Read on Twitter
Footballers have always been in a tricky position, as figures that hold considerable sway over large swathes of the population. Their opinions *matter*, but what that entails has meant different things at different times. [THREAD]
In the world of social media and curated social profiles, footballers and other sportspersons are meant to "informed", and take the stand of righteousness, disingenuous or not.
So, in that sense, every footballer sits somewhere on the moral spectrum, albeit somewhat farcically.
However that doesn't that really explain what a footballers moral responsibility is? Is it to be to true to their beliefs, which can often be regressive and problematic, or is it present a more curated viewpoint, which takes into account the sway they hold over public opinion.
This is something that doesn't really have clear answers, and is often a grey area, especially since what's "right" depends on who you ask.
A recent example is Mesut Özil and his friendship with Turkey's President Erdogan. Özil's views have forced him to take a backseat from the sport, and have reduced his viability as a commercial asset.
The question then becomes: is Özil really in the wrong? Yes, his views are problematic to most people (he is cosying up to a dictator, after all) but is his responsibility to present what he truly believes or not?
Personally, I'd argue that there are cases where 'personal views' should be ruled out. Opinions are vital to public discourse, but at the end of they day, they remain opinions. Sometimes it's better to set more acceptable examples, especially when your audience is malleable.
That is not to say that the opposite argument cannot be made. It certainly can. However it is a fine line either way. That cannot be denied.
