Why we should be extra careful with what we say online

Social media, for the most part has been a groundbreaking invention that has allowed people across the world to interact from the comfort of their own homes.

We are able to communicate with friends, family and anyone else through platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and before their declines, myspace and Messenger.

But in the eyes of some, the use of social media has allowed those to express feelings and thoughts in a negative manner. And in the world of sport, there’s usually someone or something on the receiving end of this ‘abuse’.

Quite frankly, it’s downright disgusting.

To hide behind a keyboard and post things you wouldn’t say to or someone if they were standing right in front of you is a true act of cowardice. And deservedly, it’s universally condemned.

But it’s easy to take this perspective when you’re fortunate enough to not be the subject of online abuse and vitriol.

For those who play sport at a professional level and for clubs with significant fan bases, it can be quite scary to read things that people around the world say about you.

With the stakes they play for being so high, any level of failure is met with a knee-jerk reaction by those online. And with such easy access to the aforementioned platforms, it’s hard for professional athletes to see the bright side.

Some athletes do see the bright side, knowing that what’s said online rarely translates to what’s said in real life. A great example of this is through the popular TV segment, Mean Tweets.

Hosted by late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, high profile people are made to read derogatory tweets directed at them, with most of them expressing laughter at the stupidity of what’s said.

Here’s a couple of examples of the segment.

But then there’s the other side of the equation, those who do get affected by what people say.

Often, these comments left online can be quite upsetting and sometimes, those on the receiving end don’t take it well. And despite there being those who can cop the abuse, some have different perspectives.

These comments, whether they’re made online or from the stands, are dragging the game of soccer down and it’s a real shame.

Back in 2017, Liverpool defender Dejan Lovren played a poor game against Tottenham Hotspur in a 4-1 loss. Following the game, Lovren’s family members were threatened purely based on his performance.

You could be the most soulless person on this planet and still find that kind of comment disgraceful.

Briefly on Tottenham, left-back Danny Rose was diagnosed with depression in 2018. He seems to have put it behind him after becoming a first team regular for Tottenham this season.

Granted, Rose has admitted that injuries played a part in his depression during a BBC video that went online this year (can be found below in full), but it goes to show something.

We may see them as these worldwide superstars who can do anything. But in reality, they’re just like us.

Human.

Some may think that these comments don’t have any affect, but they do.

Mental health is one of the biggest problems surrounding soccer players and athletes around the globe because people think that they can say anything and get away with it.

They say these things for numerous reasons. Their performances on the field, as we know. It can be down to their appearance and personality (see above video for Peter Crouch). But there’s one other factor.

The fact that most of these players are millionaires.

Footballers get paid lots of money and there is a select group that think because of this, they should never be sad in their lives. Purely because they’re a bit wealthier than most folk.

To rebut these opinions, there is only one thing that needs to be said.

Money can’t buy happiness.

So before you send that tweet, Facebook post or whatever it is, put yourselves in their shoes.

How would you feel seeing someone say that about you? Because in life, you should only treat people the way you want to be treated.

And it’s time that we stamp the abuse out, whether it’s racism, sexism or general oppression. Because whatever it is, it has no place in sport or in life. Anywhere.

 

 

Previous ArticleNext Article

FIFA sparks widespread backlash with private investment proposal

Avatar
Image credit: BBC Sport

In a shock announcement made on Tuesday this week, FIFA revealed plans to create a subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to manage commercial and event operations for major competitions, including the World Cup. FIFA promises to reinvest all benefits back into the game, but the plan is receiving widespread criticism from governing bodies and governments around the world.

 

“Unleashing” football’s commercial power

Following the huge financial success of this summer’s FIFA World Cup, FIFA President Gianni Infantino indicated plans to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity” at FIFA’s disposal.

Indeed, it appears Infantino is wasting no time in capitalising on the tournament’s success, which generated AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion) for FIFA.

An eye-watering number. A tournament record. And, apparently, still not enough.

Tuesday’s announcement made clear the intention to bring commercial rights under a new subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This, according to FIFA, could generate AUD 6 billion (USD 4.2 billion) of initial capital with all net benefits going back into grassroots and infrastructure development for Member Associations (MA) through the FIFA Forward programme.

The money would be raised by selling minority stakes in FFE to private third-party investors, although FIFA has outlined that it will retain “sole control of FFE”.

The venture has a reported valuation of AUD 29 billion (USD 20 billion), prompting questions and backlash from around the world over who will actually benefit from the finances – and whether anyone should benefit at all.

 

What are critics saying?

On the surface, the principle of generating more money for MAs and investing into grassroots, coaching, women’s and youth football is a worthwhile ambition.

Currently, each MA receives AUD 11.5 million (USD 8 million) per year from FIFA Forward. FIFA affirms that, should the proposal go through, this funding would increase to AUD 29 million (USD 20 million) between 2027-2030.

However, several governing bodies, including UEFA, Concacaf and the English FA, are adamantly fighting the plans.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said via an official statement on social media.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” UEFA continued.

“None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Concacaf also expressed deep concern over the reports, citing a distinct lack of warning and due process from FIFA prior to the announcement.

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place,” Concacaf said via official statement.

“As leaders within football, we are custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the Confederations and every Member Association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport.”

Further concerns also centre around the company set to lead the proposed investor group – Thrive Eternal. Founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Thrive Eternal’s role in the venture opens the door to potential conflicts of interests – and emboldens criticisms that Infantino’s relationship with the US President is compromising his leading role in football’s international governing body.

 

Football was never about the money

Investing into the game is vital to football’s sustained future, especially for nations without the financial power to fund it independent of football’s governing body.

Nobody will argue that supporting the entire football pyramid – from grassroots to professional, men’s and women’s, youth and para, playing and coaching – should benefit from the financial might of the sport’s elite.

And FIFA is promising such benefits for all – arriving in the form of tens of millions of dollars – and stemming from third-party investors intrigued by the commercial value of the beautiful game.

But this is exactly where the venture’s flaws start to appear.

Rhetoric about increasing football’s commercial power following the 2026 World Cup leads the governing body down a slippery slope to a sport which prioritises money over integrity, due process and the fans who uphold it week-in week-out.

Football – from its very first beginnings as a working class sport – was never about the money.

Although modern commercialisation has turned clubs into businesses and players into tradable assets, everyone within the pyramid is a custodian of the game.

The game is not a product to sell – especially by those entrusted to uphold its integrity.

 

What happens now?

FIFA stated its intentions to only proceed with the venture if it receives support from the majority of MAs. While many are already uniting in opposition to the proposal, there are national governing bodies who have vocalised their support, including the Czech FA.

UEFA, on the other hand, is set to hold an emergency meeting with its 55 members to discuss a potential boycott of future tournaments.

But with a deadline of September 19 for MAs to accept the proposal, and the promise of a payment worth AUD 57.5 million (USD 40 million) if they do, the next eight weeks will reveal the future of the game and the nature of its global governance.

FIFA’s plan, although laced with promises of investment, development and growth for all, has instead kicked off a contest to save the game’s soul – or change it forever.

Governance, guidelines and game integrity: Did the 2026 FIFA World Cup uphold all three?

Avatar
Image Credit: AHCPF/Shutterstock.com

The FIFA World Cup 2026 is now over. Aside from the action and drama on the pitch, it is how FIFA performed off it which will dictate its lasting legacy.

 

Money talks

Projections for this year’s tournament placed total revenue at an eye-watering figure of AUD 16 billion (USD 11 billion); in the end, the number reached AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion).

The newly-introduced hydration breaks – much bemoaned by fans accustomed to a more traditional 45 minute half – generated further income. Fox Sports was expected to earn more than AUD 356 million (USD 250 million) from these breaks alone, taking global revenue upwards of AUD 1.4 billion (USD 1 billion).

Four minutes and 20 seconds per match, worth more than 1 billion dollars. For FIFA, therefore, time truly is money.

As the most profitable World Cup in history, it also raises further questions (and potential ideas) for how to continue the success. FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, is already considering ways to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has” going forward.

“I think I can say that this FIFA World Cup here in particular has opened a lot of doors, a lot of opportunities, a lot of possibilities,” Infantino said.

“This will have an impact on what we can do all over the world, but the revenues and the financial economic success come only if the sporting side is right.”

Expanded participation – marking the first time a World Cup features 48 teams compared to the previous 32 – was a major factor in increasing revenue. More teams, more games, more sponsorship and advertising opportunities.

“There are discussions about whether we should increase more (from 48) to 64 (teams), but this will be debated and this will be discussed,” Infantino affirmed.

More revenue for FIFA should also mean its 211 Member Associations also benefit from further investment, although details regarding this remain unknown.

Record-breaking attendance

Going into the tournament, the issue surrounding ticket prices was widespread. Many fans accused the governing body of pricing fans out of the game they love – and the numbers justified it.

While tickets opened at AUD 85 (USD 60), the dynamic pricing led to resales worth tens of thousands of dollars. For the final between Spain and Argentina, fans seeking last-minute tickets needed closer to AUD 3 million (USD 2 million).

But despite the criticism aimed at the dynamic pricing system, FIFA’s resolve paid off. Attendances smashed previous records, with total attendance double the figure seen in Qatar 2022.

FIFA reported that 6,810,966 fans packed into stadiums across the 104 matches, reaching an average crowd of 65,490. With higher attendances also comes more revenue generated from hospitality within the stadium itself.

Clearly, the price of a ticket to the world’s biggest sporting tournament does not affect demand. If FIFA sets the price, people will pay.

Or rather, people who can afford these prices will.

 

Red card, rescinded

As USA and Bosnia & Herzegovina went toe-to-toe in their round-of-32 clash, few could have known the drama would continue far beyond the referee’s whistle after 90 minutes.

A red card for star-striker, Folarin Balogun, in the 64th minute prompted concerns among US fans not only for the remaining half-an-hour of play, but for the following round of the tournament: as per FIFA rules, a player who receives a red card automatically misses the subsequent match.

This was the case for Balogun, until external pressure entered the field. And for football’s global governing body, external pressure arrived in the form of the President of the United States of America.

The legality over the rescinded red card is irrelevant to the wider issue. People will dispute the various articles outlined in the FIFA Disciplinary Code, but the incident itself sets a problematic precedent for football’s global governing body: if FIFA compromises its rules and political neutrality for one nation, where does it draw the line in future tournaments?

The tournament’s integrity had already come under pressure before a match had kicked-off, following the first ever FIFA Peace Prize awarded to President Trump in December 2025. The rescinded red card ultimately added fuel to the fire.

 

A game of two halves

The FIFA World Cup 2026 was as entertaining on the pitch as it was controversial off it.

It featured some incredible individual performances from stars like Mbappe and Kane, as well as Cabo Verde’s Vozinha – the 40 year-old overnight sensation who became a tournament icon.

308 goals were scored, surpassing with flying colours the previous record of 172 in 2022. A goal-per-game ratio fo 2.96 was the highest in recorded history since 1970.

Celebrations like Norway’s ‘Viking Row’ took the world by storm, and several brands including Levi’s, Gillette and Under Armour (the latter being the tournament-winning boot sponsorship) enjoyed huge public attention online for their unique marketing approaches.

These are the stories which represent the World Cup at its very best and the side of football fans want to see: action-packed matches, world-class talent, inspirational underdog stories and moments which generate discussions between fans from all over the world.

Beyond the pitch, however, memories of this year’s tournament will be comprised of financial success marred by a failure to govern and uphold the game’s integrity throughout.

It is a disappointing contradiction, that the cost of the most entertaining and economically successful World Cup in history, is the growing concern whether we can believe in those delivering the game to us at all.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend