Is there place for conscience in football?

[RobertRosariosBeefTomatoes 31]

I want to keep it short rather than rambling but the point I want to highlight is the furor of the BK8 sponsorship deal at the start of the season.

It was made incredibly clear that after the outrage surrounding the sponsor's Instagram by the club's hierarchy that the Lotus deal would equate to considerably lower finances for this season. It's almost inevitable that a large proportion of fans complaining about lack of signings are also those who were aware of the moral trade off. 

This then goes towards the envious glances towards the North East and the clamor for Norwich to seek out similar investment despite the extreme human rights question marks over this regime.

The main question is, as fans is there a place for conscience in football when competing at the top table? Would Norwich fans genuinely seek to do anything to make sure such a takeover didn't happen or does the end justify the means?

Edited February 1, 2022 by RobertRosariosBeefTomatoes

[Bonzo 198]

No. But there is a place for virtue signalling. 

So out of all of the players who virtue signal weekly down on one knee how many do you imagine will be thrilled to play at the world cup hosted by a country that treats women like second class citizens, outlaws homosexuality and which only banned slavery in 1952?

Not one will refuse to go because of their conscience.  Every player who takes the knee and gets on that plane is making a display of their own moral bankruptcy and the shallowness of their own superficial virtue. 

My guess is there wont be one conscientious objector among them (unless he's injured or dropped).  

These multi millionaire players will leave their army of PRs to square the moral circle on this and to create a more appealing narrative such as their flying to Qatar means a poor kid gets a sandwich or suchlike or that it is racist to not have a world cup in the Arabic world etc. 

The FA will look the other way- despite the position that supporting this world cup puts them in with regards to the women's game.

It was the same with the sale of Newcastle United. 

Virtue signalling is good for the brand and part of the rather narcissistic world we live in, but actual conscience?

That will cost you money. 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Doubt it. I think there were some small protests at Newcastle but the inevitable happened.

If the same happened to us, I guarantee the same would happen. Quotes of "not really happy BUT . . ".

Football is one of the most self centred, bigoted, small minded parts of our life and its getting worse.

[cambridgeshire canary 7,932]

37 minutes ago, Bonzo said:

No. But there is a place for virtue signalling. 

So out of all of the players who virtue signal weekly down on one knee how many do you imagine will be thrilled to play at the world cup hosted by a country that treats women like second class citizens, outlaws homosexuality and which only banned slavery in 1952?

Not one will refuse to go because of their conscience.  Every player who takes the knee and gets on that plane is making a display of their own moral bankruptcy and the shallowness of their own superficial virtue. 

My guess is there wont be one conscientious objector among them (unless he's injured or dropped).  

These multi millionaire players will leave their army of PRs to square the moral circle on this and to create a more appealing narrative such as their flying to Qatar means a poor kid gets a sandwich or suchlike or that it is racist to not have a world cup in the Arabic world etc. 

The FA will look the other way- despite the position that supporting this world cup puts them in with regards to the women's game.

It was the same with the sale of Newcastle United. 

Virtue signalling is good for the brand and part of the rather narcissistic world we live in, but actual conscience?

That will cost you money. 

 

Money my friend, money. Why do you think famous celebs like let's say John Cena are happy to talk about how great China is, learn the language, advertise all their products and movies over there? Why do you think they are then so very quick to release a video applogising and begging for forgiveness for calling Taiwan a country? Why are they so quick to do all of this while in a country that has concentration camps for minorities?

 

Money my friend, money. It always wins in the end.

Edited February 1, 2022 by cambridgeshire canary

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

For some people the answer is 'yes'.

Raith Rovers have lost a sponsor and supporter (the author Val McDermid) and the captain of their women's team has quit due to them signing David Goodwillie.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/val-mcdermid-ends-lifelong-support-of-raith-rovers-and-sponsorship-over-david-goodwillie-signing-3549838 

The move comes after the club signed striker David Goodwillie who was ruled to be a rapist in a civil court case in 2016

[Ray 111]

The answer to the OP is yes, because the game is run by humans, all humans have a conscience, however, it may be that the conscience of some may not sit comfortably with the conscience of others, such is life, and yes the end justifies the means, if your conscience says it does??

[Haus 267]

3 hours ago, Bonzo said:

No. But there is a place for virtue signalling. 

So out of all of the players who virtue signal weekly down on one knee how many do you imagine will be thrilled to play at the world cup hosted by a country that treats women like second class citizens, outlaws homosexuality and which only banned slavery in 1952?

Not one will refuse to go because of their conscience.  Every player who takes the knee and gets on that plane is making a display of their own moral bankruptcy and the shallowness of their own superficial virtue. 

My guess is there wont be one conscientious objector among them (unless he's injured or dropped).  

These multi millionaire players will leave their army of PRs to square the moral circle on this and to create a more appealing narrative such as their flying to Qatar means a poor kid gets a sandwich or suchlike or that it is racist to not have a world cup in the Arabic world etc. 

The FA will look the other way- despite the position that supporting this world cup puts them in with regards to the women's game.

It was the same with the sale of Newcastle United. 

Virtue signalling is good for the brand and part of the rather narcissistic world we live in, but actual conscience?

That will cost you money. 

 

Also the 6500 deaths of the trapped foreign workers who built the stadiums with their passports confiscated so they couldn't leave.....

[wcorkcanary 4,839]

Football is a  beautiful  game, but a very ugly  business. 

[cornish sam 1,058]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

For some people the answer is 'yes'.

Raith Rovers have lost a sponsor and supporter (the author Val McDermid) and the captain of their women's team has quit due to them signing David Goodwillie.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/val-mcdermid-ends-lifelong-support-of-raith-rovers-and-sponsorship-over-david-goodwillie-signing-3549838 

The move comes after the club signed striker David Goodwillie who was ruled to be a rapist in a civil court case in 2016

So David goodwillie was actually a very naughty willy?

 

 

Sorry, I'll get my coat

[hertfordyellow 462]

6 hours ago, RobertRosariosBeefTomatoes said:

I want to keep it short rather than rambling but the point I want to highlight is the furor of the BK8 sponsorship deal at the start of the season.

It was made incredibly clear that after the outrage surrounding the sponsor's Instagram by the club's hierarchy that the Lotus deal would equate to considerably lower finances for this season. It's almost inevitable that a large proportion of fans complaining about lack of signings are also those who were aware of the moral trade off. 

This then goes towards the envious glances towards the North East and the clamor for Norwich to seek out similar investment despite the extreme human rights question marks over this regime.

The main question is, as fans is there a place for conscience in football when competing at the top table? Would Norwich fans genuinely seek to do anything to make sure such a takeover didn't happen or does the end justify the means?

Some people were upset by Webber's comments on the BK8 situation. The truth is what he said (although bluntly) was correct, this will hit our ability to finance the team. Was the difference 5-10 million? 

I can understand that fans are less than happy with the BK8 branding. I can understand Webber being frustrated by the funding gap. Both can be right for different reasons.

I think there is room for conscience as long as there is a clear view of what a conscience costs in terms of competitiveness. For me I support a club not a first team or a 'Premiership team'. I wouldn't want all conscience to be sacrificed to make the first team successful, I don't want empty virtue signalling either. I guess I want us to soberly access each time there is an ethical / competitive trade off and make the right decision based on the circumstances.

 

[PurpleCanary 6,463]

7 hours ago, RobertRosariosBeefTomatoes said:

I want to keep it short rather than rambling but the point I want to highlight is the furor of the BK8 sponsorship deal at the start of the season.

It was made incredibly clear that after the outrage surrounding the sponsor's Instagram by the club's hierarchy that the Lotus deal would equate to considerably lower finances for this season. It's almost inevitable that a large proportion of fans complaining about lack of signings are also those who were aware of the moral trade off. 

This then goes towards the envious glances towards the North East and the clamor for Norwich to seek out similar investment despite the extreme human rights question marks over this regime.

The main question is, as fans is there a place for conscience in football when competing at the top table? Would Norwich fans genuinely seek to do anything to make sure such a takeover didn't happen or does the end justify the means?

Yes.

[GenerationA47 868]

2 hours ago, cornish sam said:

So David goodwillie was actually a very naughty willy?

Which only goes to show up differences in interpretation. I don't think 'very naughty' really does justice to the act of sexual violence in question, even in the context of a joke. 

[cornish sam 1,058]

24 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

Which only goes to show up differences in interpretation. I don't think 'very naughty' really does justice to the act of sexual violence in question, even in the context of a joke. 

You are of course right and I did question whether I should have posted that regardless of the punality of his name...

[Alex 26]

There should be space for conscience in every form of life I don't see why football is any different. The problem is most people in football have no values and morals.

[Naturalcynic 817]

35 minutes ago, Alex said:

There should be space for conscience in every form of life I don't see why football is any different. The problem is most people in football have no values and morals.

Most people have values and morals, until those values and morals start to affect them adversely.  In other words it’s easy to moralise about things that have no impact on you.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[paddycanary 583]

2 hours ago, cornish sam said:

You are of course right and I did question whether I should have posted that regardless of the punality of his name...

Punality - not sure if the word exists but I like it!

[paddycanary 583]

16 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Most people have values and morals, until those values and morals start to affect them adversely.

An insightful comment which lives up to your name on here! 

[If wed kept Howie.. 305]

there should be a place for conscience in everything you do..

have a think about what it means about yourself if you don't

[Alex 26]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Most people have values and morals, until those values and morals start to affect them adversely.  In other words it’s easy to moralise about things that have no impact on you.

Good response 👏👏. I agree,  although I also think that selling your values, morals and ethics for immoral success is the definition of not having values and morals. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Alex

[corbs 147]

Leaving the question aside, some people jump to sneer with their version of politically correct language which is why we have ‘virtue signalling ’ etc in their responses. 

[Petriix 3,250]

Well I'm obviously in the minority on here, but I'm proud to support a club which clearly has higher ethical standards than most. I don't think I'd be willing to follow a team backed by a dubious regime. If we had a similar takeover to Newcastle then that would be the end of my connection with Norwich City.

To be honest, being a football supporter is at odds with my general philosophy in life. It's only really the perception that Norwich does things a bit differently that allows me to overcome the uneasiness I have with the whole thing.

I'll personally be boycotting the world cup. I have no interest in being any part of that particular aberration. I know that won't make the slightest difference in the scheme of things, but it's just a personal conscience thing.

I detest the term 'virtue signalling'; as if it's somehow offensive to say and do kind things. While there might be tiny proportion of people who are really only interested in the image of appearing to be a good person, the vast majority of people are genuinely compassionate.

There are obviously hypocrisies built into having a Western lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that making efforts to do better should be scorned. At the end of the day, I need to be able to look my children in the eyes and say that I did my best to make the world a good place. 

[Mr Angry 2,094]

6 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Well I'm obviously in the minority on here, but I'm proud to support a club which clearly has higher ethical standards than most. I don't think I'd be willing to follow a team backed by a dubious regime. If we had a similar takeover to Newcastle then that would be the end of my connection with Norwich City.

To be honest, being a football supporter is at odds with my general philosophy in life. It's only really the perception that Norwich does things a bit differently that allows me to overcome the uneasiness I have with the whole thing.

I'll personally be boycotting the world cup. I have no interest in being any part of that particular aberration. I know that won't make the slightest difference in the scheme of things, but it's just a personal conscience thing.

I detest the term 'virtue signalling'; as if it's somehow offensive to say and do kind things. While there might be tiny proportion of people who are really only interested in the image of appearing to be a good person, the vast majority of people are genuinely compassionate.

There are obviously hypocrisies built into having a Western lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that making efforts to do better should be scorned. At the end of the day, I need to be able to look my children in the eyes and say that I did my best to make the world a good place. 

You beat me to it, I’m also thinking about not watching the World Cup, but what will that actually achieve?

If a football icon like David Beckham, (who I previously thought was an ok guy) who has been a UNICEF ambassador since 2005, thinks it’s acceptable to agree a multi-million contract to promote Qatar for the next 10 years, then one person’s boycott doesn’t amount to much.

[PurpleCanary 6,463]

36 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Well I'm obviously in the minority on here, but I'm proud to support a club which clearly has higher ethical standards than most. I don't think I'd be willing to follow a team backed by a dubious regime. If we had a similar takeover to Newcastle then that would be the end of my connection with Norwich City.

To be honest, being a football supporter is at odds with my general philosophy in life. It's only really the perception that Norwich does things a bit differently that allows me to overcome the uneasiness I have with the whole thing.

I'll personally be boycotting the world cup. I have no interest in being any part of that particular aberration. I know that won't make the slightest difference in the scheme of things, but it's just a personal conscience thing.

I detest the term 'virtue signalling'; as if it's somehow offensive to say and do kind things. While there might be tiny proportion of people who are really only interested in the image of appearing to be a good person, the vast majority of people are genuinely compassionate.

There are obviously hypocrisies built into having a Western lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that making efforts to do better should be scorned. At the end of the day, I need to be able to look my children in the eyes and say that I did my best to make the world a good place. 

Quite. A pathetically lazy term, and frequently used by people who either are opposed to the particular moral stance in question or dislike (or are embarrassed by) all moral stances. It tends to go along with whataboutery and accusations of hypocrisy on the lines of 'OK if you care about this issue why  don't you care about that issue and that issue and that...'