Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Rainbow laces worn against homophobia across FA matches

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Port Vale are not in the Premiership they belong too the 72 clubs that are in the football league :)

    1. Am glad the title has been changed :)

  2. Christopher Coleman 21 Sep 2013, 9:03pm

    So Spurs and others are reluctant to participate in what might be an advertising campaign. A very moral position, indeed. Bold advertising on their players’ shirts is quite sufficient for any self-respecting football club.

    1. You have to wonder why Stonewall chose to work with PP on this, and why they couldn’t do it themselves. Those shoelaces aren’t exactly expensive, neither is the advertising of the campaign when you get providers backing it charitably.

      Why didn’t Stonewall go to all the various clubs and their sponsors and get their backing instead of teaming up with one controversial company?

      Why did Stonewall choose to use a potentially derogatory and stereotypical title for a campaign, and one that allows plenty of Daily Mail style jokes at their (and our) expense?

      It seems to me that this was PP’s (advertizing) campaign all along, and Stonewall just signed on to get some attention.

      1. stonewall lost the plot years ago along with community support and influence it had on the establishment

  3. Our discomfort is with the reliance on sexualised innuendo and stereotypes about gay men and anal sex, as exemplified by the tag line ‘Right Behind Gay Players,” FvH said.

    It’s funny how these clubs are suddenly worried about stereotypes and innuendo that they have probably been using against LGBT folk for decades…sickening to think they can now try to claim the moral highground. These Football people and organisations have more faces than a clock tower.
    LGBT people do possess a self deprecating sense of humour believe it or not…so get a grip and wear the damn laces in support or at least have the bottle to stand by the homophobia you have if that is the case.

    1. Football v Homophobia (FvH) criticised this, not a football club.
      Plenty of others have criticized this too, with many readers of Pink News pointing out that this reads more like an advertizing campaign for PP than it is about homophobia in football.

      You seem to suggest that it’s homophobia for a team to decline this campaign, when it’s obvious that this is about the existing LEGAL AGREEMENTS they have with sponsors who pay them a lot of money and wouldn’t want a team they support to be associated with PP – due to their previous bigotry in advertizing.

      A lot of people screaming about this have no idea what sponsorship is, the legal binds of a sponsorship contract, and that a sponsored team can’t just sign up to deal with any company they like as and when they want!

      Going ahead with this – associating their team to PP – could have ended multimillion £ sponsorship agreements.

  4. Well done to the guys that donned them!

  5. Ironically Robbie Fowler was one of the studio guests on Match of the Day this evening. Not exactly a sensitive choice, imo.

    However at least they did use the rainbow BBC One ident just before the programme started. Don’t think anything was said about the anti-homophobia campaign though.

  6. Master Adrian 22 Sep 2013, 12:23am

    The clubs that failed to have their players wear the laces are showing their hatred towards LGBT players PERIOD!
    As the activity was clearly announced as giving a signal to the public of being Inclusive, the “excuse” of not having been consulted and or the “involvement” of a certain person and organization is….. Super BS!
    These clubs are simply promoting hatred and Exclusion of LGBT people!
    Be with Us or Against Us!

    1. Yes you cold be right. Watch what happens when José Mourinho is asked about the Stonewall campaign. Recall that Mourinho was criticised about homophobic language a few months ago. Here you see an excellent example of a facepalm

      http://splicd.com/HlJCdUPgBl0/83/91

    2. Manchester United is sponsored by Aon, Nike, Bwin and more. Bwin is a betting agency.
      Considering that these companies make legally binding contracts with Manchester United and give them millions in sponsorship money, can’t you understand why they would have a problem with Man-U agreeing to “team up” with PP without any consultation and without any legal framework?
      This would be in DIRECT conflict with Bwin and their sponsorship specifically, and all the others would have reason to be concerned too.
      If you had spent millions on a sponsorship deal with Man-U, would you want them participating in a campaign with a potentially embarrassing title like this, one that could tarnish your brand too? And without even being asked about it!?
      You can’t call it homophobia off the cuff just because Stonewall didn’t do even a half decent job of this. They completely failed to consider the sponsors of those teams, and they didn’t even bother to ask them about it before jumping into bed with PP.

  7. Lots of clubs were not happy at the lack of consultation about this. Why involve Paddy Power and their tacky #rbgf phrase? Surely ‘Kick It Out’ would be better partners for Stonewall?

    Well done and thanks for the guys who wore the laces.

  8. Well done, guys, and Louis Dodds is gorgeous, just by the by!

  9. Thanks to those who wore the laces but this has been a massive fuk-up by Stonewall. Why not consult the clubs in advance? Why not adopt a more dignified slogan?

  10. Jock S. Trap 22 Sep 2013, 10:58am

    This sorts out the boys from the men.

    Glad some clubs decided to openly support the fight against homophobia.

    Sad that some chose not to make a stand.

  11. The GFSN should now start work on their own campaign and show Stonewall how it should be done.

    1. Create a decent campaign with a decent title not able to be used in the way this was. Innuendo is not needed and not appreciated.

    2. Approach all the major clubs, open a registration for smaller teams to request involvement, and put whatever item they come up with on sale to the general public too (arm band would be good, or a badge) Public involvement is very important.

    3. Involve all the team sponsors across the FA, list them all as sponsors publicly, giving them equal billing along with the teams participating.

    4. Funded by sponsors of all teams equally.

    That’s what Stonewall SHOULD have done. It’s not hard to come up with this plan, it’s a pretty obvious way to go about it, and the fact that Stonewall failed in this suggests that either they were involved in this marketing campaign by PP, or they are so dismally poor in their efforts they really don’t deserve our support.

  12. The homophobes are out in force in some clubs tryig to stop others indicating their position. Advertising is for a business, gay rights are not a business so it cannot be advertising. Talk about dishonest!

  13. I can understand why many FA executives are up in arms about the Rainbow Laces campaign. It might draw too much attention to the fact their anti-discrimination campaign is run on a shoestring budget.

  14. And upon seeing the unmissable rainbow laces, the homophobes were brought to tears as they whispered to themselves “How could I be so wrong”

  15. postopgirl 24 Sep 2013, 8:07pm

    Understandable and I support it, but when are the FA, Premier League and The Football League going to do something about Transphobia expressed at football grounds

  16. Is it more about the varios clubs lack of a financial cut in the campaign than their reluctance to participate in fighting homophobia and bigotry…..or maybe they really do subscribe to the bigotry. I guess time will tell.

  17. Firstly, not sure how rainbow laces is advertising paddy power. I have to agree the tag line is stupid though, for more than one reason, it opens the doors for mocking of gay players, when they already have to put up with enough stick. It makes people think more about the act of sex and that’s not what this is about, it’s about two people of the same sex being able to love each.

    Given the tag line isn’t on the laces though and there is no link to paddy power on the laces, you’d think the clubs would let that slide.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all