Umbro's (ab)use of Paul Gascoigne

Has anyone seen this Umbro advertisement featuring Paul Gascoigne? Published on YouTube, it is called 'Gazza: Pride and Passion from one of the Faces of England'.

From a footballing perspective, I can understand why Umbro selected Gascoigne to launch their campaign. A gifted footballer, who, in my opinion, was the star of Italia '90, Gascoigne is a sporting icon who personified passion and pride in an England shirt.

Yet from a human perspective, Umbro's use of Gascoigne is less understandable. Italia '90 also illustrated his personal frailties. His reaction to the booking that meant that he would have missed the World Cup Final is there for all to see (below). Understandable in the circumstances?...Maybe.

Add in Gary Lineker's appreciation of Gascoigne's mental fragility at that moment – Lineker says that Gascoigne had “basically lost the plot” - presumably borne of personal experience, and we have a vulnerable human being.

At the time, Gascoigne was synonymous with being the happy go-lucky, cheeky chappy. He was 'Gazza'. He gurned for the cameras. He wore fake breasts. His public identity was borne out of football, manufactured by the media and loved by the public.

Whilst George Best had to contend with similar issues in the public spotlight, the advent of SkySports and 24/7 media coverage meant that Gascoigne was the first modern-day 'celebrity' footballer. With a lack of people around him to provide him with adequate emotional support, it seems that Gascoigne became addicted to 'Gazzamania'.

We know of Gascoigne's difficulties since. His long-term addictions to drink and drugs and his battles with mental illnesses reveal Gascoigne to be in constant need of something to make his life meaningful and worthwhile.

And the something that went a long way to making Gascoigne's life fulfilled is football. It is football that is his biggest addiction; not just the physical act of playing, but what playing meant for his identity and self-esteem that is equally, if not more, important.

As Euro 2012 approaches, Umbro want as many England football fans to go out and buy their new top. Pride and passion, the epitome of Gascoigne in an England shirt is supposed to attract fans, who themselves identify with those traits, into buying the product.

But the 30-second video above is a manipulated edit of a 5-minute “interview” Gascoigne did with Umbro (see below). In this video, Gascoigne laments what he sees as a lack of pride in some of today's England team.

Hold on Umbro, I thought that this was THE selling-point, yet your 'Face' suggests that some England players lack this quality. If pride is something that Gascoigne had but other current England players do not, then why should we then buy into this idea and buy a new England shirt?

So how are Umbro really marketing the new England top?

The evidence suggests that Umbro are selling us 'Gazza'. The advertisement refers to Gascoigne as 'Gazza'. 'Gazza' models the new Umbro top, tongue out for added cheekiness as per his playing days.

In his 5-minute interview with Umbro, Gascoigne talks of his love of learning to play football as a child in a park. After telling us that he drives by this park occasionally, he says “God, I'm going to start crying”, before continuing briefly, and with more tears welling in his eyes, he feels that he has to apologise.

This is the 'Gazza' of Italia '90 all over again. His love of, and need for, football and what it means to Gascoigne and his identity is so deeply ingrained, that his hurt is palpable.

We, the public are partly responsible for wanting to see the 'Gazza' that we helped create. But we need more of 'Gazza' the footballer, whereas 'Gazza' the identity needs us. Gascoigne tried to kick 'Gazza' a few years ago when reinventing himself as G8, but there is little to suggest that he, or we, really took this on board.

Umbro's use of 'Gazza' is that of a dealer providing a fix for a client's addiction. Their advertisement preys upon this addiction by marketing their product through his fragility and vulnerability. I would urge England fans to buy their tops from other manufacturers until such time as Umbro withdraw their 'Gazza' advertisements.

Additionally, according to Rule 4.4 of the Advertising Codes:

Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health and safety.

In my opinion, this advertisement condones exploitative marketing by encouraging Gascoigne's addiction to football and 'Gazza'. If you feel that Umbro's advertisement exploits Gascoigne, you can complain to the Advertising Standards Agency here.

Regardless of how much Umbro paid Gascoigne, given his well-known history of addiction and mental health issues, Umbro have a responsibility to the man, not a right. In this regard, they have failed.

Drugs possession: A shot in the arm for punishment

(c) Cycle~

Last week, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) advised the UK government against criminalising drugs users. Instead, they suggested that offenders attend treatment and education programmes, and face alternative sanctions, such as the confiscation of driving licenses. Rather than imprisoning someone, which in turn may lead to less repeat offending, the government could save an estimated £45,000 a year.

Despite the potential benefits, The Guardian reported that the Home Office had quickly rejected ACMD’s proposal. A Home Office spokesman is quoted as saying:

"We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.

"Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer.

"We are taking action through tough enforcement, both inland and abroad, alongside introducing temporary banning powers and robust treatment programmes that lead people into drug-free recovery."

I am shocked by this statement. Companies push their legal drugs onto the market every bit as hard as criminals market their illegal products. They can lead to the same harms. Alcohol is freely available over the counter and every bit as harmful, if not more harmful, than other drugs. Cigarettes, and the large profits that the UK carte….sorry, government, earns from it, has led to burgeoning competition from illegal tobacco traders.

(c) Trexer

More pertinently, addiction needs to be discussed. Recovering addicts attend the likes of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous to rid themselves of their addictions. More and more people are becoming addicted to gambling, with the majority coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and yet the UK government actively promotes gambling. Why?


Besides, the government does not appear to be basing their objections on any evidence that might suggest that current policy is working. In 2001, Portugal adopted a similar approach to their drug problems as that advocated by ACMD. The Cato Institute (2009) studied the effects of this policy and produced a white paper for creating fair and successful drug policies. Whilst Time critiqued the likelihood of it working in the USA, it does not contest its findings.

So why is the UK government failing to respond to their own experts’ advice and evidence? 


If the Conservative party are trying to placate those MPs and party members who are politically right of centre through a robust approach to law and order, then they need to take into account what it is the British public wants. Not what they think it wants.

In their recent study, “Custody or community? Exploring the boundaries of public punitiveness in England and Wales”, Roberts and Hough (2011) found that the public were far less concerned with imposing custodial sentences when mitigating factors were relayed to them. They found that a significant number of people would accept community penalties as retribution, even for fairly serious offences. The Transform Drugs Policy Foundation also has links to a number of opinion polls and studies that have been conducted in this field. Much of the evidence reveals that the public do not support punitive measures.  

At a time when austerity measures are beginning to exert additional financial pressures on the public, and at a time when individuals, families and communities are expected to economise, the UK government’s decision to reject this proposal out of hand is duplicitous. 


The government are happy to make cuts to public services, yet on this occasion, despite the financial savings, they will not reconsider this policy for their own political whims. Not only are the government harming those whom they imprison, and their families, but equally, the government is harming you and me.