Faith, Football, and the Fine Line of Inclusivity

When Crystal Palace captain Marc Guehi donned a modified rainbow armband bearing the words “I 🖤 Jesus” last weekend, the England defender found himself at the centre of a controversy that raises key questions about the Football Association’s (FA) approach to inclusivity, freedom of expression, and its application of values-driven campaigns.

Rainbow Laces

Guehi wore the customised armband during Crystal Palace’s 1-1 draw with Newcastle United on Saturday. This original armband is part of the ‘Rainbow Laces’ campaign, an initiative launched in 2013 to promote LGBTQ+ inclusivity and eliminate discrimination in sports. But after being informed by the FA of Rule A4 of their kit and advertising regulations prohibiting religious messages, Guehi yet again displayed a message - “Jesus 🖤 you” - during Tuesday’s 1-0 win over Ipswich Town.

Inclusivity vs. Freedom of Expression in Football

The FA ultimately stopped short of disciplinary action against Guehi or Palace, but this incident - alongside Ipswich captain Sam Morsy’s decision to abstain from wearing the rainbow armband due to his Islamic beliefs - has highlighted a broader tension: how can football champion inclusivity while respecting players’ diverse beliefs?

Guehi’s actions, while crass or provocative to some, were not necessarily antagonistic toward the Rainbow Laces campaign. He later described his message as one of “truth and love”, and Palace manager, Oliver Glasner, defended his captain as “a great guy, very humble… respectful to everyone… very tolerant”. Notably, as his father - a minister - pointed out, Guehi still chose to wear the armband (he could have decided not to, just like Morsy did), which suggests a level of solidarity with the campaign’s anti-discrimination goals. However, his framing of this through a religious lens was deemed a step too far by the FA.

This raises an important question: is the FA sending a contradictory message by essentially mandating support for certain values while restricting others, particularly religious expression - only allowing messaging on its own terms?

The Ideological Landscape

Some think that it is only religious people (especially Christians!) who are driven by values, often implying they cannot be objective or rational contributors in the public square unless these values are checked at the door. However, what is perhaps being missed here is that the rainbow symbol itself - and the organisation behind the Rainbow Laces campaign, Stonewall - are themselves deeply rooted in values-driven principles. These reflect specific beliefs about equality, identity, and societal priorities, which go far beyond mere tolerance and respect, and carry ideological weight comparable to any religious or philosophical worldview.

It is both naïve and intellectually dishonest to suggest that secular or progressive values are inherently neutral while framing religious values as problematic. The UK itself has long been shaped by Christian principles, with its laws and social norms drawing heavily on the teachings of Jesus Christ - principles centred on love, compassion, and justice. Guehi’s message - “Jesus loves you” - aligns with these historical foundations.

A Troubling Dichotomy

Standing against LGBTQ+ discrimination is undoubtedly a good and important thing to do and resonates with the FA’s commitment to inclusion. However, the FA’s handling of Guehi’s actions reminds us that religious beliefs - not least Christian ones - are less welcome in football’s public sphere. This creates a troubling dichotomy. If football is to truly champion inclusivity, it must allow space for respectful expressions of faith.

Football’s greatest strength lies in its ability to unite people across backgrounds and cultures. To fulfil this potential, inclusion must extend to all, including those who hold religious convictions. Otherwise, campaigns for equality risk inadvertently excluding people of faith.

Some argue that banning religious messages preserves football as a neutral space. However, neutrality becomes highly questionable when the sport actively promotes campaigns with socio-political undertones. Asking players to support the league’s chosen causes while suppressing their personal convictions feels selective at best, and contradictory at worst. True inclusivity should embrace diversity, creating a space where multiple perspectives can coexist with mutual respect.

Lessons for Football - and Beyond

The FA’s decision not to penalise Guehi perhaps reflects an effort to walk this fine line of inclusivity, but the question remains: which voices are welcomed in football spaces, and which are subtly or overtly excluded? Football, as a microcosm of society, must find a way to balance collective values with individual freedoms. The secular zeitgeist often suggests that faith should remain private, but the reality is that belief systems - secular or religious - are central to personal identity and societal values. Faith deserves a place at the table, not as an adversary to inclusivity but as part of its fabric. True diversity recognises the need to respect varied views - it doesn’t sideline some in favour of others.