Sexuality,masculinity and homophobia in association football: An empirical overview of a changing cultural context

Introduction

In his analysis of male sport, Plummer (2006: 122) argued that ‘homophobia is deeply implicated in the gender order and its influence on contemporary masculinities and male identity is comprehensive’. Perhaps this is one reason why, at the time of writing, there are only two active association football (hereafter football) players who have come out: Anton Hysén (a lower league semi-professional player in Sweden who came out in 2011) and Robbie Rogers (a player who came out in 2013 and currently plays for LA Galaxy in the United States (US)), whilst in January 2014 former German international, Thomas Hitzlsperger, came out four months after he retired through injury.

Reflecting on this in the cultural context of professional football in England (for an analysis of amateur/semi-professional football see Adams et al., 2010; Clayton and Humberstone, 2006; Jones and McCarthy, 2010), this article reviews a series of empirical studies focusing on the external environment of football (fans at matches, fans engaging in online message boards and the media) that have addressed the following questions: How prominent are traditional notions of masculinity in modern football? Does it continue to operate in a homophobic culture and subsequently remain a prohibitive environment for any player that wants to come out? Or is there evidence of a cultural shift that is reflective of decreasing homophobia? What it will illustrate is that despite the presence of orthodox views, they are very much in the minority. Although there are numerous accusations that fans remain homophobic, the article outlines that the vast majority would support a gay player. Concomitantly, the article also observes a change in the ways in which the media report on issues to do with sexuality, homophobia and masculinity in professional football.

Football as traditionally heterosexual

The emergence of regulated and structured football in the late nineteenth century quickly became recognized as an important and powerful component of local and national identity, particularly for the working classes. Heavily linked to the industrial working class that were populating many of these towns and cities to gain employment, the game quickly became an important feature in the lives of millions of boys and men, who admired footballers for their demonstration of power, strength, courage, bravery and skill (Dunning, 1999). As argued by Cashmore and Cleland (2014: 30):

For boys and men, football became a ‘proving ground’ that gave them a social and physical space to construct, express and validate masculine notions of identity and embodiment (particularly over women). Masculinity during this period (and into more modern times) was something to be earned: it had to be achieved through deeds, and physically demanding challenges such as sporting competitions were ideal.

Referring to how theorizations of nationalism often ignored gender relations, Yuval-Davis (1997: 1) states how ‘constructions of nationhood usually involve specific notions of "manhood" and "womanhood"’. As expressed by Parker et al. (1992: 6–7), with the gendered focus of nationalism often concentrating on heterosexuality, ‘certain sexual identities and practices are less represented and representable in nationalism’. In his historical and modern analysis of the connection between manhood and nationalism, Nagel (1998: 242) asked ‘why are many men so desperate to defend masculine, monoracial, and heterosexual institutional preserves’. One consequence of this on the culture of football was the emphasis placed on normative heterosexuality and sexism, which was subsequently passed through the generations of male supporters. The extent to which this was culturally embedded was raised by Parker (2006: 691), who described how modern professional football remains ‘a strictly gendered affair. Its relational dynamics, its working practices, its commercial ventures, its promotional interests, are replete with images of maleness’.

Academic attention towards masculinity, homophobia and sexuality in male team sports began in the 1980s with an emphasis on the continued maintenance of a socially desired gendered identity and presentation of the body as an ‘idealised, orthodox, heterosexual sign’ (Polley, 1998: 109). This was a prominent feature of writing by Messner and Sabo (1990) and Pronger (1990), who stated that gay male athletes experienced an environment that was intimidating and highly homophobic. In his analysis of male sport and how homophobia regulated the gendered behaviour of boys and men, Messner (1992: 34), for example, wrote, ‘The extent of homophobia in the sport world is staggering. Boys (in sport) learn early that to be gay, to be suspected of being gay, or even to be unable to prove one’s heterosexual status is not acceptable’.

Centring on the hostile and homophobic environment of professional male sport during the 1980s, Anderson (2009a: 7–8) referred to this period as one containing homohysteria (the fear by boys and men of being thought homosexual in a highly homophobic culture), as it reflected wider societal concerns about HIV/AIDS (often presented as being carried by gay men). In illustrating this, Anderson presented the existence of three variables: (1) an awareness of homosexuality as a sexual orientation; (2) cultural disapproval of homosexuality and its association with femininity; and (3) boy’s and men’s public presentation of their heterosexuality to avoid homosexual suspicion.

Contextualizing the environment, Connell (1987) advanced hegemonic masculinity theory through an intramasculine hierarchical structure where boys and men were rewarded with the most social capital and advanced position if they aspired to one hegemonic archetype of masculinity. For Connell, this encouraged economically and culturally marginalized boys and men to exaggerate practices through violence, homophobia and sexism. Even though this intramasculine hierarchical structure contained heterosexual men, if they did not conform then they were also marginalized, but not to the extent of gay men who were located at the bottom (Anderson, 2009a). Thus, according to Nagel (1998), hegemonic masculinity continued to reflect traditional hegemonic nationalism.

Linking hegemonic masculinity theory into the culture of football was not difficult through the connection of ‘masculinity to toughness and competitiveness’ (Connell, 1990: 83). A case in point was Justin Fashanu, who came out in October 1990 in an exclusive with the British tabloid newspaper, the Sun. Here, the heteronormative sexual order within professional male football came to the fore through the treatment Fashanu received, not only by the fans, opposition players as well as his team mates, but also his own brother John who was also a professional footballer at the time. Sections of the media also fuelled the culturally homophobic environment, illustrated by this article by Tom Seibert (1990) that was published by United Press International under the title ‘Can Gays Play Soccer, Germans Wonder’, that included a quote by Düsseldorf player Michael Schuetz towards Justin Fashanu: ‘One wouldn’t play that hard against someone like that, because there would be a certain fear of AIDS’. Through a combination of factors, including an allegation he had sexually abused a 17-year-old young man in the US, Justin Fashanu committed suicide in 1998.

Connell’s work not surprisingly shaped masculinity research in sport in the 1990s, but since the turn of the twenty-first century an increasing number of gender scholars have offered a wider theoretical and ethnographic contribution (Adams, 2011; Adams et al., 2010; Anderson, 2009a; Anderson et al., 2016; Magrath et al., 2015; Pringle and Hickey, 2010; Thorpe, 2010). A prominent theoretical explanation of social and cultural changes in men’s sport is Eric Anderson’s (2009a) inclusive masculinity theory. From his ethnographic studies on various populations of young men, Anderson argued how the hegemonic form of conservative masculinity did not explain masculinity in cultures where there was evidence of decreasing homophobia. Rather than having one ideal type of masculinity residing at the top of an intramasculine hierarchical structure, Anderson found that multiple masculinities co-existed with equal cultural appeal across a range of different sport settings where boys and men rejected homophobia, compulsory heterosexism and sexism. Instead, masculinities were becoming more fluid, varied and reconfigured. Although there remained boys and men that subscribed to traditional notions of masculinity, Anderson argued they could operate in the same environment alongside boys and men that demonstrated more inclusive masculinity. This, Anderson (2011) argued, was part of a wider cultural change that was influenced by: the increasing engagement with the internet; the expanding and influential media; the rise and success of feminism; secularization; the increasing success and prominence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals; and the increasing influence of out gay men and lesbians.

An example of how masculinities are becoming more fluid within the culture of football can be seen with players and managers no longer afraid to hug, cuddle and even kiss each other (Anderson et al., 2016). In their analysis of 22 academy-level (aged 16–18) players at a professional club in England, for example, Magrath et al. (2015) illustrated how they unanimously supported the potential coming out of gay team mates or opposition players. Thus, behaviours that would once have led to homosexual suspicion and widespread stigmatization are no longer a threat to heterosexual identity and provide further evidence for decreasing homohysteria.

This is also reflected in a wider social shift towards homosexuality and gay rights. In the 1990 General Social Survey of US adults, for example, 13 per cent believed same-sex activity was ‘not wrong at all’, but by 2014 this had increased to 49 per cent (Twenge et al., 2016). Likewise, Clements and Field (2014), as part of their analysis of 13 social attitudes surveys, referred to changes presented within the British Social Attitudes Survey towards homosexuality – in 1988, nearly two-thirds of respondents thought homosexuality was wrong, compared to just one-fifth stating this in 2013. This has also been reflected in the abolition of Section 28 in 2003 (a law introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1988 that banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality) as well as adoption rights for same-sex couples and same-sex marriage in a number of Western societies.

Given the experiences Justin Fashanu faced, it was likely that they would have a negative impact on any footballer who thought about coming out. Perhaps reflecting the shift in wider social and cultural attitudes raised above, however, since 2009 there have been a handful of sportsmen across a variety of team sports that have made the decision like Anton Hysén and Robbie Rogers to come out (including Gareth Thomas whilst playing rugby union; Keegan Hirst in rugby league; Jason Collins in basketball; Steven Davies in cricket; Orlando Cruz in boxing; Michael Sam in American football).

A changing cultural context

My own interest in examining sexuality in professional male football began in February 2010 when the English Football Association (FA) dropped a national campaign on homophobia claiming that the game was not yet ready for one to take place. In responding to this decision, the Professional Footballers’ Association (the professional players’ trade union) Chief Executive, Gordon Taylor, stated: ‘The Premier League didn’t think it was a big enough issue…we believe the time would be more appropriate when crowds are a bit more civilised’ (BBC Sport, 2010a). In fact, these views followed those of the former British public relations advisor, Max Clifford, who claimed in December 2009 that he had advised two Premier League players to remain in the closet because football ‘remains in the dark ages, steeped in homophobia’ (Harris and Godwin, 2009).

In initially seeking to analyse the extent of homophobia amongst fans, I devised an online survey that was promoted through social media and football fan message boards and was completed by 3500 fans and professionals (62 of the participants identified themselves as players) from 35 countries across the world (Cashmore and Cleland, 2012). We found that 93 per cent of respondents rejected homophobia and stated support for any player that came out. For the majority of fans, such as this Newcastle United fan, the most important aspect for them is how the player performs on the field; the private life of footballers has limited relevance to them as fans:

I want to watch a good team. I could not give a hoot if a player is gay. If he plays OK what’s the problem, the same way when I get my car serviced I want a good mechanic, I don’t go to the garage and ask about sexuality, I just want someone to do their job well (Cashmore and Cleland, 2012: 378).

Although academic research illustrates a cultural shift, some footballers have faced homophobic abuse due to the perception that they do not conform to traditional male values. This includes former England defenders, Graeme Le Saux and Sol Campbell. Campbell was a target throughout his career, but the most notable moment came in a Premier League game between Portsmouth and Tottenham Hotspur in 2008 that resulted in a number of convictions which were later dropped on appeal. Graeme Le Saux suffered regular homophobic abuse through the assumption that he was gay, but the most notable moment was in a Premier League match between Chelsea and Liverpool in 1999 when Liverpool’s striker, Robbie Fowler, bent over and made a homosexual gesture towards Graeme Le Saux. Comparing this latter incident to the wider gentrification of football, Boyle and Haynes (2009: 136–137) stated that ‘the complex relations between gender, sexuality and class were revealed to exemplify how masculinity is perceived differently by socio-economic groups’, such as the continued homosexual fears of the traditional male working classes.

Reflecting on the heteronormative environment of football during his playing career, Graeme Le Saux (2007) claimed that because managers would not want to play him, and clubs would not want to buy him, he felt compelled to say something about his background. Even though he was married with children, this admission was quite telling as it was based purely on his commercial value which perceived links to homosexuality could undermine. Views like this were also recognized by fans in Cashmore and Cleland (2012), with 84 per cent arguing that the commercial nature of modern football places pressure on players from coming out, many of whom indicated that the problem lies with agents (45 per cent) and clubs (46 per cent) which fear damage to their brand by employing a gay player. Correlatively, Peter Clayton, the openly gay chairman of the FA’s anti-homophobia advisory group, stated that despite fans often being blamed for the lack of openly gay players, clubs and agents are advising gay players to not come out because ‘they’re afraid of the potential commercial ramifications’ (Harris, 2011).

Although covert discussions around sexuality are likely to have taken place between players, agents and clubs, leading authorities within world football have openly expressed orthodox views. Perhaps the most homophobic was the President of Croatian football, Vlatko Marković, who in 2010 vowed that whilst he was in charge, no gay players would represent the national team as ‘only healthy people play football’ (Connolly, 2010). Similarly, the then FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, was quoted as saying that gay fans ‘should refrain from any sexual activities’ (BBC Sport, 2010b) if travelling to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar (where homosexuality is illegal).

Language

One feature of emerging research in this field has been around the use of language (see also the next section from a media perspective). Of particular note when assessing the extent of homophobic intent, according to McCormack and Anderson (2010), is the centralization of context in the meaning and effect of language. In environments that have high cultural homophobia, Thurlow (2001) refers to the use of ‘intensifiers’ in regulating gendered behaviour through the use of homophobic language (i.e. additional words to a phrase that are intended to degrade or wound an individual or group, such as ‘you fucking queer’). Advancing an understanding of homosexually-themed language, McCormack (2011: 673–675) devised a four-stage model that locates language in the setting in which it is being used (i.e. low or high homohysteria): ‘homophobic language’ (where it has pernicious intent and a negative social effect in trying to degrade or marginalize a person or behaviour through an association with homosexuality); ‘fag discourse’ (where it has a wide range of intent but has less of a negative social effect); ‘gay discourse’ (where it has no intent either way but privileges heterosexuality); and ‘pro-gay language’ (where it has a positive social effect and is more inclusive towards sexuality).

In his analysis of football fan chanting and its association with homophobia, Giulianotti (1999: 155) referred to the traditional use of ‘idioms of masculine identity through an uncomplicated public emasculation or feminization of the "others" (such as opposing players, supporters and match officials). Supporters aim epithets such as "poofter", "fanny" and "nonce" at the allegedly weak masculinity of players and officials’. However, it is not just focused on players who do not comply with the ‘heteromasculine norm’, but also towards clubs, such as Brighton and Hove Albion, and the association of the city as the LGBT capital of the UK (for example, regular chants include ‘we can see you holding hands’ and ‘does your boyfriend know you’re here?’). This has led to Caudwell (2011) referring to chants about sexuality trivializing the gay ‘other’ as evidence of homophobia.

As explained in Cashmore and Cleland (2011, 2012), fans see themselves as active contributors to a game (the so-called twelfth man), who feel that their behaviour can distract, harass or intimidate opposing players to gain their team an advantage. Thus, a paradox occurs where fans claim support for a gay player, yet will engage in discriminatory epithets towards rival players, teams and fans in order to enhance their sense of well-being through victory. In situations like this, a form of ‘cultural lag’ is evident (Ogburn, 1957: 167), where language that is deemed homophobic occurs when ‘one of two parts of culture which are correlated, changes before or in greater degree than the other part does, thereby causing less adjustment between the two parts that existed previously’. Although there will be fans that defend this as good-natured ‘banter’, the continued presence of language that is deemed to be homophobic provides weight to the argument that football remains a homophobic environment. As Anderson et al. (2016) have outlined, football chants regarding homophobia remain a complex social issue, where its presence can be neither assumed nor discounted.

One emphasis behind the use of language in the contemporary period is mainly centered on how the internet has transformed the ways in which people communicate (i.e. synchronous – the opportunity to debate and respond to posts in real-time – and asynchronous communication – the opportunity to debate and respond to posts outside of real-time). As suggested by Bargh and McKenna (2004), not only has the internet created numerous opportunities for interconnectivity, consumption and social networking, but it has also allowed for resistance and hate speech to be communicated through more covert and anonymous means. In responding to the widespread opportunity to engage in online discrimination, in 2013 the Crown Prosecution Service and Association of Chief Police Officers in the UK announced new measures seeking to target abuse and hate speech communicated via computers, smartphones or other non-verbal means (BBC News, 2013).

It was also in 2013 that the equality and inclusion organization for football in the UK, Kick It Out, introduced an app that could be downloaded onto a smartphone that allowed users to anonymously report any incidents of discrimination to the authorities to take further action. Indeed, the need for a targeted approach was highlighted in April 2015 (Conn, 2015) when Kick It Out reported how 134,000 discriminatory posts had been sent to Premier League players and clubs from August 2014 to March 2015, mostly via Twitter (88 per cent), but also via Facebook (8 per cent), fan message boards, (3 per cent) and blogs (1 per cent). What this indicated was the fraction of discriminatory posts that were being reported by players and clubs to the authorities to investigate. Instead, the abuse is just absorbed or ignored. In further attempts to tackle the problematic use of language on social media, in 2016 Kick It Out introduced another smartphone app, called Klick It Out, to encourage social media users to raise awareness of discrimination and report such incidents to the authorities.

Given the growth in online platforms, not surprisingly, they have become a feature of academic analysis as they can reveal the extent of homophobic language, masculine capital and heterosexual identity operating in an environment that is widely assumed to be homophobic. Kian et al. (2011: 694), for example, analysed language on one American football fan message board (rivals.com), and found homophobic posts were not contested by fellow posters and thus the ‘performance of hegemonic masculinity seemed to be mutually reinforced or policed by subsequent postings, possibly meaning that the main board serves as a haven for men trying to attain masculine capital and acceptance from like-minded peers’. In examining the extent of homophobic language on football message boards, I analysed over 3000 comments and found that although orthodox views remain, homophobic posts were rejected by the vast majority of contributors (Cleland, 2015). Posts that were deemed by fans to contain pernicious intent were frequently stigmatized and challenged by users who effectively self-police views that are deemed to fall outside of the collective majority. Instead, the majority of comments demonstrated overwhelming support for a gay player, with an emphasis on the player’s performance on the field.

The role of the media

One significant contributor to decreasing cultural homophobia in football is through the role of the media and how they present masculinity and sexuality to a wider audience. Reflecting the thoughts of Connell (1987, 1995), up until the twenty-first century hegemonic representations of masculinity were ‘reproduced through messages embedded in sport media’ (Shakib and Dunbar, 2002: 355).Focusing on the print media, Harris and Clayton (2002) outlined the prominence of traditional masculine values in the coverage devoted to male sports, with male sportsmen who did not conform to an accepted image often misrepresented. When Justin Fashanu came out in 1990, football operated in a culture of homophobia that was associated with working class masculinity. However, this emphasis on traditional hegemonic representations of masculinity has changed with the coverage now given to players such as David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo also focusing on the appearance and aesthetic style of modern footballers.

This has led to the emergence of the metrosexual man (a man who displays behaviors and styles stereotypically associated with homosexuality) that has moved the debate away from its traditional emphasis on what is meant by masculinity to one that now includes the look and appearance of male athletes. With regards to David Beckham, the media tried to emasculate him when he was pictured wearing a sarong and he also received negative coverage when he was sent off playing in a World Cup game in 1998 against Argentina that England lost on penalties. Redemption came in 2002 when he scored an equalizing goal against Greece that enabled England to qualify for the 2002 World Cup and, according to Clayton and Harris (2009: 132), signified a period of ‘acclamation and imitation, in what appeared to be the dawn of a transformation of male footballing identity’. Indeed, in an article in the Sun newspaper in 2003, David Beckham was referred to as ‘the perfect role model for every generation. A clean-living, honest, decent, caring, gentle bloke…on the outside he is 21^st Century man personified, a glamorous, handsome fashion icon’ (Clayton and Harris, 2009: 135).

The changing focus on David Beckham by the media was a landmark moment on the representation of masculinity in traditional male team sports. An opportunity to analyze this further arose in March 2011 when lower league Swedish player, Anton Hysén, announced that he was gay. A textual analysis of mostly English print media (tabloid and broadsheet) articles published in the month after Anton Hysén came out, found that all of the articles demonstrated a cultural shift by writing inclusive articles that challenged homophobia and placed an emphasis on football’s stakeholders (fans, players, coaches, administrators and the media) to accept gay players and only judge them on their performance on the field of play (Cleland, 2014). For example, in a feature article in The Times, Patrick Strudwick (2011) stated how Anton Hysén ‘has caught the media off guard, refusing to conform to football’s heterosexual diktats’.

What has become clear since Anton Hysén is that there has been a cultural shift in the ways in which the media report on these decisions (subsequently followed by the coverage given to Robbie Rogers and Thomas Hitzlsperger). Writing about the announcement by Thomas Hitzlsperger to come out in 2014, Sam Wallace (2014), in the Independent, stated:

It is a personal view that reaction to a high-profile gay footballer who, unlike Hitzlsperger, was still playing the game would, even in the unruly, unchecked atmosphere of a matchday stadium, be largely supportive and positive…what football fans never fail to recognise is the best qualities of an individual, as a person and a player, and what he gives to the club that they are wedded to for life.

Given examples of positive coverage like this, where there has been a clear shift away from traditional descriptions of masculinity in football, the media play an important gatekeeping role in the messages they convey to their audience, through the opportunity to ‘not only control much of the discourse related to sport, but they hire the next wave of workers within the sport–media complex’ (Anderson, 2009b: 5).

Since my focus on the print media’s reaction to Anton Hysén, an analysis of the British print media’s response towards the coming out of Thomas Hitzsperger suggests a consolidation of the changing cultural context (Cleland et al., 2016). This research involved an analysis of 5128 posts captured from 35 football message boards across the UK and 978 online comments in response to a Guardian national newspaper article published online on the day Thomas Hitzlsperger came out (Christenson, 2014). Although there is an assumption that hate speech has moved to more covert platforms provided by the internet (Foxman and Wolf, 2013), the analysis of 6106 comments indicated that only 2 per cent contained pernicious homophobic intent. Instead, the comments overwhelmingly highlight support and personal reflection, with those that were deemed to contain homophobia contested, condemned and resisted.

Conclusion

From a period of high homohysteria in the 1980s and 1990s, where an academic focus was met with practical realities like Justin Fashanu, there is now a growing body of empirical evidence illustrating a changing cultural context in professional football where homophobia is challenged across a range of populations, such as youth team players, fans at games, fans engaging online and print media journalists (Anderson et al., 2016; Cashmore and Cleland, 2011, 2012, 2014; Cleland, 2014, 2015; Magrath et al., 2015). These findings reflect the wider thoughts of Pringle and Hickey (2010) who suggested the presence of a different gender and sexual order amongst boys and men that do not carry the same hostility towards homosexuality as previous generations. Although referring to masculinity in snowboarding, Thorpe’s (2010: 202) conclusion that masculinities ‘are multiple and dynamic; they differ over space, time, and context, and are rooted in the cultural and social moment’ clearly resonates with the culture of football where social and cultural changes surrounding sexuality has evolved into the presence of more inclusive views.

As suggested by Polley (2004: 24), ‘those pushing the boundaries of national identity in sport from the women’s, gay, and disabled sports movements illustrate the fluidity of national identities, and the cultural and political importance of challenging orthodoxies which may be become obsolete’. Importantly, Connell has recognized a shift in the construction of modern masculinity and the challenge facing hegemonic masculinity as ‘subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms’ (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: 829). Indeed, in later work, Connell (2012) stated how traditional heteronormativity now contrasts with newer forms of ‘modern’ masculinity that are more expressive, egalitarian and peaceable.

Despite this, the lack of openly gay players continues to present a heteronormative culture in professional football (Cashmore and Cleland, 2012; Cleland et al., 2016). This is found in examples of leading figures within the game and also amongst a minority of fans, who react in negative ways when they feel heteronormativity is being challenged. When Anton Hysén came out in 2011, for example, a Swedish TV channel had to remove an online article due to the volume of hate-filled comments. In situations like this and amongst fans who continue to express homophobic thoughts in person or online, Connell (1995) suggested it is often carried out by economically and culturally marginalized men who need some form of public platform to raise their masculine capital.

Given the lack of openly gay footballers and the reluctance expressed by those who only came out post-retirement (such as former French international, Olivier Rouyer in 2008, and Thomas Hitzlsperger in 2014), the onus is placed on the internal culture of football (i.e. players, agents, managers, clubs and football’s national, continental and international governing bodies) to provide an environment that supports those active players who want to come out. Although it is often assumed that homophobia in football lies with the fans, the reality from my large-scale research and an analysis of online comments within message boards and national newspapers suggests otherwise. Of course, these do not capture all fans’ views and do not claim that homophobia has been completely eradicated, but they provide an indication on the extent of personal and social change from what Justin Fashanu experienced after he came out in 1990.

Since the FA decided to drop a campaign in 2010 there has been a renewed focus on sexual equality within football and sport more widely. Of particular note was intervention from the British government in 2011 through the creation of a sport charter that committed sport governing bodies to develop ways to eradicate homophobia as well as support those sportsmen and women who want to publicly come out. Leading on from this, the FA released a video in February 2012 specifically targeting homophobia, but it was criticized for only consisting of a casual conversation by three former professional players in a dressing room at Wembley (England’s national stadium). More recently, we have also witnessed the promotional campaign of rainbow laces worn by some professional footballers as well as an annual Football v Homophobia ‘month of action’ that is widely publicized across the professional game.

Given the lack of openly gay players, questions remain as to why no active high-profile player has decided to come out. Of course, each closeted player has their own reasons why this is the case, but when an active high-profile player does decide to come out, it will provide an opportunity for a broader analysis of governing bodies, fans, agents, players and the media. The evidence presented in this article suggests the reaction will be broadly positive and well received, particularly amongst the vast majority of fans and the media.