Personally, I don't have a problem with a rainbow ball if it is a symbol of "inclusiveness" as any sport should be open to all regardless of age/ disability/*** or ***ual orientation/ colour etc -although I fully take Kett's point that it may easily be seen as yet more empty virtue signalling ( just as so many businesses now jump on the bandwagon to celebrate what used to be known as Gay Pride Day by producing rainbow flags, carrier bags etc). In the end such signalling becomes meaningless, although the cause of inclusiveness in itself I would strongly argue, is not.
Phild also raises a very valid point -i.e. the ranks within the "diversity" of the LGBTQ community itself are frequently very far from "inclusive" as the recent furore between trans extremists and feminists shows. Thankfully the worm seems to now be turning against those self entitled extremists who seem to think they can close down debate on gender theory and enforce their own particular interpretations on others. Several recent law cases have resulted in the finding that -provided they are not exciting hatred-those who believe that gender (by which they mean physical genitalia) is separate from ***uality are fully entitled to their beliefs and have a right under freedom of speech to express such views. So, yes, there is now nothing wrong in stating that I believe that whilst anyone has the right to any ***uality they want, there are actually only 2 physical/biological ***es (or 3 including hermaphrodites) and that a person, for example, with a ***** but no womb is physically/biologically male and cannot be -however much they would like to be-female. So, outlandish as I am sure you all feel the concept to be, I believe that a "man" cannot have a baby and have a perfect right to express this view.
Personally, I think the whole gender theory argument is down to two issues, one being semantics (where the meaning of "gender" has changed so it means different things to different generations) and the second is about woke extremism and cancel culture. Initially there was nothing wrong with the concept of "woke" and of being more aware of issues that impacted on particular groups whether this was the treatment and experiences of ethnic groups or those of non hetero***ual orientation for example, but fast forward and it's been hi-hacked by minority extremists seeking to impose their views on others. As philosopher Karl Popper warned many years ago, if a tolerant society becomes over tolerant of some views, then the tolerant in that society and tolerance itself become the first casualty. Extremist view points, whether political, religious or around gender may be voiced but they must also not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Going back to the rainbow ball then, I personally don't object to it but doubt very much that it will do very much to help eradicate racism, misogyny or homophobia etc from the game as these are wider issues reflective of society as a whole that need addressing by a lot more than a rainbow on a football.
