
Taking the knee is no longer enough – the Lionesses need the FA to take a stand over racist abuse
That is why the group came together, driven by some infuriated players, to tackle this head on. A core of the squad did not want to just write this off as more social media abuse you have to accept. They were adamant.
Even before you get to the bigger issue, Carter is a popular player, who they felt defensive of.
The 27-year-old first decided to discuss it publicly, and state she's taking a 'step back from social media'. The group meanwhile want more from football's authorities, including the Football Association. Lotte Wubben-Moy announced she 'will not continue to feed the very platforms that enable this abuse with no consequence'.
The next step, however, is to take a proper stand. Literally. The England squad will not take the knee before the semi-final against Italy, having done so before every game so far.
Lucy Bronze did the press conference just after the developments were announced, and laid out the squad's rationale in detail.
'I think it was just the fact that we feel as a collective, is the message as strong as it used to be? Is the message really hitting hard? Because to us it feels like it's not if these things are still happening to our players in the biggest tournaments of their lives.
'It's about putting another statement out there to say, you know, it's something that still is a problem, it's something that still needs to be put right.'
It only sums up the many layers to this. Some of the previous detractors of taking the knee will use it as proof that it never worked, and was all a pointless gesture in a culture war. That is nonsense. It is also far from the squad's point, of course, as Bronze herself argued.
'I think there has been change," the defender said. "I think more change needs to happen.'
It is obvious there is much more awareness of this, which has led to more action, certainly in stadiums. Even if some people are persuaded, or some people see a viewpoint they hadn't considered before, it has worked. It's just no longer enough.
'A problem,' as Bronze said, 'is that as the game grows and everything grows in football and in life, as much as there might be change, there becomes more outlets for the abuse or the racism as well. That's something that's hard to strike the balance with.
"People are more educated, there are more places to speak out, to have a platform, there are more changes happening, there are small changes, you see people being held accountable, whether that's online, in stadiums.
'You do see bans happening. It's just not enough. That's the point. Not enough is being done. There are small changes being made. If you look back 100 years to 50 years to 20 years to 10 years, there's always small steps forward.
'But that's the problem. It's always a small step. We don't want it to be small steps anymore. We want it to be: this is happening, there is change, and this is unacceptable.
'There are no more small steps, because we get to the point it's where it should be in the world, and especially in the world of football, footballers it feels like there can be a place where we can control abuse online, especially racism online, because everything's monitored online, so it just doesn't make sense to us.'
Such stridency is admirable, and is in-keeping with this team's legacy for social action, alongside their football success.
The very fact England are going so big, however, is also where it gets much more complicated.
Really, 'the knee' has become normalised in abnormal times.
The world has taken an authoritarian turn, where views recently considered totally unacceptable are now uttered all the time. There is even a disconcerting discussion to be had over how much the men's game has enabled this, given its propensity for toxic tribalism, and how it has been propelled around the planet hand in hand with social media.
Online, the circumstances are very different to when this issue first truly exploded with the men's Euro 2020 final in July 2021.
Elon Musk has bought Twitter/X, with multiple studies indicating that racist abuse and hate speech has risen on the platform through declining moderation. The amplification of far-right voices has been linked to Donald Trump's re-election, which subsequently saw Mark Zuckerberg's Meta announce a series of moderation changes.
In other words, good luck getting the social media companies to do something meaningful. They have recently thrived off people feeling they can say whatever they want.
There's then the point that Bronze made herself, that the bigger the women's game gets, the more exposed they are to this critical mass of disparate views. Or, almost as bad, to some teenager who just posts something vile simply because he can.
One of the individuals jailed for a post to Marcus Rashford after the Euro 2020 final was a 19-year-old whose solicitor said he was 'ashamed and embarrassed' but that living with a single-parent mother and only working two days a week left him 'with a lot of time on his hands'.
It's difficult to know what one football team can do in that kind of world, no matter how well-intentioned. There's a danger you just keep saying the same things. This very article falls into that trap.
Even if police make arrests, as Bronze and the squad implored, it's like whack-a-mole.
That's why figures such as Wubben-Moy are advocating for different approaches. Her own - final - social media post has certainly given everyone else something to think about.
Should the FA be following suit and coming off social media? To make a stand to go with the players? Such authorities can't do much about that wider context, but they can control how they engage with it.
It might be a dismally familiar story, but the squad now want different responses.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Nigel Farage accused of spreading ‘unevidenced fears' about asylum seekers
Nigel Farage has been accused by charities of spreading 'unevidenced fears' over asylum seekers in his latest tirade on those who illegally enter the UK on small boats. Speaking at a press conference on Monday, the Reform UK leader claimed foreign migrants made the dangerous crossing 'because they know they have an over 99 per cent chance of staying'. He said they came to be 'looked after' with free healthcare and £49-a-week 'pocket money', adding 'while they are at it probably work illegally either in delivery services or drugs or whatever it may be'. His comments came less than 24 hours after protesters were accused of trying to break into a hotel housing asylum seekers in Canary Wharf. In response to a reporter's question, Mr Farage rejected he was steering people into fear to persuade them to vote for Reform. He said: 'We have to recognise something, there are some people who come from certain cultures that pose a danger to our society.' But his comments have been met with a strong reaction from charities. Care4Calais, a British charity supporting asylum seekers in France, said Mr Farage's 'populist politics' were a danger to UK communities. Chief executive Steve Smith said: "It's hardly surprising that the politician who inflamed last summer's race riots would spread unevidenced fear about people seeking sanctuary again. 'His [Mr Farage's] form of populism doesn't require facts, it is built on dangerous, unsourced, ill-informed divisive soundbites. It sows division in our communities, and like last summer race riots, it puts the lives of people seeking sanctuary in danger." Hope Not Hate, an advocacy group that campaigns against racism, also reacted to the comments at the press conference, held to unveil Reform UK's policy for the criminal justice system. A charity spokesperson said: 'Farage trades on fear because it galvanises his supporter base and keeps the spotlight on the issues he wants to exploit, immigration and 'law and order'. By talking up crime he positions himself as the lone strong-man solution. 'However, Reform's approach to law and order is deeply hypocritical. Reform figures have excused rioters at anti-migrant protests, and even praised vandalism of ULEZ cameras. It's cuffs for opponents and leniency for friends. " The office of Sadiq Khan also responded to a remark made by Mr Farage in which he told a reporter she would not walk through the West End of London after 9pm wearing jewellery. The office shared Met Police data that showed the number of robberies had fallen 20 per cent over the past 12 months, compared to a decrease of 12 per cent across London. A spokesperson said: 'Nothing is more important to the Mayor than keeping Londoners safe.' Reform UK has been approached by The Independent for comment. Also at the press conference, Mr Farage claimed there has been a 'cover-up' of details about an alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton. Two men have been charged in relation to the alleged incident in the Warwickshire town. Mr Farage linked a perceived lack of information from police to what happened in Southport last July, saying he wanted to discuss a 'cover-up that in many ways is reminiscent of what happened after the Southport killings last year'.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on water boss's undisclosed bonus: Labour won't fix a system it won't confront
Despite the noise around England's sewage scandal, the political response so far has mostly generated headlines, not real consequences. Ministers performatively 'rage' about polluting water companies. Regulators are rejigged. Laws are passed. Yet little actually changes. The latest manoeuvre by Yorkshire Water is a case in point – and a revealing one. In March, the company was ordered to pay £40m for the 'unacceptable impact' of sewage spills blamed on poor maintenance. It was one of six firms caught by Labour's new bonus ban for the most serious polluters, passed under the Water (Special Measures) Act earlier this year. But the company confirmed to the Guardian that its chief executive, Nicola Shaw, received an additional £660,000 for 'investor-related' work last year – on top of her £689,000 take home pay. The money did not come from Yorkshire Water directly, but from Kelda Holdings, the firm's offshore parent. Using complex corporate structures to sidestep regulatory scrutiny is not a new trick. Many water companies are structured to allow financial engineering to take place at one remove from the regulated business. But Yorkshire's executive reward scheme reveals something important about the nature of the bonus ban itself: its design left scope for avoidance. If companies can reclassify pay or shift it between entities, enforcement becomes a matter of interpretation. Ministers say they are 'aware' of the payments and Ofwat is 'assessing' them. But this is a now-familiar Whitehall formulation – passive, conditional and hollow. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, appears to have a habit of making threats he doesn't back up. When Southern Water, also under the bonus ban, nearly doubled the pay package awarded to its CEO to £1.4m, Mr Reed's response was to urge him to turn it down. No ministerial direction to investigate. No legal challenge or legislative amendment. Just a suggestion. Why the timidity? Because Labour's tough talk on water is just words. It won't touch the system that enables this behaviour, and ministers bend over backwards to reassure markets they never will. The Treasury wants Thames Water kept private – warning Mr Reed a £4bn rescue through nationalisation would gut his entire budget. No wonder he keeps shroud-waving about the cost of public ownership The government seems dazzled by private providers. Regulators are being asked to offer 'forbearance', as Mr Reed's Independent Water Commission suggested. No doubt they had in mind Thames Water, which is facing an estimated £1bn in Ofwat performance penalties. The logic seems to be that enforcement risks spooking the investors needed to fund long-overdue infrastructure upgrades. But this reveals the real problem. England's water system has been financialised to the point of dysfunction. Layered holding companies, offshore entities and opaque capital structures mean regulators are chasing shadows. Attempts to govern via gesture – bonus bans, naming and shaming – are no substitute for structural reform. Most countries retain public ownership, recognising water as a public good, not a commodity. The idea that better people could fix the system is a fantasy – decades of extraction, debt-loading and dividend grabs show the model itself is broken. If Labour truly wants to clean up the nation's waterways, it must confront a hard truth: the incentives of private capital and the obligations of public interest, health and accountability do not align. Until then, expect more sewage, more euphemisms and more payments that defy the spirit – if not always the letter – of the law. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Netherlands uses new NATO channel to pay for US arms for Ukraine
AMSTERDAM/BRUSSELS, Aug 4 (Reuters) - The Netherlands said on Monday it will contribute 500 million euros ($578 million) to purchase U.S. military equipment for Ukraine, becoming the first NATO country to contribute to a new mechanism to supply Kyiv with American weapons. President Donald Trump said last month the U.S. would provide weapons to Ukraine, paid for by European allies, but he did not provide details on how this would work. "As the first NATO ally, the Netherlands will deliver a €500 million package of US weapon systems (including Patriot parts and missiles)," Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans said in a post on X. NATO chief Mark Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, welcomed the announcement and said he has encouraged other alliance members to participate in the new mechanism, called the NATO Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative. 'This is about getting Ukraine the equipment it urgently needs now to defend itself against Russian aggression,' Rutte said in a statement. 'I have written to all NATO Allies, urging them to contribute towards this burden sharing initiative, and I expect further significant announcements from other Allies soon,' he added. The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, told Reuters on Monday that he expected many more countries to announce over the coming weeks that they will participate. 'We're moving as fast as possible,' Whitaker said in an interview at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Asked about a timeline for getting U.S. deliveries to Ukraine under the new mechanism, he said, 'I think we'll see it moving very quickly, certainly in the coming weeks, but some even sooner than that. 'The Dutch are just the first of many. You're going to see a series of announcements in the coming weeks,' he added. NATO said it would coordinate the new initiative, which is funded by European members of the alliance and Canada and will be divided into packages worth approximately $500 million. In a statement, the alliance said, "Working closely with Ukraine and the United States, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexus Grynkewich will validate packages that correspond to Ukraine's needs, such as air defence, ammunition and other critical equipment for rapid delivery from U.S. stockpiles". Kyiv welcomed the Dutch decision. "Ukraine, and thus the whole of Europe, will be better protected from Russian terror," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wrote on X. "I am sincerely grateful to the Netherlands for their substantial contribution to strengthening Ukraine's air shield," he added. ($1 = 0.8649 euros)