I’d also imagine that the Denmark NT is their biggest/most important/longest standing partnership, so they wouldn’t want to jeopardise that by breaking contract, which I don’t think is entirely unreasonable if your business is heavily dependant on that contract. Doing this probably also has a bigger impact as a form of protest or awareness raising than if they’d said months ago that they weren’t making Denmark’s kits this year, as these kits will be worn in the tournament and spoken about a lot, whereas people would quickly forget (or never hear in the first place) about little old Hummel not sponsoring Denmark if it’s announced a year or more in advance of the actual tournament.
But you leave yourself wide open to criticisms about virtue signalling when your statement makes absolutely no mention of donating even a bit of the proceeds from kit sales to a relevant charity or cause. If they said they’d be making significant donations to charities that help migrant workers in places like Qatar using the profits from the world cup kit they’ve made for Denmark then you really couldn’t knock them for it.
Argentina and Brazil look to be the front runners. Let’s be realistic here, it’s not going to be a team from Africa. Probably be Brazil after Argentina choke again.
PSG is a privately owned entity, this is a decision taken by local authorities in a variety of French cities including Paris, I’m not sure that there’s that much of a point to be made here.
I assume no winning parade if France go onto to win it too
I’m glad the issues are being highkighted and they should be made louder during the event itself, but things like this really are nothing more than posturing
I don’t think that local authorities, the kind that make these decisions, receive taxes directly from PSG owners. That’d be collected by the French national state/government. These local authorities also don’t have the power to dictate who is allowed to own PSG. If they did have power over who could own football clubs, and allowed the Qatari state to buy their clubs, but then said they had an objection to Qatar hosting a world cup, then claims of hypocrisy might have some validity.
Local authorities in Paris and other French cities can be questioned on this move to not set up fan zones, I just dont think that criticism is valid if its predicated on a claim of hypocrisy centred on the ownership of PSG.
I do find it bizarre that so many fans immediately jump to saying it’s hypocrisy and/or meaningless when authorities, sponsors/kit makers or whatever take steps to acknowledge the awful situation that this tournament is being held in.
It reminds me of the Occupy protests where I remember some tabloid or other having a laugh at protesters holding Starbucks cups.
Like if you buy into a system even a tiny bit you have to accept its worst excesses.
This World Cup is being held in a country that has worked people to death to make it happen. You can support a club that benefits from Premier League money, you can be a city that receives taxes from a club funded by oil, you can be a country that trades with Qatar and still have a problem with that.
Your easily pacified then. Everyone of the gestures made so far is just PR spin and damage limitations on the product in question.
Being on the right side of the argument with your fingers crossed behind your back.
The difference is negligible and brings next to no pressure or degree of disruption or noticeable uncomfort to the organisers.
Mainly this is because of course Teams, federations, TV companies, commentators and participating pundits and FIFA ex players and Managers will give their full precedence and therefore endorsement.
This in effect is the endorsement of the competition which basically legitimises this tournament for everyone basically.
