Reader comments · Manchester United, Spurs and Norwich can’t support rainbow laces campaign due to Paddy Power · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Manchester United, Spurs and Norwich can’t support rainbow laces campaign due to Paddy Power

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What a load of old rubbish coming from these clubs.

    If you really support the initiative then they should be supporting it.

    1. Paddy Power were great sponsors and supporters of many LGBT sporting events, including The Bingham Cup when it was held in London in 2004.

      However, I do believe that this was ‘slightly’ mishandled badly and a PR disaster for both them and Stonewall.

  2. The whole campaign is a waste of time.

    The institutional homophobia of the FA will not be fixed with rainbow shoelaces.

    Identify and sack the bigots in the FA.

    Problem solved.

  3. Jock S. Trap 20 Sep 2013, 11:19am

    Sounds like a bigoted excuse to me not to support the campaign. It says more about those football clubs that they refused to help rid of homophobia.

  4. I have to disagree wi all the comments so far. You have to question why Stonewall went to a commercial outfit rather than the FA knowing some would not be able to endorse the campaign because of their sponsors. Wth the poor running of this campaign, which could have been so good if they had gone through the correct channels, as well as the partisan driven original position against gay marriage, we have to question the effectiveness of stonewall.

    1. Staircase2 20 Sep 2013, 5:29pm

      I’m guessing Stonewall was adopting guerrilla tactics in an effort to break the deadlock with the FA (who’s input into Equality campaigning typically amounts to sweet FA…)

      Great talking point, great piece of PR.

      I agree the slogan was ill advised but great concept

  5. The laces don’t seem to be plastered with the name of Paddy Power from what I’ve seen so where’s the big issue there?

    And how much consultation is required to discuss player’s lacing up their boots? Leaving it up to player’s is one thing but for any club to just outright say no is incredibly disappointing. Hopefully there will still be player’s at these clubs willing to take part despite their club’s no.

    1. Companies spend millions on sponsorship agreements. If you had spent that kind of money to get your name on kit, you would be angry too if some other company was stealing attention away from your branding and you had not even been consulted or invited to be involved in the process.

      It would have been better if Stonewall had approached each sponsoring company in turn, told them what the OTHER sponsors were agreeing to do, and make it a united effort across the entire game.

      They would have almost been forced into doing it if several other sponsors were involved. They would have looked out of place as one of those companies NOT supporting it!

      Why Stonewall teamed up with PP and ignored all the other companies involved in sponsoring is beyond me. As I said, they really messed up on this one.

  6. They have a point.

    Stonewall should have gone it alone, it isn’t like the cost of the laces would break their bank.

    Unless of course paddy power came up with the idea to advertise themselves…

    1. Hence the accusation that Stonewall is allowing itself to be used and manipulated by PP for advertising purposes.

      I think it’s clear what has happened here – someone with very little intelligence at Stonewall was presented with an idea, or it was their idea but they made so many concessions in their dealings with PP, and it’s been hijacked as PP’s personal advertising campaign.

      This goes beyond just sponsorship damage for those involved, it also likely affects reporting on it, websites unable to discuss it, TV channels unable to explain it – all because it’s an advertizing campaign for PP.

  7. If these clubs really can’t support the initiative because of commercial interests (after all, the be-all and end-all of top flight football these days) they should make it publicly known that they purchased their own pretty laces and bloody well shout it from the rooftops that they’re wearing them and why.

  8. Part of the problem is that Stonewall chooses to work with commercial organisations such as PaddyPower rather than with other LGBT groups.

    1. The other part of the problem is that Stonewall allowed PP to dictate the name of this campaign and that it makes it seem like a joke, as though Stonewall – and us – are being used for a cheap joke.

      Then there’s the problem that Stonewall seems to have no clue about sponsorship agreements and how this campaign with PP would likely be rejected because of those agreements.

      Stonewall REALLY messed up on this one.

      1. Stonewall is a cheap joke of an organisation.

        It lost all credibility when it refused to sack Ben Summerskill for opposing equal narriage.

  9. First of all, these clubs have sponsorship contracts with other businesses, they have to consider this when participating in anything that can be seen as actively promoting another business.

    This would have been obvious to Stonewall had they thought about this campaign for more than ten minutes.

    A music festival being sponsored by Coca Cola cannot then promote a charitable cause from Pepsi, this is the same thing. There are contracts these companies make to protect their investment in sponsoring anything, and this would harm that agreement because they were not consulted!

    And, the name of the campaign is also enough of a reason for sponsors and clubs to be twitchy. This could go bad at any moment, just with a homophobic meme mentioning the campaign going viral because of that tag line.

    If I were involved in either a company or team with a sponsorship deal, I would advise them to stay away from this too. It has the potential to backfire so easily, and it could damage any sponsorship

    1. Well I want to see how much money Stonewall will make from this utterly worthless campaign.

      because we all know that this is what Stonewall cares aboit.

      As I have already said a zero tolerance approach to homophobia within the FA is the only way to tackle this.

      1. Staircase2 20 Sep 2013, 5:31pm

        What a load of rubbish

  10. Yup – money talks ….. even at the expense of human and civil rights.

    1. This is not exactly a Human rights issue here in the UK, this is about ending homophobia in football.
      And when it’s millions of £’s of sponsorship money, you’re damn right it talks. There was no reason for Stonewall to team up with PP, none at all. All of those sponsoring companies involved in football would have done the same and taken part if they had been given the option – it’s free advertising and brand promotion! They would have to have been dribbling into their nurses apron to have turned that down.

      The problem here is that Stonewall didn’t bother to ask other sponsors, they handed the whole thing to PP without even thinking about how this would affect other sponsors and clubs. They screwed up big time and allowed a great campaign to be hijacked by one company when they could have involved all sponsors and made a much bigger impact.

      1. Staircase2 20 Sep 2013, 5:32pm

        Not true
        It IS a Human Rights issue – because it’s about breaking the final bastion of accepted and celebrated homophobia

  11. “But several top clubs say they can’t support the project because they weren’t adequately consulted.” I seriously doubt that had these teams been consulted, the outcome would be any different. The only change would be that they would have had to come up with a different excuse to cover their bigotry.

    1. Jane McQueen 20 Sep 2013, 3:13pm

      Actually one of those clubs is Liverpool, who were the first PL football club to support a gay pride event, and have every year since backed Liverpool Pride. So, jumping to such conclusions is a bit rash.

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Sep 2013, 12:34pm

    What a cockup! Stonewall should have targeted the football managers first in addition to sponsors. Badly conceived in my view.

  13. Stonewall is involved in this campaign.

    that would explain why it is such a worthless waste of time.

    How much money is Paddy Power giving to Stonewall?

    How much money will Stonewall spend on shoelaces.

    Where will the rest of the money go?

  14. “Manchester United, Spurs and Norwich can’t support rainbow laces campaign due to Paddy Power.”

    What’s that smell? Yeah. Bullsh_t… Bull. Sh_t.

  15. Maybe Stonewall could have used its cash reserves to buy a load of rainbow shoelaces. In bulk they cost about 40p each. They wouldn’t cost much to post to teams themselves and then every team, regardless of sponsor could have got on board.

    1. But how would Stonewall benefited financially if it had done that?

  16. Stupid stonewall went to a commercial (transphobic) betting shop for support, rather than approaching a non commercial outfit – pathetic. Waste of time.

    As for the comments above thinking its an excuse – obviously never been to a football match and seen how adverts keep the game going.

  17. Gary Powell 20 Sep 2013, 1:27pm

    Paddy Power are successfully making fools of a lot of people. What a laugh they must be having.

    Firstly, they are hardly likely to be an organisation sensitive to LGBT rights issues, given that one of their adverts was banned by the ASA where a trans woman was referred to as a “dog”:

    Secondly, if they were genuinely concerned about gay people and gay footballers being treated with respect, there is no way they would have promoted the crass slogan “Right Behind Gay Footballers,” which once again reduces gay people to a sex act and gives ammunition to those who mock us.

    Don’t be taken in, like clueless Stonewall (who, you may remember, even needed to be persuaded to support equal marriage), by this cynical homophobic advertising campaign. This is exploitation of an important cause for commercial ends.

  18. Once again Stonewall have thoroughly messed things up and shown that they are just a rudderless corporate entity that’s of very little benefit to us.

    They should have thought for a few moments and realised that bootlaces are almost invisible to those attending matches or viewing on TV, and that the campaign is just a cynical move by PP to get cheap publicity by generating controversy.

    Like a clothing company that published ads deliberately designed to offend (dying Aids victim, priest kissing nun), PP are notorious for shock ads (odds of walking frame user on zebra crossing being hit by a boy racer, ‘Stallions and Mares’ at Cheltenham etc).

    PP deliberately chose a double entendre slogan and cheap, ineffective and almost invisible freebies to take the mickey.

    It’s incredible that Stonewall were so dim to fall for it.

    For this totally corporate organisation to use the name Stonewall is a bad joke: those taking part in the Stonewall events of 1969 believed in what they were doing !

    1. Gary Powell 20 Sep 2013, 2:06pm

      Very well said, Gerry. Thank you for that contribution. I hope it gets a lot of reads.

      1. Thanks, Gary !

    2. And some of those people who take part in those riots were kicked out of the organisation. (trans)

  19. “although some question the merit of working with the controversial bookmaker”

    Didn’t stop Pink News writing an article of their advertising a while back. Money before ethics

  20. Haha, take that S’onewall.

    Teaming up with a transphobic betting company is rather ironic if you’re trying to eliminate bigotry.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.