While some pictures showed off the ‘away’ kit’s new colour purple, alongside the classic ‘home’ white jersey, one of the X posts showed a new motif featuring a purple, blue, black and red cross on the back of the shirt, which was captioned: “A playful update to the flag of St George appears on the collar to unite and inspire.”
Previously, shirts have often featured the red and white of the St George’s flag.
Thousands of X users have reacted to the new kit, the vast majority negatively, with many attacking it for being unnecessary or “disrespectful”. Some accused Nike of being “woke”, and many urged people not to buy Nike products.
Sir Keir joined in the criticism when asked by The Sun if it was “wrong” to change the colours.
“Yeah, I think it was,” he said.
“As you know, I’m a big football fan. I go to England games – men’s and women’s games – and the flag is used by everybody.
Image: England players wearing the current kit in November 2023. Pic: PA
“It is a unifier, it doesn’t need to be changed, we just need to be proud of it – so, I think they should just reconsider this and change it back.”
He went on: “I’m not even sure they can properly explain why they thought they needed to change it in the first place.
“One more thing on that for me, they could also reduce the price of the shirts – I think it’s £130.”
A home team shirt for both men and women costs £124.99 on the Nike website.
A description of the new kit from Nike read: “The England 2024 home kit disrupts history with a modern take on a classic.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer has intervened in the debate on the new England shirt. Pic: PA
“The trim on the cuffs takes its cues from the training gear worn by England’s 1966 heroes, with a gradient of blues and reds topped with purple.
“The same colours also feature an interpretation of the flag of St George on the back of the collar.”
A number of other prominent voices, including football pundits and politicians, have also criticised the shirt’s design and price.
One social media user responded to Nike’s post to ask: “which other country’s flag you have done this to?”
Another said it was “not yours to mess with”, while a third said: “Looks crap I’ll be wearing my old England shirt even if I get bean juice down it I’d rather wear that than this.”
A person calling themselves “Alfred Ramsay” has set up a petition on the change.org website and, so far, several thousands of people have added their names. The anonymous petition creator says in accompanying text: “I would love to buy this new shirt, but cannot while it shows the Cross of St George defaced… Please change the shirt.”
Nike, which also unveiled a slew of other international kits at the same time, is yet to comment on the storm. Sky News has contacted the company for comment.
England are also yet to comment, other than to publicise the availability of the kits, which went on sale today, on their social feeds.
Euro 2024, which kicks off in Germany in June, is now less than 100 days away, with England and Scotland having qualified and Wales facing Poland on Tuesday for one of the play-off places.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Over a third of people think Rachel Reeves exaggerated economic bad news in the run-up to the budget – twice as many as thought the chancellor was being honest, a new Sky News poll has found.
Some 37% told a YouGov-Sky News poll that Ms Reeves made out things were worse than they really are. This is much higher than the 18% who said she was broadly honest, and the 13% who said things were better than she presented.
This comes in an in-depth look at the public reaction to the budget by YouGov, which suggests widespread disenchantment in the performance of the chancellor.
Just 8% think the budget will leave the country as a whole better off, while 2% think it will leave them and their family better off.
Some 52% think the country will be worse off because of the budget, and 50% think they and their family will be worse off.
This suggests the prime minister and chancellor will struggle to sell last week’s set-piece as one that helps with the cost of living.
Some 20% think the budget worried too much about help for older people and didn’t have enough for younger people, while 23% think the reverse.
The poll found 57% think the chancellor broke Labour’s election promises, while 13% think she did not and 30% are not sure. Some 54% said the budget was unfair, including 16% of Labour voters.
And it arguably gets worse…
This comes as the latest Sky News-Times-YouGov poll showed Labour and the Tories are now neck and neck among voters.
The two parties are tied on 19% each, behind Reform UK on 26%. The Greens are on 16%, while the Liberal Democrats are on 14%.
This is broadly consistent with last week, suggesting the budget has not had a dramatic impact on people’s views.
However, the verdict on Labour’s economic competence has declined further post-budget.
Asked who they would trust with the economy, Labour are now on 10% – lower than Liz Truss, who oversaw the 2022 mini-budget, and also lower than Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 election.
The Tories come top of the list of parties trusted on the economy on 17%, with Reform UK second on 13%, Greens on 8% and Lib Dems on 5%. Nearly half, 47%, don’t know or say none of them.
Only 57% of current Labour voters say the party would do the best job at managing the economy, falling to 25% among those who voted Labour in the 2024 election.
Some 63% of voters think Ms Reeves is doing a bad job, including 20% of current Labour voters, while just 11% of all voters think she is doing a good job.
A higher proportion – 69% – think Sir Keir Starmer is doing a bad job.
Paul Atkins, chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, said that the agency can continue advancing digital asset regulation without legislation from Congress, signaling his expectations for the industry in 2026.
In a CNBC interview released on Tuesday, Atkins said the SEC was providing “technical assistance” as Congress considered legislation for digital asset regulation, likely referring to the market structure bill working its way through the US Senate. Atkins said that although the agency’s operations were impacted by the longest US government shutdown in the country’s history, he continued to make progress on “rules that are focused on helping [the crypto] sector.”
“We have enough authority to drive forward,” said Atkins. “I’m looking forward to having an innovation exemption that we’ve been talking about now. We’ll be able to get that out in a month or so.”
SEC Chair Paul Atkins speaking on Tuesday before the NYSE opening bell. Source: Vimeo
Atkins, whom the US Senate confirmed to chair the SEC in April after his nomination by US President Donald Trump, has taken steps to reduce the number of enforcement actions against crypto companies, including by issuing no-action letters for decentralized physical infrastructure networks.
His actions align with many of the policy directives from the White House under Trump, who has issued several executive orders touching on crypto and blockchain.
The SEC chair rang the opening bell at the NYSE on Tuesday, outlining his plans for the agency “on the cusp of America’s 250th anniversary.”
US regulators are still awaiting progress on a market structure bill
Lawmakers on the US Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee are taking steps to move forward with a digital asset market structure bill, which will outline the regulatory authority of agencies, including the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, over cryptocurrencies.
Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott said that the committee planned to have the bill ready for markup in December.
An official from the Bank of Russia suggested easing restrictions on cryptocurrencies in response to the sweeping sanctions imposed on the country.
According to a Monday report by local news outlet Kommersant, Bank of Russia First Deputy Governor Vladimir Chistyukhin said the regulator is discussing easing regulations for cryptocurrencies. He explicitly linked the rationale for this effort to the sanctions imposed on Russia by Western countries following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Chistyukhin said that easing the crypto rules is particularly relevant when Russia and Russians are subject to restrictions “on the use of normal currencies for making payments abroad.”
Chistyukhin said he expects Russia’s central bank to reach an agreement with the Ministry of Finance on this issue by the end of this month. The central issue being discussed is the removal of the requirement to meet the “super-qualified investor” criteria for buying and selling crypto with actual delivery. The requirement was introduced in late April when Russia’s finance ministry and central bank were launching a crypto exchange.
The super-qualified investor classification, created earlier this year, is defined by wealth and income thresholds of over 100 million rubles ($1.3 million) or an annual income of at least 50 million rubles.
This limits access to cryptocurrencies for transactions or investment to only the wealthiest few in Russian society. “We are discussing the feasibility of using ‘superquals’ in the new regulation of crypto assets,” Chistyukhin said, in an apparent shifting approach to the restrictive regulation.
Russia has been hit with sweeping Western sanctions for years, and regulators in the United States and Europe have increasingly targeted crypto-based efforts to evade those measures.
In late October, the European Union adopted its 19th sanctions package against Russia, including restrictions on cryptocurrency platforms. This also included sanctions against the A7A5 ruble-backed stablecoin, which EU authorities described as “a prominent tool for financing activities supporting the war of aggression.”