The players, Gareth Southgate, and the FA have time and again felt the need to reiterate that they are indeed fighting against racial inequality, injustice and discrimination. That taking the knee is not aligned with a political organization or ideology. That Black Lives Matter is a movement that is adopted to shed light on the institutional, structural and systemic racism that plagues black lives all over the world. Despite their attempts to make their position clear, players have continually been booed every time they take the knee.

So why are they booed?

Well the protestors of the protest, which include right-wing media, politicians and a considerable chunk of the match-going fans, seemingly think that by taking the knee, the players are showing their support for political goals of crushing capitalism, defunding the police and destroying the nuclear family. That by involving themselves with the Black Lives Matter movement, they are inherently drawing on values of the Marxist ideology. At first glance, this may seem puzzling and random. Why would Harry Kane want to overthrow the state that has rewarded and glorified him? Why would Raheem Sterling want to defund the police or why would Marcus Rashford destroy the nuclear family when he longed for it having been brought up by a single mother?

But upon deeper introspection, there is one thing to note. There is Black Lives Matter – the movement and Black Lives Matter – the organization. The organization was formed in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch, who shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, in Florida. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi are the three founders and they call themselves ‘radical Black organizers’. Garza in 2015, had declared herself as a ‘trained Marxist’.

Furthermore, one of the beliefs of the organization that drew wide criticism and now forms the substance of opposition towards Black Lives Matter – the movement is:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

It essentially means they stand opposed to the idea of nuclear family (parents and their dependent children – a basic social unit) for the perceived reasons that the concept of family is an insidious invention of capitalism and that it is more conducive to fostering collectivism and conformity to facilitate production. The collectivism and conformity thereby leading to hegemony of authorities and institutions insinuating racist policies and practices in societies. Apart from the layer of racism, this belief carries an eerie resemblance to Marxism.

The Marxist perspective of the family remains critical and blunt. It is seen as performing ideological functions for capitalism, a unit of consumption one that teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy, and moreover family as an institution through which the rich pass down their riches to their children, thus reproducing inequality in class.

But the question remains, why do they boo the players?

To put it modestly, they simply refuse to differentiate between Black Lives Matter – the movement and Black Lives Matter – the organization. The criticism and opposition is based on the core assumption that the Black Lives Matter movement carries the same values as of the founders and the organization.

However, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. The movement did start from the organization but it simply outgrew its roots. It has grown and broadened its horizons dramatically following the murder of George Floyd. Many adopted the movement, few who identify themselves as Marxists, to empower their voices, to fight racism, police brutality, to bring justice, healing and freedom.

“Regardless of whatever the professed politics of people may be who are prominent in the movement, they don’t represent its breadth,” said Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Princeton University African American Studies professor and author of “From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation.”

“There are definitely socialists within the movement, as there have been in every single social movement in 20th century American history and today. But that does not make those socialist movements, it makes them mass movements,” she said. 

The movement is very different from the organization. One can take a knee in solidarity with those seeking racial equality, while not representing the organization. In any facet of life, the argument is made that a small number of bad guys don’t represent the wider goodwill of the larger public.

Moreover, in any protest against entrenched power, one tried and tested move of delegitimization by the powerful is to change the conversation from the normative evaluation of the demands of protest to the normative evaluation of the method of protest.

Don’t let the message get lost in the bickering of the higher powers that choose to decide when, how, and why one should protest. The very idea of a protest is civil disobedience, it is to raise awareness, to make people uncomfortable and confront the issue.