The Poppy in British football

Remembrance Sunday, we will always remember the horrific scenes that happened at the Somme 100 years ago and to remember all those who have lost their lives in the name of the British people in any war since then. A common sight around this time of year is the poppy. A small red badge for all to see that we will remember them and that we are commiserating the lives lost for these Isles, and not only do we see everyday people wearing them but also sewn into special kits for the fixtures that fall onto Remembrance Sunday. Many agree this is a great tradition and shows solidarity, but is the gesture truly what we believe it to be? With the large influx of foreign players in our Premier division and, especially as of late, the Championship, do these players truly understand what the Poppy stands for?
Roughly two years ago James McClean refused to wear a poppy embroidered on his Wigan top during a Championship game. The outcry followed of how the young Northern Irishman had disrespected all those who had lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars. He should be sacked, he should never play again and other over the top reactions followed. Understandably people should be angry that someone could be so disrespectful, and yet they weren't thinking about what else the Poppy represents and this connects to my problem with what the Poppy has become in the Premier league and English football.
The Poppy doesn't just represent those who have lost their lives in the two World Wars, it represents those who have lost their lives serving the British Armed forces in every conflict Britain has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. One of these conflicts that we commiserate includes the Troubles which took place around Northern Ireland from the 1960's until the late 90's. In case any of you reading this need a quick run down on what the Troubles were, it was an attempt by the IRA to claim control of the Ulster area for the Republic of Ireland and was to a large extent a Guerilla War. During the Troubles, the British forces were involved in a horrific slaughter of the Northern Irish people which became known as Bloody Sunday. After a non-violent protest against the planned Internment by British forces refuses to disband, the armed forces in the area proceed to fire on the protestors, killing 14 in the process and injuring several others.
This very event is McClean's reasoning behind the refusal to wear the Poppy. McClean's argument, in short, is that one of the conflicts that our Poppies stands to represent was behind an atrocity that is still haunting the people of Bogside near Londonderry. Should he be forced to wear something which he feels is a betrayal to his people? I believe that by this man not wearing the Poppy, not only is he exercising his right to freedom of speech and belief, but he is remembering those who were affected by the wars we have been involved in. Similar to the way we wear the Poppy to remember the loss of our own, he refuses to wear one to remember his own.
Regardless of whether we believe this to be right or wrong, he has his reasoning and most likely knows far more about it than most of the people who have been mindlessly attacking him for his refusal.

We can see how furious McClean's refusal to wear the Poppy has left some of the population, but what should make you madder, a man refusing to wear the Poppy to stand up for what he believes in or a man who wears the Poppy not knowing what he is representing? The reason we look at each other on the streets and see someone with a Poppy and think "What a good gesture" is because we have made the conscientious decision to spend some of our money to acquire a Poppy and are therefore proud to wear it on our chest. Let's look at it from this point of view, though, imagine if it was compulsory to wear the Poppy, does the gesture remain the same. Eventually, we get to a stage so far distant from what we were intending the gesture to stand for that we forget the point of the Poppy altogether. The point of that little idea? All players in the Premier league are obligated to wear the Poppy unless they specifically ask otherwise, as in McClean's case, but are they, therefore, wearing the Poppy because they feel they are doing the right thing or because they couldn't care whether they wear it or not? This is not to say that secretly Diego Costa is secretly vandalising a war memorial and Robert Huth is humming the German anthem during the minute's silence, but in fact is reminding those that were so angered about McClean actually having a reason to not wear the flower that they have in fact forgotten that the majority of these players in the Premier league most likely couldn't be bothered on whether or not they wear the icon. We are outraged whenever a footballer with actual valid reasons not to wear the Poppy doesn't, but we wouldn't dare stop a person in the street if there jumper or jacket is Poppy-less. It has simply become an extra icon on the kit for most of these players, not necessarily the British ones. The Poppy matters more to us as regular people than those who are representing our sides on the pitch.

This then leads to a far bigger question. Is the Poppy really still what it was made to represent? This year, one of England's World Cup qualifiers falls on Armistice day against their oldest rival, Scotland. A monumental occasion in which both FA's had felt that it would be an honour and their duty to wear poppies on their kits to represent those lost in conflict. A simple request to FIFA to ask if they had the go ahead has led to national outrage after the Football governing body denied this right due to their stance on International sides wearing Religious or Political messages on their kits. This rule is completely understandable, however, this now begs the question of whether or not the Poppy is a Political symbol? Anyone who knows their history understands that the Poppy was chosen because of the opening line of the poem In the Flanders Fields and is purely made to represent those who have lost their lives in the name of their country ever since that inconceivable loss of life. Surely, now, however that the Government has become involved since FIFA's denial of the use of the Poppy for both England's and Scotland's kit during the game, as well as for Wales who had requested to wear the Poppy in their qualifier against Serbia, they have in turn made the Poppy far more than what it was ever intended. Now in this situation, it has become this contorted argument for the British Government against FIFA. No longer is it the right to remember those who we have lost but the way our MP's have reacted has created this pathetic idea that it is us against a group of Bureaucratic millionaires. Sadly, I don't believe we will be allowed to see the Poppy used in this match, and with how the events have unfolded since our Prime Minister has become involved I don't believe we will ever see it involved in the International scene. We all know how stubborn FIFA can be when they are rivalled, and now it will leave them increasingly annoyed that anyone dared to challenge their rules.

Harry Spindler

Arsenal, the dark horses of the season.

7 games into the new season, teams are starting to enter the form that will carry them through the year. Some are languishing near the bottom, others and trotting along within mediocrity and the upper echelon teams are powering through. One of the teams which have impressed me the most is Arsenal. 4 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss is a very nice record to have at this point in the season. 15 goals scored and 7 conceded is a solid start, and whilst some of the teams they have played aren't exactly the best teams in the league, the bigger sides that they have faced haven't been dominant. Let's look at the start, begin as you mean to go on some would say, Arsene Wenger would agree after a 4-3 loss at home to Liverpool. Even though you gain no points from a win, offensively they looked full of quality and scored 3 very nice goals. The defence was the issue in this case. Improvement defensively followed by the next game with a dominant 0-0 draw against the reigning champions Leicester. Whilst no goals were scored, Wenger could sleep well knowing that his side wasn't in any danger of losing that match after Leicester could only manage a single shot on target across the whole 90 minutes. Improvement to defence, now the goals needed to make a return. A dominant 3-1 over Watford, a narrow 2-1 against Soton, 4-1 against a Hull side in disarray and the icing on top of the cake, a crushing 3-0 defeat of Chelsea.

What do these results say about Arsenal, though? A loss is never good to have on the board, along with a goalless draw and only just being able to grab a 2-1 win over a mediocre Southampton you might be thinking "Well how does this make them out as dark horses for the title?". Arsenal started last season with a less than impressive start. Losing to West Ham at home, drawing 0-0 to Liverpool at Home, as well as a loss to Chelsea and very narrow victories over Palace and Stoke damaged Arsenal's season way before it had even begun. Now however Arsenal have dismantled one of their biggest rivals and have been scoring for fun. Whilst I have taken notice of the usual mid-season stumble that Arsenal always experiences, I feel the signings have been adequate and some of the mistakes they have been making over the past few years look to be fixed or swept under the carpet at the very least.

Arsenal look like potential champions, not because of the way they can destroy their opponents but how they can grind out results against the teams who put 11 behind the ball and believe a point is as good as 3. In previous years, Arsenal has always been undone by those sort of teams and have found it impossible to grind out results consistently. Already twice this season both Southampton and Burnley have looked to hold out for a singular point against the London side and on both occasions they have managed to steal all 3 points away from their opponents. Whilst I understand that the Burnley result may have been down to an incredibly large slice of luck seeing as the goal shouldn't have stood, I want to remind you how many times the big teams have stolen all 3 points with lucky goals and unfair advantages. Manchester United are the best example we can use. How many occasions were there when we would speak the day after a United game and all gasp at how unlucky their opponents were to lose the game because of an offside goal or a shot that was ushered in with the player's hand. Luck plays a huge part in the game and most of the time, the luck falls on the side of the bigger sides.

I am definitely not saying Arsenal will ease to the league title this season, however, I am saying that with the right slice of luck they can do it. Man City only have to lose a handful of games, a bump in the road is assured on any side, as we saw with their last match in London. Arsenal simply has to make sure they have less bumps than their rivals. Is that possible? Of course, but Arsenal have always been well known for their bottling ability.