Media Storm - News Watch: World Cup rapists - and what really went wrong for Starmer

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

Care about independent and ethical news? Support Media Storm on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Are you thrilled to see the back of Keir Starmer? Or - like us - are you oh so sick of the Westminster drama? The UK is set to see its seventh Prime Ministers in 10 years after Andy Burnham’s Makerfield coup. You couldn’t write it… or could you? One might argue, that’s exactly what our media did. Today we assess: do political correspondents enflame political chaos? Should Westminster gossip constantly be centre stage (and front-page). And for the media’s endless analysis of “what went wrong for Starmer”, why does none of it look at itself? After the break… everyone’s talking about the World Cup! But there’s a glaring gap in the coverage. Did you know that several of the men now dominating global screens have been charged with or accused of rape and sexual assault? Football pundits keep repeating the familiar refrain: 'innocent until proven guilty'. We examine why this doesn't actually hold up in the context of rape and sexual assault. This episode is hosted and produced by Mathilda Mallinson (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@mathildamall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Helena Wadia (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@helenawadia⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Edited by Toka Omer The music is by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ @soundofsamfire⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@mediastormpod⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Activia. You might already be eating yogurt, but not all yogurts are created equal. Activia contains over 1 billion probiotics per serving to survive and reach the gut alive. When it comes to gut health, Activia is the number one family doctor-recommended probiotic yogurt brand. Choose Activia. Feel good from the inside out. Visitactivia.ca for more details. I am one of Motenui.

Tenth. Maui, you aboard my boat and restore the heart of Tefeiti. And here we go. The journey begins. See her light up the night in the sea. She calls me. The ocean chose you. Let's go save the world.

I got your back, chosen one. Disney's Moana. Boots Nick. His name is Hay Hey. His name is Yum. When he goes in my tum-tum. In theaters July 10th. Please note, this episode contains discussion of rape,

sexual assault and gendered violence. Media Storm is brought to you in partnership with Open Britain. A grassroots campaign group making democracy work for everyone, not just the rich and powerful. Hello, Matilda. Helena, have you cooled down? Oh, yeah, I've cooled down now, although I know it's just going to get really hot again. But yeah, I lost my goddamn mind in that heat wave. I was enjoying a barmey 28 degrees in Greece last week.

I do apologise for the terrible quality of my audio last week. The internet wasn't very good, but the temperature was. I know. And this is what I was saying. I was like, if I lived in a country or a city that was built for heat, I would really be fine with it being 28, 30 degrees. Like, if I could jump into water at any point, that would be fine. But, you know, we are not built here in the UK for a heat wave.

And it's only going to get hotter. Do you know what? It's quite a funny media. storm on this. I saw loads of like boomers posting about how much of a fuss we make about the heat these days and they used to just get on with it when they had the heat wave in the 70s and they're like, oh, is it getting worse or are we getting more pathetic? Well, I think firstly it is getting worse. But secondly, boomers were just as pathetic as we were. Someone actually went through the archives and posted headlines from the 1976 heat wave when apparently people just got on with it.

Here are some. Killer heat wave hits the old folk. London schools cut back hours to beat heat. Heatwave chaos. Phew. It could get worse. An ice cream crisis and a heat wave crime wave. Not an ice cream crisis. Yeah, I feel like, wow, those headlines are like starkingly similar to the ones that we have seen this year last week. Good to know that they were warning it was getting worse then and nobody has done a goddamn thing. I mean, I do think that a lot of people got a real wake-up call with the heat wave last week and probably we'll get another one with the upcoming one next week. And that wake-up call is that this is the coldest summer

of your life. If we are going to do anything to stop it, we need to put pressure on our government to stop fossil fuels, to stop new oil and gas contracts. Little plug for our archive. If you want to find out more about the people who are on the front lines of the climate crisis and who it's caused by, just search, oil spills in the Niger Delta will shell come clean, which is one of our many episodes about environmental justice. Now, on with the News Watch. Today, seven prime ministers in 10 years, you couldn't write it. Or could you? One might argue, that's exactly what our media did. Today, I'll examine, to what extent do political correspondence write political chaos into reality.

And for all their breakdowns of what went wrong for Stama, why are none of them looking at themselves? And after the break, everyone's talking about the World Cup. But there's a glaring gap in the coverage. What happens when rapists run rampant on football pitches? And why won't football pundits stop saying, innocent until proven guilty? Is it over for Stama?

Is it over for Stama? Is it over for Gets? Is it over for Kia Stoma? The knives are now well untrually out. What on earth is going on in the UK? Party is set to sand trial in the UK on rape and sexual assault charges. Should that forfeit their opportunity to play football? I always believe that you are innocent and to prove and guilty.

Welcome to Media Storm's News Watch, helping you get your head around the headlines. I'm Helena Wadia. And I'm Matilda Malanson. This week's Media Storms, 7 PMs in 10 years, and rapists in the... the World Cup. I don't know about you, but how I have personally felt, every time I hear the media speculate about a Labour leadership contest, which by the way, they have done constantly over the past year, is please, God, no, politicians, just do your jobs, stop playing politics and govern. I think I talked about this when we covered the Peter Mandelson affair.

Mandelson was Starrma's chosen ambassador to the US, but after the extent of his links to Jeffrey Epstein came out, he nearly became Starmer's Downfall. And yes, it was awful he was appointed, despite his proximity to Epstein. But the media storm that broke out was just so insincere. MPEs and news outlets who'd taken no issue with Mandelson's appointment at the time, even applauded it, milked the opportunity to perform outrage while clearly just fishing for a leadership contest. And I just felt, do you really care about us? Do you really care about Epstein's victims? do you really care about corruption and elitism, or do you just care about what you can gain politically?

And for the journalists about how many juicy headlines you could get out of government collapse. Over this past fortnight, I've had the same gut feeling about Stama's resignation. How do you feel? Honestly, I do want Stama gone. I think he deserves to go, but I am also just exhausted about the upcoming PM deciding for raw.

Like, if I'm honest, I just feel like we're just going to get more of the same. You know, nothing's going to change. Yeah. And I don't know. Maybe I am in a minority. I know that Stama is deeply unpopular. I have serious grievances with him myself. But ultimately, I think that politics should be about governance.

And most of the time, the party mechanics should be behind the scenes, not center stage. It does feel like Westminster is always center stage. And you know what? It has been like that for a long time. We're about to have seen seven prime ministers in 10 years, a period that should have turned over only three if it was business as usual. The key point here is that we have a problem in our politics. Our system is increasingly unstable.

Instability costs us a lot. It costs the most vulnerable people in society the most. So we need to work out what's going wrong. And indeed, you'll have seen every paper this week ask that question, what went wrong? they identify many valid reasons. But one key reason was distinctly missing itself. Okay, elaborate. So I think the most obvious way our media destabilizes politics is the way that we allocate headlines. We, and by we, I mean, journalists, we reward whichever politicians will give us the most clicks, not the most meaningful change for the public. This very directly

incentivizes our leaders to channel more energy into politics than policy. But another issue I see with our political media is that I think they think everyone is obsessed as they are with Westminster gossip. And actually, most people in this country don't constantly want to know how many MPs are bitching about their leader at any given time. Most people would rather know how politicians are getting on with their actual day jobs outside Westminster in their constituencies and how it's going to affect their household bills and job security and human rights and so on and so forth. And that's why I think a lot of Brits will have actually been shocked at the spiraling event. of Starmer's resignation last week.

Most of them don't pay attention to Westminster gossip until it forces them to go to the polls yet again to elect another leader just so the media can spend most of their leadership speculating about when it will end. Yeah, honestly, the speculation has already started for Andy Burnham and he hasn't even begun. I know, I just listened to this like Burnham bitch session

on Times Radio in which political correspondent, Charlotte Ivers, literally said, I don't know why, but everything he does I'm not even going to give him a chance. Why are we so desperate for another failed leadership? Right. Still, I think many political correspondents would take issue with your characterization of their coverage as Westminster gossip.

And yet, that's exactly what a lot of it is. Obviously, not all of it. Like, to be clear, political correspondents do a lot of vital work. They're generally very clever people, and I actually find that analysis, stimulating and interesting. But it's curious that in no other area of journalism, do you regularly see anonymous opinions and unverified rumours elevated to the status of news? This is common practice in political reporting and they're not shy about it.

One example, let me read you the mega analysis of BBC political editor Chris Mason. It was titled The Anatomy of the Prime Minister's Downfall. Now, he openly informs readers. By necessity, much of this is off the record. Information and sentiments shared with us on the condition. we don't reveal publicly who it is we have spoken to in a way that could identify them. In other words, he says that a substantial share of his reporting over the past six months, which has, by the way, consistently ruminated about Stama's imminent downfall.

This has been based on personal opinions, privately expressed, on the condition they cannot be subjected to public scrutiny. But being able to give sources anonymity is a very important part of journalism. No, it definitely is. I, like many journalists, often use anonymous sources in my reporting, but my sources are not anonymously giving me their opinion, right? They're anonymously giving me their first-hand testimony, describing something that has definitively happened to them or that they have definitively witnessed, and the reason for their anonymity is almost always their safety. Political journalism

is very different. Westminster gossip is treated as legitimate news because it is is a form of power play that could become genuinely consequential. And I understand that it's important for political correspondents to keep their fingers on the pulse inside Parliament. But don't confuse the mood of the political class with the will of the British people at large. It's one thing to use anonymous sources to better understand a verified state of affairs.

It's another to construct entire narratives of their claims. Yeah, very true. And what justification does Chris Mason give for his head? every reliance on anonymous briefings. I'm assuming he gives one, given he specifies it in his article. He does. He points out that, and I quote, sometimes the most candid views are expressed privately, at least up to the point that the weight of an opinion becomes sufficiently significant that people choose to share their view more widely. Doesn't the author wonder whether him publishing this anonymous opinion pays any role in it becoming sufficiently significant?

inevitably does. Right? In which case, that's not chronicling events. It's shaping them. And that is already quite controversial in journalism. So Mason says, for example, Chris Mason writes in his article, by New Year's Eve, these private conversations meant I could report 2026 would be Keir's make or break year. He's basically saying, look, it was a break year, so I did the right thing. But I'm thinking, how much was that a self-fulfilling prophecy? And that brings me on to the point that struck me the most of all, reading and watching and listening to hours and hours of our political media's analysis about what went wrong for Stama, which I did. It was fun. And that was the sheer lack of awareness from any of the people speaking about the role they themselves may have played

in creating that very outcome. If we are going to dedicate thousands of words to examining why Stalmers' leadership collapsed, I think one factor that should at least be mentioned is the incessant media speculation that has haunted him for most of his leadership. And after a decade of instability, maybe we should examine whether this persistent stream of speculative commentary is really in the public interest. Right, because it may not be in the public interest to publish some plot against the prime minister, but it's definitely in someone's interest. Exactly.

Ambitious politicians exploit the media's desire for juicy headlines. They instrumentalise journalists, not to chronicle events, for the public's benefit, but to manipulate events, often at the public's expense. This is undeniable. It's also undeniable. Journalists often allow themselves to be instrumentalised so that they get the scoop instead of their competitors. And it's also undeniable that media moguls are often co-conspirators in their news outlets instrumentalisation, because they'd rather see their man inside than see whoever was actually elected to be inside, succeed for the good of us all.

Our political media often accuse politicians of Westminster elitism, but it sounds like it's as much a problem in our political media. Massively. The same class that dominates Westminster also dominates our media, right? And yes, I am among that class. And what I perpetually see in these circles is the fundamentally elitist approach to politics. Politics as an intellectual exercise, a game of thrones,

not an existential reality in which people's day-to-day well-being depends on actual stability, actual leadership and actual evidence-based change. So what's the answer? Well, maybe Andy Burnham actually said it. Devolution. Change will be driven through the Prime Minister's office in an extended operation based here in Manchester. But here's the important thing. It will only be based here.

The job of No. 10 North will be to make power flow into the Midlands, into the south-west. into the east of England, and yes, into London, as I said before, as much as into the northeast, Yorkshire and the Humber, and here in the northwest. For all of the naysaying from political correspondents about Andy Burnham, I actually felt quite excited listening to his first speech. His flagship speech was about shifting the political epicentre away from London and towards each individual region. We need to do this with the media as well as with Parliament, right?

He talks about this number 10 of the north, I suppose, a political HQ in Manchester. That could mean a wholly different makeup to the front line of political correspondence in our media. Now, obviously, it might be all talk, but it's good talk, so let's see. This feels like a timely opportunity to plug that we have an upcoming episode in a few weeks about local journalism and why and how to save it. Very good opportunity. I just want to make one more point about the Westminster bubble, because I actually think that this, really stifled our media's analysis of what went wrong for Starmer. It focused almost entirely on very Westminster-centric issues. Stama fell because of all of his U-turns, his lack of charisma,

his dodgy ambassador appointment, the backbencher rebellions. But almost none of the analysis looked at the lived realities of British people beyond the walls of Westminster in seeking to explain why Stama's party clearly decided he couldn't win them another election. Reality is like racist violence on the streets for the third summit in a row. Brits, I think, have become genuinely alarmed witnessing these scenes about what reform could do to the country. I think maybe the main reason Stama fell is that many people are now prepared to get behind anyone who is most likely to prevent reform from coming in, i.e. not Keir Stama. This was reflected in the make field by election in which the Tories, Lib Dems, and

and Greens combined got just 3.3% of votes. It's proof that people voted tactically for whoever would keep reform out. And what about realities like the fact that despite quartering net immigration, Labor has failed to make a dent in the cost of living crisis. Shock horror, maybe immigration wasn't the problem. Or realities like us watching police arrest thousands of pensioners while violence against women goes uninvestigated. While the Prime Minister holds private meetings with the arms firms funneling weapons to Gaza where 20,000 children have been killed. In the first 24 hours of Stama resigning, media lands counted 1,485 mentions of him. Only 30 had any reference to Gaza. This rupture is not a matter of opinion. In the 2024 general election, five sitting Labour MPs were

defeated by pro-Gaza independence. Labor's share of the Muslim vote, historically one of their most reliable blocks, has fallen from over 60% in 2019 to just 33%. The government's own figures show that almost half of religiously aggravated crimes are against Muslims. That's the biggest block. For a lot of people in this country, politics is not about gossip or games. Let's take a break. You can't move for people talking about the World Cup.

But there is one glaring gap in the coverage. It's a topic that the mainstream media is avoiding so much that if it wasn't for social media, it would be hard to even know about. Did you know that there are several alleged, charged, and accused rapists, playing in the World Cup right now. No, I had no idea until you said you were covering it.

Case one. Japan midfielder Kai Shu Sano was arrested for gang rape in 2024. The woman called the police immediately after the attack and the three men, including Sano, were arrested on a nearby street. Prosecutors dropped the charge after Sano's legal team reportedly settled out of court with his victim. When he was selected for the Japan national team for this year's World Cup, he apologised for his actions in a press conference. The Japan Football Association categorised the incident as a personal mistake,

and Japan's head coach stated, I strongly felt that he is truly remorseful. I asked myself whether we should simply cast someone out of the football world for making a mistake. I decided it would be better to give him a path to try again. He is playing in the World Cup. Case two. Morocco's team captain Akrafakimi is yet to face trial for alleged rape that took place in January 2023 in Paris.

There is serious evidence in this case, text messages the woman sent to her friend during the date and afterwards. He grabbed me. He's very pushy, begging her friend to hurry up, please to pick her up. And finally, he raped me.

Hakemi appealed to the court against facing criminal proceedings and just hours before his team played Scotland at the World Cup. A court rejected his appeal as they concluded that there is sufficient evidence. against the player to justify sending him for trial. A trial date has not yet been set.

He denies the allegations. He's playing in the World Cup. Case 3. The captain of Cape Verde's World Cup 2020 team has been accused of sexually assaulting the team's translator during a team trip to New Zealand. Ryan Mendez allegedly sexually assaulted the Brazilian woman during the team's March trip.

She said she reported the incident to at least three different officials from Cape Verde's soccer authority and never received a response. He is playing in the World Cup. And Case 4, the one you've probably most likely heard about and will come on to why later. Garner's midfielder, Thomas Party,

has been charged with seven counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. He was first reported to the police in 2021 and continued to play for Arsenal until June of last year while under police investigation. He's scheduled to go on trial next year at Southwark Crown Court. He is playing for, in the World Cup.

Just to point out immediately that all four men represent different nations and cultures and have also played for teams all over the world, including European teams, which just goes to show that this issue, male violence, is not a regional issue. It's widespread and normalized all over the world. So normalized, in fact, that the media has largely decided not to bother reporting on it. Feminist-leaning outlets and independent news creators on so social media have been really picking up the slack to cover this, which is where I initially found out about the topic. Searching mainstream and legacy outlets, I can see a few articles from the BBC

and a few articles from The Guardian, but the majority of mainstream coverage recently has been indirect. What do I mean by this? I mean that there are two incidents that have shone a light on Thomas Party's actions recently, which has almost forced the media to report on the story of his alleged sexual violence. The first is that party missed Garner's World Cup opener against Panama when he was denied entry to Canada after wrongly telling officials in Canada he had never been arrested or charged with a crime.

And the second is that during the England v. Garner match last Tuesday, in the traditional lineup at the start of the game, England player Jed Spence did not shake hands with party. This act of allyship by Jed Spence should be celebrated. I was glad to see at least one footballer refusing to shake hands with a man accused of seven counts of rape.

But I found it very interesting that articles and op-eds about whether or not Jed Spence should have shook hands with an alleged rapist, far outnumbered articles and op-eds about the fact that there is an alleged rapist playing in the World Cup. That's so predictable. Pick a culture war rather than a war on male violence. It's also interesting that there's a media flurry about a handshake when not shaking hands with party really is the bare minimum of ally. Like, imagine the message that would have been sent if every single player refused to play

with party. That would have been taking a stand. For sure. But this is where normalisation comes into play again and where the media doesn't do its job, because this is not an unusual problem in football. Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the world's most famous, most decorated, most revered football players in the world, has also twice been investigated for rape. He's a man who, by the way, described Donald Trump as one of the people that I really like and met with him at the White House last year. Ronaldo denies the allegations and has never been charged as US prosecutors said that the accusations could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is despite an investigation revealing

that Ronaldo had at one point acknowledged to his own lawyers that the woman had asked him to stop during sex. His accuser was called a money grabber and an attention seeker for waiving her anonymity. Ronaldo continues to play football and allegedly earns up to $300 million per year. Ex-Manchester United player, Mason Greenwood was charged with attempted rape, assault and controlling and coercive behaviour against his partner. There was actually video and audio evidence of this behaviour. Greenwood was also arrested for breaching his bail conditions by contacting his accuser. The victim ended up withdrawing from the trial and the CPS dropped all the charges against Greenwood. He plays as a forward for League One Club Marseille. And Benjamin Mendi, who played for

Man City, he was charged with eight rapes, one attempted rape, and a sexual assault. The claims almost all took place at a flat he rented in Manchester City Centre, as well as his home in the Cheshire Countryside, which he used for after parties, including regular parties that broke COVID lockdown rules. The details are pretty harrowing, including him telling one woman after he allegedly raped her, but he's had sex with 10,000 women. Mendi pleaded not guilty to all charges. After the jury couldn't reach verdicts on two of the charges, there was a retrial and eventually he was found not guilty on all charges. He now plays for a high-level Polish league. And this is what football pundits high and low are repeating over and over again. Innocent

until proven guilty. Garner's manager, Carlos Queros, defended his decision to include Thomas party in his World Cup team, saying, it's a simple and basic answer. As far as I know, we are living in this world until the court makes a decision that the presumption of innocence is on the side of all court cases. This is not for me or you to make a judgment about. And pundits and sports journals have agreed. Here's Simon Jordan and Jim White on Talk Sport, discussing party and relating it to the Benjamin Mendi case. For context, when Mendi was charged with Mendi, multiple sexual assaults, Manchester City suspended him pending a trial.

If a player is charged with a crime, should that forfeet their opportunity to play football? It depends what the crime is. I mean, in an instance of a very significant crime like this, in the balance of probability, because it's a public domain environment. And he's right, by the way, the manager, the presumption, there's a big difference

between being charged and being found guilty. We've seen that with Benjamin Mendi. Yeah. Now, however that case collapsed or however he wasn't found guilty is kind of irrelevant. This position was taken by the football club to take him out of out full stop, literally, the moment he was charged. It's all about barriers to entry. We should live in a world where the presumption of innocence is still something that has to be detailed first, not the presumption of guilt, and get the balance right. Now, obviously in situations surrounding serious allegations about sexual behaviour, it's the balancing act against the victim as well, in the victim in the situation who has to be believed.

So you've got to get the balance right. But as a public domain business, I think the barrier to entry is the moment you're charged. I think it's reasonable for a public domain business to withdraw that person from frontline activity. Now, Manchester City withdrew Mendi. And they not only withdrew Mendi, they withdrew his salary. Well, Manchester City, yes, suspended Benjamin Mendi without pay when he was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault. How does that work out for them? Mendi was subsequently acquitted of all of those charges against him.

And then he took City to an employment tribunal and regained his contractual. And then he won 11 million pounds in damages from the club. Once the burden of the obligation to produce a certain level of threshold has been crossed, and I would suspect that it's incumbent upon the CPS not to bring spurious charges. So once that burden has been reached and that it's been charged, I think it's reasonable for an employer in a public domain business to withdraw that person from the front line. So here's two men saying, well, we have to treat these men as innocent and

proven guilty, an allegation is an allegation. But if this case has passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS, and they decide to charge, then maybe I would consider suspending that person if I were a manager. Now, what's the immediate problem with that, Matilda? Well, someone is only charged if the CPS believe they have enough evidence to prove their case at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. When most rape trials come down to one word against another, beyond a reasonable doubt is almost impossible. I've interviewed police about this and the Crown Prosecution Service. Police often say that the Crown Prosecution Service actually just reject almost all rape trials because of how difficult it is for them and because failing would make their stats look bad. So the charging rate in the UK

for rape is historically low. The evidence threshold is very high. Of the rapes that are even reported, less than 3% meet the evidence threshold to go on trial. So the charge rate is so, so, so small. It has almost no bearing on the reality of the scale of rape. I'll give you a real life example. In 2019, I was sexually assaulted when I was groped on the London underground. After waiting months for the CCTV to come back, I was told, sorry, the CCTV didn't extend to where you were standing in the tube carriage, so we can't prove that it happened, so the CPS won't charge the man who did it,

because they know if it goes to trial, the jury will have to say, well, there's not enough evidence. Does that mean that it didn't happen? Does that mean that I just made it all up? I mean, I hope any reasonable person's answer to that would be no. And even on the rare occasion that a case makes it to trial less than 50% of those 3% that go to trial end in a conviction. Right. Here's the nuance that the media will not let you know.

Innocent until proven guilty is not how our legal system works when it comes to rape and sexual assault. Someone is found not guilty if the prosecution has failed to prove, the charges beyond a reasonable doubt because of lack of evidence, for example. Legally, that does not equate to innocent. Yet not guilty and innocent are equated time and again in the media. And I think my big media issue here is that these cases are barely reported on in the media. And on the off chance that they are, it's sport pundits giving the analysis.

Already the sport media world is male dominated, so we're unlikely to hear from anyone who who has lived experience, and then add on top that sport pundits aren't really equipped to deal with the nuance that these cases deserve. These TV or radio segments aren't going to delve into the light and shade of the criminal justice system. They're just basically going to say, well, innocent until proven guilty and what a fantastic player they are. And their opinions are elevated more than anyone else in this conversation. Sports pundits have such a huge audience and that audience is mostly young men. That is such a dangerous space in which to perpetuate situate ignorance and rape myths.

And in all these stories, there's very little mention of actually what it is like for the victims. Their setup seems to be to wait for each of these media storms to pass. But for victims and survivors, the storm never really passes. Exactly. I want to read out what Hannah Price, a journalist at the BBC, wrote on this topic. Hannah's work centres around exposing male violence, and she's been investigating sexual violence allegations in Premier League football for over four years. Hannah said, there's a lot of differing opinions on this subject.

Is football just a game? Why does it matter? One perspective I've had access to through my reporting is one maybe people might not have thought of or heard, that of the women who say they were raped by some of these players who are awaiting the trials. To them, conversations like this undoubtedly affect them. Women who have spoken out about what it's like to see them. man facing charges of raping them on television, being cheered and celebrated, being platformed, having their country shake their hands. Women who have been trolled on social media with messages from fans saying they don't care if someone is a rapist, if they win their team the match.

Messages from fans saying they believe them, but they should commit suicide so it doesn't affect their team's lineup and chances of winning. These conversations are far more nuanced than that of off-the-cuff comments made by pundits or in the pub. And those are the most important parts of the conversation that any of us need to hear. I think what's even more unsettling is that, okay, there's a very low conviction rate. But even the athletes who have been convicted of serious sexual assault

don't face consequences. Stephen van der Velde is a Dutch volleyball player who went to the 2024 Paris Olympics, despite being a convicted child rapist. He went to prison, side note, only for a year, for raping a 12-year-old girl in the UK in 2014. Yes. And Connor McGregor, who I'm sure many listeners have seen, was literally on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon a week ago.

Connor McGregor is a UFC fighter and an Irish civil jury found he had raped Nikita Hand who waved her anonymity in Dublin in 2018. Medical evidence documented extensive bruising across Hans' body following the assault, where a paramedic testified she had not seen someone so bruised, with that intensity of bruising in a long time. Yet just two months after the guilty verdict in 2025,

McGregor made his first major public appearance, which was, can you guess it, attending Donald Trump's inauguration. Go figure. So yeah, you can't even say, well, if the justice system finds someone guilty, then they'll face consequences and then I'll accept it. Because when it comes to famous men,

it seems that sexual violence does not actually have any tangible consequences so long as they're, athletic and fast and strong enough to be a professional athlete. I think part of the reason that the media is so bad at reporting on these cases in any type of meaningful way is because there's no conduct policy in place that gives them any type of framework for understanding. For example, the FA, the Football Association, have policies in place for footballers accused of gambling, but nothing in place for players accused of sexual or domestic violence. If you look at other sports, the NFL, for example. They have a publicly available conduct policy that sets out how those

facing allegations of sexual or domestic violence will be dealt with. And it reads, it is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime in a court of law. We are all held to a higher standard and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL and is lawful. FIFA or the FA could have a consistent approach like that, but instead it chooses only to semi-face these issues when they make the headlines, at which point criminal proceedings are often ongoing and very little can be said due to the risk of prejudice. Right.

We're stuck in the media cycle where the person accused will often deny their actions. The managers or clubs will either decline to comment or say innocent until proven guilty. The legal restrictions on court reporting will halt any accountability. Then the case will be resolved, dropped out of the news cycle and no action will be taken. which is why we end up with articles about a lack of a handshake rather than anything that has long-term impact or change. I guess I just want to end this segment by saying that this whole thing is just so fucking jarring. It's so tiring to be constantly reminded on one of the biggest stages on Earth

that is watched by millions of people every day that it doesn't matter if you abuse women. Like, I find it really hard to believe that if a player was accused of or charged with murder or arson or something, but not found guilty yet, that they wouldn't be removed from playing straight away. To me, it just shows how little women's lives and experiences matter and how commonplace male violence is. I think it's also important to say that sexual violence is not caused by football, but we have to examine the wider culture around the sport. In the UK, we know that domestic abuse skyrocketed after any match England plays in,

and we know that football culture can embolden male entitlement and hooliganism. But it doesn't have to. The World Cup, it should be fun and it should be uplifting. But it's almost as if survivors everywhere are being gagged, like told to shut up because you're ruining the vibe of the World Cup if you mentioned the unchecked sexual violence. Of course, a lot of fans watching may not even know about the things that we've spoken about today.

Or if they do, they're probably shutting it down because obviously they still want to participate in the best parts of football culture. And I really do understand that. I guess I just want to make a plea to any. football fans listening, especially male ones, please talk about the dangerous men playing in the World Cup with your male friends, because this media sure as hell isn't. The public's perception of what is acceptable is massively influenced by large-scale events like this. And you can collectively choose to care more about women's safety than about your favourite football player.

Thank you for listening. Next week, we dive deeper into what real political change could look like. We'll look at plans to reform the UK's voting system and whether they go far enough to fix democracy. If you want to support Media Storm, you can do so on Patreon for less than a cup of coffee a month. The link is in the show notes and a special shout out to everyone in our Patreon community already. We appreciate you so much. If you enjoyed this episode, please send it to someone. Word of mouth is still the best way to grow a podcast, so please do tell your friends and obviously leave us a five-star rating and a review. You can follow us on social media at Matilda Mal at Helena Wadia and follow the show via at MediaStorm pod.

Media Storm is an award winning podcast produced by Helena Wadia and Matilda Mallinson. It was edited by Toka Umar. The music is by Samfire.