motivating factor behind his contract offer.

It's really not hard to understand why a high-profile sportsperson, that had previously aligned himself with a marginalised group, accepting a chunk of money to compete in a country where that very group are treated as criminals for merely existing, has been met with a degree of backlash. Backlash, that it should be noted, doesn't actually extend much further than very fair expressions of disappointment and fair and factual accusations of hypocrisy. The latter is especially true when you consider his framing of the Saudi treatment of LGBT people as being a culture worthy of respect. No one forced him to move there.

He's not a bigot for moving there, but he can't have his cake and eat it either.

I think it just comes down to us viewing his move to Saudi Arabia in different ways. To me it's "ok, money move, doesn't erase any good work he's done, and doesn't do any additional harm". To you and some others it's a betrayal of everything he's (superficially) stood for prior, and it's part of a wider play (not you specifically, just summing up the rhetoric I've seen in general). And I get how if you are in the latter camp, the rhetoric seems balanced and fair. I'm not going to say it's been a complete travesty and he's a victim of a witch hunt. I'd say it's just been disproportionate considering he's an actual ally (a dumb and imperfect one, sure), and this doesn't encourage more players to join the cause.

I made the point crudely in another thread a few months ago, but regarding the bolded, I'd feel the same as you about this if the move came with some negative tangible impact (direct or indirect) on LGBTQ people in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. That would be the red line for me.

 

[Rob]

If were to guess, having the guy who captained Liverpool for 10 years throughout it’s most succesful period in ages say this about the rainbow laces campaign:

“The campaign is something that has grown each season since it was first introduced. I can only really speak for myself when I say that it has made an impact in raising my own awareness on the subject. Each season when it comes around it makes me stop and think about how much further football in particular needs to go before the game can consider itself properly inclusive”

And

“But I do believe when you see something that is clearly wrong and makes another human being feel excluded you should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them.”

Would be a net positive for those experiencing abuse, because, rightly or wrongly, Henderson is a role model for millions.

For him to then go promote a country and a league where lgbtq people aren’t allowed because it pays well is absolutely a net negative for those same people.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I think it just comes down to us viewing his move to Saudi Arabia in different ways. To me it's "ok, money move, doesn't erase any good work he's done, and doesn't do any additional harm". To you and some others it's a betrayal of everything he's (superficially) stood for prior, and it's part of a wider play (not you specifically, just summing up the rhetoric I've seen in general). And I get how if you are in the latter camp, the rhetoric seems balanced and fair. I'm not going to say it's been a complete travesty and he's a victim of a witch hunt. I'd say it's just been disproportionate considering he's an actual ally (a dumb and imperfect one, sure), and this doesn't encourage more players to join the cause.

I made the point crudely in another thread a few months ago, but regarding the bolded, I'd feel the same as you about this if the move came with some negative tangible impact (direct or indirect) on LGBTQ people in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. That would be the red line for me.

He's not an ally. Well, isn't anymore. His actions have ensured that.

 

[maniak]

"I would absolutely flip on something that I believe in in exchange for money, so every other person must be like me" is always an interesting argument. It's like people are trying to convince themselves they're not cnuts.