Sounds like character assassination to me. Whether you question his motives or not Rashford had done a considerable amount of good for regular people and highlighted some issues with the government. At the end of the day he’s a massive name in the UK and he plays for one of the biggest clubs in the world it’s only natural the will make money off his glowing personal reputation and the fact he’s a hugely popular and established football player.
6 Likes
Obviously need to see what the article is saying to pass full judgement but on the face of it why is it Rashford and not Mount, Kane et al?
This shit is too blatant now.
5 Likes
It doesn’t help they had it out for Rashford since the school meals debacle. It could be harmless article but the trust isn’t there and rightfully so. There’s been a need to make him look bad just to tell him to ‘stay in his lane’ so to speak.
3 Likes
Yeah it really is. It’ll be interesting to read the article but no matter how he’s benefitted financially the pros of his actions will always outweigh the cons.
Rashford is under the microscope for building a good financial portfolio with good investments, property portfolio and also being a highly paid football player. He’s a very sensible kid.
5 Likes
That missed penalty reason to let kids go hungry then eh.
Shower of cunts. All about taking him down a peg and letting him know to leave off the government.
6 Likes
Even if he’s made a shit ton of money he’s had real achievements with his one man activist band. Massive charitable organisations exist for years and years and don’t achieve what he did. Fuck any begrudgement, horrible cunts.
6 Likes
Journalists spending more energy begrudging this guy over all our stupidly shit politicians lol
1 Like
Media outlet willing to condemn footballer for not acting like a cunt footballer and being a role model… Sounds about right from the British media.
2 Likes
That’s a really mature and considered response tbf. Rashford reacting to smears the best way possible what a guy
2 Likes
Yeah and the reason for his success on the campaign.
Brought his own dignity to the proceedings and given others there’s back through no fault of their own.
I’m hopeful this will backfire on this rag and give him and the issue an uplift of support.
2 Likes
It’s the Spectator so I doubt it’ll get much traction, but it’s astonishing they have don’t have bigger targets to go for lol.
I mean no doubt Rashford has commercial interests like anyone else but you certainly can’t question his motives. If only the Spectator had an ounce of concern for hungry children and maybe we wouldn’t need celebrities to raise the issue themselves.
Celebrities, footballers, insta-pricks - they all whore themselves out for a quick quid. Why is Rashford being picked on for his activities off the pitch? A guy who has done a million times more than most random cunt people to actually help others. A guy who has helped feed fucking kids ffs.
The media in this country are shameless, horrible bastards
Rashford seems very desperate to “get ahead” any coverage that paints him as a greedy capitaliste and landlord. There’s no harm in wanting to be filthy stinking rich
It’s weird he chooses to caveat his personal profit and wealth with his activist and charity work tbh. If a celeb in entertainment did this we’d call them full of shit.
Difference being in this case he’s been through the process and has a total understanding of the situation.
This is what really more than anything else gives him his integrity on the subject. There’s no brand shaping going on whatsoever as far as I can see.
He’s young and this kind of stuff is clearly disproportionate, why should he not be able to caveat it?
Would be weird if this regularly happened to all footballers and was the norm, however, it isn’t. So him saying his piece before its publication is understandable IMO.
Its his right to defend his image if he perceives it to be under attack.
1 Like
But Rashford has no issues admitting that he’s well to do. His financial success is well document so this is a disingenuous attempt from the press to paint him as a greedy man who is using his campaigning as a way to increase his own profile and profitability.
Rashford is a Manchester United and England football player who has been a starting player for his club since the age of 18. He had millions of followers on social media before he made a concerted effort to raise issues about the government. No doubt his popularity and marketability has increased but it’s a shit thing to pull him up on because whether he has an ulterior motive or not (which I do not believe he does) - his work helped feed millions of people and forced the government to hold themselves to account over welfare related issues.
2 Likes
Where’s the evidence this “stuff” is disproportionate? For someone who put himself out there in a huge national way the coverage has been fairly typical. He’s happy to do puff pieces with the Guardian and Vouge but other publications can’t take a different view purely because of his activism/charity work?
Not many footballers who have the exposure/staus Rashford does heavily publicize their charity work and those who do have always been subject to a wider look at their finances in the press, off the top of my head Ozil was such a person
I agree if he has the right to defend himself from perceived attacks but I just find it interesting he’s keen to shape the public perception of him when it comes to certain areas
I haven’t read the article and I don’t plan to but I don’t think anybody thinks Rashford has engaged in activism/charity work purely for personal commercial gain at all, his huge support certainly doesn’t and they defend him pretty hard. Even his detractors dislike his broader involvement in politics and dunking on the govt not his wealth
Fair enough I get what you’re saying
I meant disproportionate in terms of black player coverage in general which there’s a plethora of evidence for.
It’s funny you’re talking about other publications being able to take a different view but then question why Rashford is responding to it.
As for shaping his public image, I wouldn’t say he’s keen. He’s reactive if anything.
There’s no real evidence black footballers receive disproportionate coverage, negative or otherwise compared to others.
It’s just the nature of British tabloid press anybody remotely prominent receives an excessive amount of frivolous and overly invasive articles about them and their families regardless of race. Not that it’s a good thing but this is the way it’s always been
I think it’s slightly suspect Rashford emphasizes his charity work to avoid certain labels or tags that most people wouldn’t perceive as negative. I think he has the right to respond I never questioned that
Discrediting an article before publication is definitely a proactive move
Haha, OK sure.
You’re trying to say it’s equal, really? Just the nature of the British press is it?