I think Beckham was an extremely poor choice of target.
He obviously wasn’t going to respond. Lycett has also got a lot of form recently for pulling stunts where all is not what it seems to be, and has been in the tabloids for it, so the outcome is no surprise at all. If he had gone after one of his BBC stablemates, someone hyperactive on Twitter, say Gary Lineker, that might have been worth microwaving some popcorn for. He had big enough balls to undermine Laura Kuenssberg on her show, but he’ll not take on the jug eared fried potato vendor. Why not? Lineker has 8.6m followers. Lycett has 1.3m. Beckham appears not to be on there.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 21 Nov 2022, 22:55,
Reply)
Gary Lineker hasn't been paid £150million
by Qatar to tell everyone what a great place it is for 10 years, and has had least made some remarks about the corruption.
Not sure how the incredibly famous ambassador is a poor choice of target. His brand is being progressive, and I do think this has harmed it.
It is going to be an elephant in the room of any interview that doesn't bring it up.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Mon 21 Nov 2022, 23:24,
Reply)
Beckham seems happy to deal with some pretty venal characters
But I always feel that criticising him is like bullying the special needs kid. I know it's just that essex childlike way he speaks that makes him sound like a simpleton and he must be more switched on than that, but I can't help it
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 22 Nov 2022, 9:51,
Reply)
I think he was a poor choice of target because he would never engage.
I never meant to imply he wasn’t a valid target. Your implication that Lineker is earning significantly less money and therefore is significantly less culpable is inane. Beckham is little more than a talisman. He rarely speaks publicly, and when he does it’s just bland platitudes. Lineker is endlessly promoting this tournament on the BBC and Twitter, and is very politically engaged, Beckham isn’t at all. Lineker is making very good money too. He really has no right to pass comment on Qatar’s human rights when he’s making so much money under their auspices. I’m not sure Beckham’s brand will be at all harmed. His brand is that of a nice guy former footballer, and this is a football tournament, he’ll be fine. I think he can weather the storm of a twenty year old very low circulation magazine cover being shredded.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Tue 22 Nov 2022, 11:53,
Reply)
Linkeker's less culpable because he is earning no direct money from Qatar
to say they are great. He's even said the opposite.
He'd earn the same money no matter where the competition was. He's as culpable as anyone else working there who had no say in where it is.
Beckham's job is to be paid millions to be an ambassador for ten years, and do PR for the government.
I'd say that's a different league of culpability. You think it's inane to think there's a difference between working in a country and endorsing its government. That's where we differ.
I'd have not known about his deal if it wasn't for Joe Lycett, so there's at least one person who now thinks he's a dodgy cunt because of the deal. I suspect there are far more.
Also, I've not actually seen Beckham doing any ambassadorial work for his millions (admittedly I hate football). Lycett spend 10 grand and got a story about Qatar's shit human rights trending for days. I'd say that's the real target, and so it worked as a stunt. His initial plan was to hold a Pride there, and had nothing to do with Beckham.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 22 Nov 2022, 13:32,
Reply)
You make some good points.
I didn’t know the extent of Beckham’s role and renumeration for it before Lycett’s intervention either. Fair dues to Lycett for that.
Is Beckham worse than Lineker because he’s paid directly by Qatar? I guess, marginally. But he’s not as much as a hypocrite. Beckham is just an airhead talisman. He’ll jump on board any bandwagon world football gets rolling. None of this excuses Lineker. He is making shitloads out of this, and you think that because he piously wags his finger at those laying on the jamboree as he counts the cash he’s made out of it that it’s all ok. It ain’t. He’s a sanctimonious hypocrite.
I think we are on the same side on this. I just won’t let exculpation of Lineker (or anyone making money out of this) go unchallenged. The only reason I don’t go in as hard on Beckham is that I think he’s very thick, and isn’t intellectually capable of even trying to defend his position on this. It’s like blaming a one time Miss World winner for that misogynistic jamboree. Lineker is not as thick, and he is very vocal. He should practice what he preaches.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Tue 22 Nov 2022, 14:19,
Reply)