When a Member of Parliament suggests that women will be “fine” as long as England keep winning football matches, it raises serious questions about their understanding of domestic abuse.
That is exactly the controversy engulfing Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin after comments linking England’s World Cup performance to levels of violence against women. Pochin, a former magistrate who reportedly spent two decades dealing with domestic violence cases, urged the England team to keep winning because research has shown reports of domestic abuse can rise significantly following major tournament defeats.
Or, you know, tell people to stop hurting their partners regardless of what result England get. https://t.co/MgCFSlglJS
— HLTCO (@HLTCO) June 19, 2026
The statistics themselves are not in dispute. Numerous studies have found that incidents of domestic abuse increase following high-profile football matches, particularly when England lose. The problem lies in what those figures actually mean.
Women’s charities were quick to criticise Pochin’s remarks, arguing that they risk reinforcing one of the most persistent and dangerous myths surrounding domestic violence: that abuse is somehow caused by external events rather than the conscious choices of abusers.
That distinction matters enormously.
Football does not make men beat women. Alcohol does not make men beat women. Stress, disappointment, anger or frustration do not make men beat women. Millions of people experience all of those emotions every day without resorting to violence. Domestic abuse occurs because an individual chooses to exert power and control over another person.
By focusing on football results rather than the behaviour of perpetrators, Pochin’s comments appear to shift attention away from where responsibility belongs. It subtly implies that preventing abuse is somehow linked to managing sporting outcomes rather than confronting abusive attitudes and behaviour.
The criticism is particularly striking given Pochin’s background as a former magistrate. Someone who has spent years dealing with domestic abuse cases might be expected to understand better than most that violence is not an inevitable consequence of disappointment. It is a deliberate act carried out by individuals who believe they have the right to dominate, intimidate or harm others.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s response cut through the debate with admirable simplicity. Men should not beat women. Full stop.
That statement may sound obvious, but it highlights exactly why Pochin’s intervention was so poorly judged. The conversation should begin and end with accountability. There is no football score, referee decision or missed penalty that excuses violence.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage defended Pochin, arguing that she was merely raising awareness of a well-documented phenomenon. But awareness without context can be harmful. Public figures have a responsibility to communicate carefully, particularly when discussing issues as serious as violence against women.
The danger is that comments like these reinforce a culture of excuses. They contribute to the idea that abuse is something that simply happens when circumstances align badly, rather than something actively chosen by perpetrators.
At a time when domestic abuse services are overstretched and women’s safety remains a national concern, the priority should be challenging excuses, not creating new ones. Victims deserve better than simplistic explanations. They deserve leaders who understand that football matches do not cause abuse—abusers do.
