Why This Jersey Made Me Rethink Morality
4 March 2025 | Written by Parker Floris
A piece of fabric shouldn’t make you rethink your values. But staring at my screen, hovering over the purchase button, I hesitated. Not because of the price, not because of the design—but because of the logo plastered along the front.
The last time Qatar dominated global headlines, it wasn’t just for football—it was for its human rights abuses. The 2022 World Cup sparked mass outrage: migrant worker deaths, LGBTQ+ persecutions, calls for boycotts. And yet here I was, about to wear their name across my chest.
But then another thought hit me. If this logo makes me uncomfortable, why don’t I feel the same wearing a U.S., Australian, or U.K. emblem? These countries also have controversial histories and ongoing issues—genocides, foreign and domestic insurrections, colonial legacies, and human rights violations in their own right. Why does one symbol feel like a statement while others fade into obscurity?
How Does Media Decide What We Care About?
The way we engage with ethical issues isn’t consistent—it’s curated. Media outrage isn’t distributed evenly; it follows trends, cycles, and narratives shaped by ownership, algorithms, and influencers.
Qatar was in the global spotlight during the World Cup, making its controversies highly visible. But other nations, including Western ones, rarely receive the same level of sustained criticism, even when engaging in similar practices.
This isn’t to say Qatar’s issues shouldn’t be discussed—but why is ethical scrutiny selective? And how much of it is driven by genuine concern versus social signalling?
Why Is Our Morality So Selective—and Who Controls It?
Media platforms don’t just report on issues—they shape what we see, how we think, and the questions we ask about them. TikTok, for example, surfaced vast amounts of content on Palestine, drawing political backlash from U.S. officials who have long attempted to hide their funding and support for an active genocide. In contrast, legacy outlets, including those owned by Rupert Murdoch, have historically downplayed or suppressed stories that misalign with their interests, notably anything to do with the climate crisis.
This level of control is hardly unique. Twitter, once considered an open space for discourse, has become increasingly partisan in how it moderates content—approving 83% of censorship requests from authoritarian governments (El País) while also suspending journalists covering sensitive topics (Human Rights Watch). While some controversies are given 24/7 news cycles, others—equally or more significant—fade into obscurity, left to circulate only in niche online communities.
So, why do certain injustices demand attention while others remain conveniently overlooked? And more importantly, who gets to decide?
Can We Be More Ethically Consistent?
The challenge isn’t just about whether to wear a jersey. It’s about how we engage with ethical concerns in a world where information is editorially and algorithmically served to us—and where our time, energy, and even ability to pursue these issues is limited.
The key thing to remember is to:
Apply scrutiny consistently. If you take a stand on one issue, are you holding other entities to the same standard?
Always keep in mind who is telling you to be angry at what, and why? Specifically, what are they trying to turn your attention away from?
So, will I wear the jersey? Yes—the Sidemen Charity Match is upon us. But I’ll also recognise the layers of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the way we treat morality in the modern age, as I move forward.
What you just read, in your inbox—every Tuesday!
Join industry leaders, creators and curious minds around the world.
Subscribe for free to explore how new media is reshaping society and culture—what it means for our future, and how we can get ahead!
More
