We all follow them. We all wryly chuckle when they tweet something marginally funny. We all engage with them in one way or another. But are the likes of SPORTbible and Footy Humour causing more harm than good in our increasingly integrated, social-media-frenzied sporting society?
A few days ago, a debate was sparked between the three of us (well, mostly James and Will) regarding the effects (or non-effects) of these “banter” accounts on social media on issues such as abuse, propaganda and racism. Do these accounts incite their sometimes-impressionable following to use social media foully? Why do these accounts post what they do? Are they harmless and merely looking for laughs, or do they instil wildly exaggerated beliefs (such as Bruno Fernandes being the best player in the Premier League’s history) into their often-young followers? And, most importantly, why should we care?
A few days ago, a debate was sparked between the three of us (well, mostly James and Will) regarding the effects (or non-effects) of these “banter” accounts on social media on issues such as abuse, propaganda and racism. Do these accounts incite their sometimes-impressionable following to use social media foully? Why do these accounts post what they do? Are they harmless and merely looking for laughs, or do they instil wildly exaggerated beliefs (such as Bruno Fernandes being the best player in the Premier League’s history) into their often-young followers? And, most importantly, why should we care?
These four instances of online abuse occurred within the last week. With notable recent cases of online racial abuse involving Reece James, Ian Wright and Aaron Wan-Bissaka reaching the news cycle (and countless others going unreported), it is obvious that this is a huge issue.
But how does such abuse arise? What would make someone act in this way towards a professional who is paid to play to the best of their abilities. Will believes that banter accounts have a huge part to play in planting the initial seed in the minds of the abusers:
"
There have been countless examples of social media abuse towards footballers in the last few weeks, with accountability - or the lack of it - credited as one of the bigger factors allowing it to continue. Are accounts with significant followings on platforms like Twitter part of a wider problem of normalising abuse towards players?
In the aftermath of Liverpool’s 3-1 loss to Leicester last weekend, Goal (a twitter account with 2 million followers) tweeted the following:
But how does such abuse arise? What would make someone act in this way towards a professional who is paid to play to the best of their abilities. Will believes that banter accounts have a huge part to play in planting the initial seed in the minds of the abusers:
"
There have been countless examples of social media abuse towards footballers in the last few weeks, with accountability - or the lack of it - credited as one of the bigger factors allowing it to continue. Are accounts with significant followings on platforms like Twitter part of a wider problem of normalising abuse towards players?
In the aftermath of Liverpool’s 3-1 loss to Leicester last weekend, Goal (a twitter account with 2 million followers) tweeted the following:
Posting negative stats (which lack context) about a young footballer like this directly encourage a social media pile on towards the individual. The use of the phrase ‘lost possession’ is extremely misleading, especially for Trent Alexander-Arnold - a player who is vital in a system that places a huge importance on himself and crossing.
And guess what. A player who is asked to cross regularly loses the ball often. Demonstrating this, the two players to have attempted the most amount of crosses this season are both Liverpool full-backs) and are ahead by quite a significant margin.
And guess what. A player who is asked to cross regularly loses the ball often. Demonstrating this, the two players to have attempted the most amount of crosses this season are both Liverpool full-backs) and are ahead by quite a significant margin.
Is the use of statistics like this – which are lacking context - a good example to set for the millions of young impressionable fans that will come across this type of content? Alexander-Arnold’s form has been below par for his high standards, but tweets like these increase the likelihood of abuse as negativity is normalised towards the player in question. We can imagine the natural progression from “TAA can’t keep the ball” to outright hatred and abuse in his direction.
Of course, this calls in the bigger question of the purpose of these football fan and banter accounts. Ultimately, engagement or, ‘clicks’, are of paramount importance to these accounts. Constant engagement with content (regardless of what it is) can lead to more followers and a greater standing in the social media community. While Twitter accounts themselves do not generate revenues, ones with 100,000s of followers are in the privileged position of attracting sponsors and incomes. Often, they find engagement through negativity: controversy and debate widen the reach of their content and the engagement with it. Regardless of the potentially toxic impact and abuse that could result from this, accounts will continue to do it owing to the prospects of financial gain.
It’s not only stats that are used, but regular edited photos of players are posted by these accounts aiming to live up to their reputation of highlighting the ‘funny’ side of football. FootballFunnys tweeted this edited photo of Anthony Martial to their over 800,000 followers in the aftermath of Man United’s disappointing home loss to Sheffield United:
Of course, this calls in the bigger question of the purpose of these football fan and banter accounts. Ultimately, engagement or, ‘clicks’, are of paramount importance to these accounts. Constant engagement with content (regardless of what it is) can lead to more followers and a greater standing in the social media community. While Twitter accounts themselves do not generate revenues, ones with 100,000s of followers are in the privileged position of attracting sponsors and incomes. Often, they find engagement through negativity: controversy and debate widen the reach of their content and the engagement with it. Regardless of the potentially toxic impact and abuse that could result from this, accounts will continue to do it owing to the prospects of financial gain.
It’s not only stats that are used, but regular edited photos of players are posted by these accounts aiming to live up to their reputation of highlighting the ‘funny’ side of football. FootballFunnys tweeted this edited photo of Anthony Martial to their over 800,000 followers in the aftermath of Man United’s disappointing home loss to Sheffield United:
This is seen as ‘banter’ on online circles and in this case part of the ongoing scrutiny over Martial’s recent performances. Yet, less than three weeks later Martial was subject to racist abuse online after Man United’s draw to West Brom. Of course, there is not a direct link between abuse and these pages, however it is surely time for these accounts to read the room and step back with what they would normally see as harmless content.
Yet, the lack of context and ridiculing of these players normalised by the third-party media are contributing to the wider social media problem. Ultimately, it needs to stop in the growing fight to combat online abuse as we move on in 2021.
"
Perhaps we are overreacting however. Perhaps some consumers of football are purely vicious and disgrace themselves with despicable comments. Perhaps these accounts do just merely provide (weak) banter. James provides the alternative viewpoint:
"
The beauty of social media, one its main selling points in fact, is tailoring content: follow accounts whose content you enjoy. Don’t like it, don’t follow it. Simple. Don’t even want to even acknowledge its existence? Go one step further, block or mute it. One helpful tip to unclogging your feed.
However, in the ever-growing world of football “banter” accounts, these steps have become rather redundant. To block them all would take hours and by the time you’ve finished, one more will have inevitably popped up, regurgitating the familiar, sometimes hilariously unfunny stats, images and debates. Not quite the most convincing opening for defending them, I hear you mutter, and you’d be right – if I was suggesting you engage as often as possible. But, no, I’m not suggesting you do that. I’d much rather you tweet, like and follow whatever you fancy. I do, however, ask that you allow others – including these accounts – to do the same.
Abusing footballers – or anyone for that matter – is wrong. Racial or otherwise. No one deserves abuse, especially not over their efforts on a football pitch for 90 minutes. To suggest, however, that football “banter” accounts are part of the problem is ludicrous. The “banter” might not make you laugh, but there is never malicious intent. The language used is not inflammatory, nor do they incite abuse.
You’ll never find these accounts signing off tweets or Instagram posts with phrases such as “now DM player X your thoughts on his game last night”, or anything of the sort. Rarely will these accounts give their own opinion on players, matches or stats – barring the occasional emoji. More often than not, these accounts simply relay facts, stats or comments during interviews – such as Harry Maguire’s poorly-thought through suggestion that West Bromwich Albion have been defensively quiet at home recently.
Yet, the lack of context and ridiculing of these players normalised by the third-party media are contributing to the wider social media problem. Ultimately, it needs to stop in the growing fight to combat online abuse as we move on in 2021.
"
Perhaps we are overreacting however. Perhaps some consumers of football are purely vicious and disgrace themselves with despicable comments. Perhaps these accounts do just merely provide (weak) banter. James provides the alternative viewpoint:
"
The beauty of social media, one its main selling points in fact, is tailoring content: follow accounts whose content you enjoy. Don’t like it, don’t follow it. Simple. Don’t even want to even acknowledge its existence? Go one step further, block or mute it. One helpful tip to unclogging your feed.
However, in the ever-growing world of football “banter” accounts, these steps have become rather redundant. To block them all would take hours and by the time you’ve finished, one more will have inevitably popped up, regurgitating the familiar, sometimes hilariously unfunny stats, images and debates. Not quite the most convincing opening for defending them, I hear you mutter, and you’d be right – if I was suggesting you engage as often as possible. But, no, I’m not suggesting you do that. I’d much rather you tweet, like and follow whatever you fancy. I do, however, ask that you allow others – including these accounts – to do the same.
Abusing footballers – or anyone for that matter – is wrong. Racial or otherwise. No one deserves abuse, especially not over their efforts on a football pitch for 90 minutes. To suggest, however, that football “banter” accounts are part of the problem is ludicrous. The “banter” might not make you laugh, but there is never malicious intent. The language used is not inflammatory, nor do they incite abuse.
You’ll never find these accounts signing off tweets or Instagram posts with phrases such as “now DM player X your thoughts on his game last night”, or anything of the sort. Rarely will these accounts give their own opinion on players, matches or stats – barring the occasional emoji. More often than not, these accounts simply relay facts, stats or comments during interviews – such as Harry Maguire’s poorly-thought through suggestion that West Bromwich Albion have been defensively quiet at home recently.
It was Maguire’s comments, and subsequent flooding from these accounts that sparked this debate among us. With an understanding that these accounts do tread a fine line, it is obvious to see how, if misused, these accounts could incite abuse. The eternal balancing act of poking fun without abusing is unenviable at the best of times.
Those who watched the post-match analysis of Manchester United’s 1-1 draw away to West Brom would have witnessed Graeme Souness dismissing Maguire’s comments, stating West Brom have the worst defensive record in the Premier League this season.
Journalists made similar comments, pointing out the unfortunate fact that every team between November 8 and February 2 have created at least 10 chances against the Baggies, directly contradicting Maguire. It was this that was picked up upon by banter accounts, highlighting an obviously below-par defence of Manchester United that encapsulated their day.
When journalists point out these stats, there is no issue. They are well within their rights, even encouraged to use them to justify their arguments. Why then should any account be restricted in their use of stats? We would not dream of suggesting that anyone, in any walk of life, should be barred from an opinion on a given topic. Nor using stats to make said point. And God forbid we banned people from using stats without any opinion. We hold these ideals, this freedom of expression, speech and opinion with such high regard and rightly so, but it cannot just be for when it suits us.
There are instances where it can and should be limited. Repeatedly attacking the same player, or players, would be abusive. The same goes for having ill-intent. But these accounts, which do no such thing, cannot be held responsible for people using these stats, facts or quirks for the wrong reasons. Most of this knowledge is in the public domain and if an individual wishes to abuse someone, it is fair to assume that there is an ulterior motive, not relating to the pass completion or goal involvement statistics.
The “banter” might not be to your taste and that is absolutely fine. You might find some stats misleading and irrelevant and that is absolutely fine as well. Alternatively, you might enjoy the ensuing debate over performances and matches that these accounts encourage. Guess what: that is absolutely fine, too. If you’re in the former camp, might I direct you back to my one helpful tip for unclogging your feed – the unfollow, mute and block buttons are to be used at your leisure.
"
The existence of these accounts can be traced back to a simple desire of one football-lover to make other football-lovers laugh on new, exciting and innovative social media platforms. Social media is inherently brilliant; you’re reading this article (and perhaps some of our others after this one) due to social media. Maybe it is unfair to attempt to charge the same account owners as responsible for abuse that players all too often face today.
But we live in a world today where the job “social media influencer” literally exists. Social media is a powerful tool. It can infiltrate our lives without us being aware. It can make us want to buy things or think things. Like in the DiCaprio film Inception, it can plant an idea into our mind without us being conscious of it.
It’s fair for these accounts to continue to aim to make people laugh – a funny post could brighten up one’s day – but an awareness of their influence over a large portion of their followers is required. With VAR still in use, there is enough wrong with football at the moment. Online abuse, hatred, trolling, racism – whatever it is – is unacceptable and unrequired.
These accounts are not purely harmless fun. I invite you to look at the replies of any tweet from any account we have referenced in this article and the problems of their somewhat provocative tweets on impressionable audiences will be realised. And when this is all culminating in frequent online abuse and racism, things need to change.
Of course, they are not directly inciting abuse towards players, but my conjecture is that they are playing a part in its occurrence. You can have banter without directing it at someone. We need to stop making players the subjects of this banter. There is obvious correlation, and I’d go as far to say causation, between the negative “funny” comments of these accounts and unacceptable online hate directed at players.
Again, if our only unit of analysis was the accounts themselves, there is not as much of a problem. They are not directly the issue, nor are they the sole root of it. Should we call for them to filter their content and alter the framing of information in their posts, or are there wider problems which need to be addressed if we are to solve this growing problem of online abuse?
Those who watched the post-match analysis of Manchester United’s 1-1 draw away to West Brom would have witnessed Graeme Souness dismissing Maguire’s comments, stating West Brom have the worst defensive record in the Premier League this season.
Journalists made similar comments, pointing out the unfortunate fact that every team between November 8 and February 2 have created at least 10 chances against the Baggies, directly contradicting Maguire. It was this that was picked up upon by banter accounts, highlighting an obviously below-par defence of Manchester United that encapsulated their day.
When journalists point out these stats, there is no issue. They are well within their rights, even encouraged to use them to justify their arguments. Why then should any account be restricted in their use of stats? We would not dream of suggesting that anyone, in any walk of life, should be barred from an opinion on a given topic. Nor using stats to make said point. And God forbid we banned people from using stats without any opinion. We hold these ideals, this freedom of expression, speech and opinion with such high regard and rightly so, but it cannot just be for when it suits us.
There are instances where it can and should be limited. Repeatedly attacking the same player, or players, would be abusive. The same goes for having ill-intent. But these accounts, which do no such thing, cannot be held responsible for people using these stats, facts or quirks for the wrong reasons. Most of this knowledge is in the public domain and if an individual wishes to abuse someone, it is fair to assume that there is an ulterior motive, not relating to the pass completion or goal involvement statistics.
The “banter” might not be to your taste and that is absolutely fine. You might find some stats misleading and irrelevant and that is absolutely fine as well. Alternatively, you might enjoy the ensuing debate over performances and matches that these accounts encourage. Guess what: that is absolutely fine, too. If you’re in the former camp, might I direct you back to my one helpful tip for unclogging your feed – the unfollow, mute and block buttons are to be used at your leisure.
"
The existence of these accounts can be traced back to a simple desire of one football-lover to make other football-lovers laugh on new, exciting and innovative social media platforms. Social media is inherently brilliant; you’re reading this article (and perhaps some of our others after this one) due to social media. Maybe it is unfair to attempt to charge the same account owners as responsible for abuse that players all too often face today.
But we live in a world today where the job “social media influencer” literally exists. Social media is a powerful tool. It can infiltrate our lives without us being aware. It can make us want to buy things or think things. Like in the DiCaprio film Inception, it can plant an idea into our mind without us being conscious of it.
It’s fair for these accounts to continue to aim to make people laugh – a funny post could brighten up one’s day – but an awareness of their influence over a large portion of their followers is required. With VAR still in use, there is enough wrong with football at the moment. Online abuse, hatred, trolling, racism – whatever it is – is unacceptable and unrequired.
These accounts are not purely harmless fun. I invite you to look at the replies of any tweet from any account we have referenced in this article and the problems of their somewhat provocative tweets on impressionable audiences will be realised. And when this is all culminating in frequent online abuse and racism, things need to change.
Of course, they are not directly inciting abuse towards players, but my conjecture is that they are playing a part in its occurrence. You can have banter without directing it at someone. We need to stop making players the subjects of this banter. There is obvious correlation, and I’d go as far to say causation, between the negative “funny” comments of these accounts and unacceptable online hate directed at players.
Again, if our only unit of analysis was the accounts themselves, there is not as much of a problem. They are not directly the issue, nor are they the sole root of it. Should we call for them to filter their content and alter the framing of information in their posts, or are there wider problems which need to be addressed if we are to solve this growing problem of online abuse?
Written and Edited by - 3-At-The-Back