1. Regarding ongoing presidency of major UK sports leagues -I think the main variable there again is not just the size of the sport's following but also the seasonal agenda and where it plays out - in the case of soccer, potentially not within Europe at all. Then given the timing, and how that coincides with the existing schedule of the current royal president. So in fact perhaps it should go to a lesser "working royal" or if none is available, to a non-royal figure, perhaps a former champion in the sport.
Having said which, I don't see much if any connection in the decision-making of being president of the FA on the one hand and with being present or chairman of the USTA - a stationary event always within its namesake of Wimbledon. As to the horse-racing and cases of horses being abused, perhaps a royal presence would be useful to shine a spotlight and remedy some of that? Everything tells me that either the King, PoW would be more than appalled at hearing of that and do whatever is in their position to put a speedy end to that.
2. Regarding a royal presence as president or other formal role in the FA and how it can benefit the women's division of that - I'd say surely it's ordinary women viewers who may need to make the numbers a reality. Yet, they like any other in the UK at the moment have other priorities...astronomical costs of daily living understandably take a front seat and major leisure expenditure not so much in recent months of 2022-23. Even in years prior to the most recent times, to what extent did a royal presidency benefit the women's division of the sport? Is it or was it ever a self-sufficient division monetarily in terms of audience? Here in the U.S. where I am, I can give you examples of major sports where the real world attendance in the women's division is so low that it's haavily subsidized by the larger men's division. Perhaps then the only case for a royal presence there in a finals championship match is a female working royal, although again that seems just tokenism to me given the economic reality of our times.
While both of you raise some certainHly valid concerns, I think their implications raise some others.
1. If association with sporting events poses potential unsavory or unpredictable risks, is it therefore inappropriate for members of the royal family have formal roles with any of them? One of the key points in this particular case is that the Prince of Wales is the president of the FA. Since my original post, I did hear the captain of the Lionesses, who did not play in the World Cup due to an injury, say in an interview with Jon Sopel on "The News Agents" podcast that in that role HRH has been a strong supporter of the women's game and the national team in particular, so she did not think his absence was as much of a snub as that of the PM. Nonetheless, if the point above is correct (and while accepting that it is a reasonable question, I don't agree with it), is it unwise for a member of the RF to serve as FA president? If so, it must also follow that there should not be a royal president of the All-England Lawn Tennis Association presenting the trophies at Wimbledon. Nor should there be a Royal Box. And what about Royal Ascot? Given the 2023 catastrophic happenings at the Grand National, in which no fewer than three horses died in competition in full view of the spectators, is official royal involvement with horse racing too risky?
Note that I am not saying, and I do not believe either of you were proposing, that members of the RF should not be fans of sports in a private capacity, but should the formal connections be severed?
2. It is a valid concern that members of the RF should not be jetting off whenever there is an unexpected appearance by a national team. In this case, though, a football World Cup is hardly unexpected, and as I mentioned earlier in the thread, one or both of the King's sons have attended the men's tournaments throughout this century except when advised by the Government of the day not to do so as a calculated diplomatic snub. And, again, the PoW is president of the FA and, in this case, he had no scheduled official duties as he is on holiday.
Karen - agree with you on this completely and said as much to someone else over the Franco-Iberian page. Another point here I think is relevant in planning of royal attendance: a sports event however important some may view it to be, still has an unknown outcome until its final days, whereas at the same time the major figures in a monarchy very likely have a set schedule of events for that same month or time frame that cannot just be quickly put to one side for the heir to the throne to jet off halfway round the globe for a 24 hour photo opportunity. Nothing lost at all in the outcome on this occasion exceot avoiding proximity to the lurid outcome.
Personally in hindsight I'm glad there was no British Royal representation at the match. No-one has been caught up in the fallout that has happened in Spain and FIFA re the actions of one Spanish representative.
232
Message Thread
« Back to index