The decision to ban fans of Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a Europa League match in Birmingham has ignited a storm of criticism, underlining deep divisions over public safety, antisemitism, and political accountability.
The ban, recommended by Birmingham City Council’s Safety Advisory Group and supported by West Midlands Police, was labelled “utterly unacceptable” by Culture Minister Ian Murray and denounced as a “national disgrace” by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.
Aston Villa, the host club, confirmed that the Safety Advisory Group, which provides guidance on safety rather than binding approvals, advised against allowing visiting supporters. The recommendation cited previous violent incidents, notably clashes between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam in November 2024, which saw more than 60 arrests and were described as a “toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism, and anger” over the Gaza conflict.
West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster has called for an immediate review to determine whether the ban is proportionate, justified, and operationally necessary.
Political Fallout
The political reaction has been swift and polarised. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer condemned the ban, calling it the “wrong decision” and emphasising that the UK must actively combat antisemitism. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch warned that barring Maccabi Tel Aviv fans risks sending a “horrendous and shameful message” that Jews are not welcome in parts of Britain. Israeli officials, alongside the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK, have also criticised the move.
Yet the controversy is complicated by local politics. Ayoub Khan, the independent MP for Birmingham Perry Barr and a pro-Gaza campaigner, publicly supported the ban, framing it as a matter of operational safety.
Khan cited the Amsterdam incidents in 2024, during which some Maccabi supporters allegedly chanted virulently antisemitic slogans while also attacking political targets related to the Gaza conflict.
“From the moment that the match was announced, it was clear there were latent safety risks that even our capable security and police authorities would not be able to fully manage,” Khan told BBC Newsnight, urgingPrime Minister Keir Starmer to “stay out of operational matters,” leaving local authorities to judge risk.
Khan’s Controversial Record
Khan’s support for the ban is inseparable from his track record of controversial remarks, which have repeatedly sparked public outrage.
In April 2025, Khan faced a political storm after referring to Pakistani grooming gangs scandal as a “right-wing narrative.” Critics accused him of dismissing the widespread abuse of young girls across England. Former Conservative MP Michael Portillo condemned Khan’s comments as “naive at best and malicious at worst,” arguing that such remarks undermine public trust and trivialise the suffering of victims.
Similarly, in July 2025, Khan criticised Emily Damari, a former hostage held by Hamas, after she described the UK’s recognition of a Palestinian state as a “moral failure.” Damari argued that the move “risks rewarding terror” and “sends a dangerous message” to extremist groups.
Khan’s public dismissal of her concerns led to widespread calls for an apology, with some commentators labeling him a “fool” for his remarks. These episodes underscore Khan’s propensity to conflate political ideology with operational safety and ethical judgment—a pattern that critics argue is now influencing his stance on the Birmingham match.
Operational and Ethical Dimensions
While Khan frames the ban as an operational necessity, many observers argue that it conflates security concerns with political messaging. Andrew Fox, honorary president of Aston Villa’s Jewish Villans supporters’ club, described Khan’s comments on Amsterdam as “shameful,” warning that the ban’s broader political dimensions send a dangerous signal. “It’s not just about Maccabi Tel Aviv; it’s about wider issues surrounding the Gaza war,” Fox said. “It sends a worrying message about British society: that we aren’t capable of having reasoned debate without violence.”
Birmingham City Council’s Safety Advisory Group, chaired by the city’s head of resilience, works alongside police, emergency services, and event organisers to assess risk. While the group can advise and guide, it cannot enforce attendance bans independently. The council defended the decision, citing police concerns over public safety if away fans were allowed to attend.
UEFA, football’s European governing body, has emphasised that fans should be able to travel and support their teams in a “safe, secure, and welcoming environment,” but noted that local authorities retain ultimate responsibility for operational decisions. The tension between UEFA’s expectations and local risk assessments illustrates the difficulties of managing international sporting events in politically charged contexts.
Societal Implications
The timing of the ban, coming shortly after a deadly attack at a Manchester synagogue that killed two men, has heightened the stakes. Prime Minister Starmer acknowledged community fears, stating that “words are not enough. Action is what matters” in addressing insecurity among British Jews. Yet critics argue that banning Maccabi fans risks conflating legitimate safety concerns with antisemitism, punishing an entire fanbase for the behaviour of a minority abroad.
The episode raises broader ethical questions: at what point does operational caution become discriminatory? How can authorities protect public safety without infringing civil liberties? And what signal does banning an entire group of international supporters send about Britain’s capacity to host global events responsibly?
Wider Context: Football, Politics, and Society
The Birmingham decision also highlights how international conflicts and domestic politics intersect with sport. Protests over the Gaza war have recently disrupted matches involving Israel’s national team, including games against Norway and Italy. In this context, football stadiums have become flashpoints for broader geopolitical tensions, leaving local authorities to navigate a minefield of risk and perception.
Khan’s record—criticising both the response to grooming gangs and Emily Damari—demonstrates a consistent tendency to prioritise Islamocentric ideological positions over nuanced judgment. Critics argue that this pattern has contributed to a climate in which security decisions risk being perceived as politically motivated rather than operationally necessary.
The Birmingham ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters is more than a football issue; it is a test of Britain’s ability to balance safety, civil liberties, and moral responsibility. While local authorities must manage operational risks, the political interventions, controversial commentary by figures like Ayoub Khan, and the broader societal context of antisemitism and Middle East tensions have transformed a sporting decision into a national debate.
Resolving the controversy will require transparency, careful reassessment of safety intelligence, and a commitment to upholding civil liberties. The stakes are high: Britain’s reputation as a host for international sport, its commitment to minority protections, and the credibility of elected officials are all on the line. The outcome will signal whether operational caution can coexist with ethical and political responsibility—or whether political ideology and public fear will continue to dictate who is allowed to enjoy a football match safely.
UK to establish task-force to tackle child abuse by “British-Pakistani grooming gangs”
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
