Introduction

This is “What Just Happened?,” the podcast that looks at the biggest brand crises of our time, what they meant for organisational strategy and behaviour, and their lasting impact on our approach to crisis communication.

I’m Kate Hartley. And I’m Tamara Littleton. And together, we’ll delve into what happened, why it mattered, and whether it could happen again.

Episode

Tamara Littleton: Today we’re talking about a subject that is very close to both our hearts because it focused on one of the biggest and best-loved brands in the world that got involved in a new law to curb LGBTQ+ freedom. Sadly, it’s very recent and very relevant to what’s happening right now in the US with all the political campaigns to roll back LGBTQ+ rights. It also involved two big personalities in a very public legal clash. Kate, do you want to give us a quick overview of what we’re talking about today and what just happened?

Kate Hartley: Yeah, this is quite a depressing story, isn’t it, in many ways, but as you say, sadly, really, really relevant today. So today, we’re going to be talking about Disney, Ron DeSantis and the state of Florida, and the so-called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. It’s technically called the Parental Rights in Education Act. Everyone calls it ‘Don’t Say Gay’, or they call it ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’.

TL: So this goes back to 2022 when the Florida Senate passed a law to say schools couldn’t teach students about sexual orientation or gender identity issues in schools, which basically was brought in by Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida. There was a campaign to amend the bill, but they all failed. In fact, it was expanded, and it’s now being used as a template law in other states as well.

KH: And it means things like parents can object to books that they think contain inappropriate subject matter. They actually talk about pornography in relation to gay subject matter, which is awful in itself, and so they can’t refer to that kind of subject unless it’s part of a sexual health course or teaching abstinence, for example. Parents are able to limit their children’s exposure to any material they don’t think is age-appropriate at any point in their schooling. It also means teachers can’t use a pupil’s pronouns if, and I quote, “they do not correspond to that person’s sex”, by which, of course, they mean sex assigned at birth.

TL: I mean, I’m getting heavy flashbacks to Section 28 in the UK in the early 90s. It’s so incredibly regressive, isn’t it? It really—

KH: Really is, isn’t it? And sadly, even though the law says that schools shouldn’t discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, of course, that’s been a consequence of the law. Ron DeSantis said he wanted the bill to ensure, and again I quote, “parents can send their kids to school to get an education, not an indoctrination.” There’s been a lot of talk about ideology and wokeness in this law, of course.

TL: All thoroughly depressing, but we’re not going to focus on the legal aspects as such today. We’re going to talk about Disney’s response to it and how that played out.

KH: We are, and Disney’s response is actually quite complicated. To understand it, we have to go back a bit into Disney’s history, I think. But before we do that, I’m going to summarise briefly what happened, and then we can dig into some of the historical details, because I think they’re quite interesting.

When the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law was passed in 2022, Bob Chapek, who was then the CEO of Disney, stayed pretty quiet about it. Initially, he didn’t come out against the law. He broadly argued that corporate statements don’t do much to change minds, so therefore there was no point in Disney saying anything, and basically tried to stay out of what he knew was going to be a polarised public debate.

He had his reasons for doing that. Disney has had a long relationship with the state of Florida that essentially means Disney has its own little mini kingdom within Florida. It’s a fascinating quirk in law that meant it was self-governing, effectively. It had its own tax system and funded and managed its own public services, including things like the fire department, police department, and road improvements. That came from a negotiation they did right back when they were building the park in 1967.

Of course, Disney has donated huge amounts of money to politicians over the years, both Republican and Democrat, including money to Ron DeSantis. So I guess it’s been in their interest to keep politicians sweet and keep their self-governing status, and they didn’t really want to rock the boat politically.

TL: And of course, Disney is a massive employer in the region. At the time, it employed around 75,000 people in Florida, I believe, and statistically we can presume that a lot of those employees, and indeed Disney visitors, would be LGBTQ+ people. So what was the response from them?

KH: You’re absolutely right to assume that, and Disney employees were horrified at the lack of response from Disney. They got themselves organised and felt really let down by Chapek. They argued that Disney has always had the ability to influence state law or policy—it literally self-governs, so of course it’s been able to influence policy.

In March 2022, Disney employees walked out in protest—not all of them, but a small handful—and they hosted an online campaign, including posting detailed information about Disney’s political donations. It wasn’t a big walkout, but it was enough to get media attention all over the world and pressure Chapek into admitting he’d got his response wrong.

The first indication that Disney was going to go back on its initial silence was a Facebook post from the company saying it opposed any legislation that infringes on basic human rights, and that it stood in solidarity with its LGBTQ+ employees. Then, of course, Chapek apologised for not coming out more forcefully against the bill.

He did say something a bit vague about Disney officials having worked behind the scenes to stop the bill, but then he said he would pause all political donations in Florida and support groups in other states fighting similar legislation. He pledged $5 million to do that.

TL: And his statement was powerful. I remember seeing it on social media, and he apologised personally for the pain caused by the company’s silence.

KH: He did eventually, and he said, and again I’m quoting, “I missed the mark in this case, but I’m an ally you can count on, and I will be an outspoken champion for the protections, visibility and opportunity you deserve.”

TL: Disney really went from sitting on the fence to being very vocal in its opposition to the bill, and that had very real consequences. Ron DeSantis didn’t like that, did he? He lashed out against Disney, talking about “woke Disney” and all the usual stuff we’re sadly getting used to at the moment. This was in the run-up to his campaign to become president, which obviously we know he didn’t win. So let’s talk about how he responded.

KH: He got into a massive fight with Disney, and that lasted the best part of two years. There was a great quote from Joe Biden saying, “Christ, he’s going after Mickey Mouse.” When DeSantis passed that bill, Disney published its strongest statement yet against it, saying the bill should never have been passed and should never have been signed into law.

DeSantis, of course, hit back straight away, saying Disney had crossed the line. He said, “We’re going to make sure we’re fighting back when people are threatening our parents and threatening our kids.”

TL: Oh, that’s strong language, isn’t it? Saying Disney is threatening parents and kids is really hitting at their core audience and values. They’re all about families.

KH: They really are. DeSantis didn’t stop there. Within three weeks, he started the process to strip Disney of its self-governing status, and that was signed within a month, then came into law just over a year later. It was such an obvious knee-jerk reaction to Disney’s opposition to the bill that it led to various long legal wrangles over the details.

Eventually, Disney and the state of Florida reached a legal settlement in 2024. There was some really transparent political posturing about it, like photos of DeSantis signing the bill surrounded by children—“protecting the children”. It was awful. It was clearly, as you say, connected to his presidential campaign.

TL: So what happened to Bob Chapek?

KH: In November that year, eight months after all this started, Chapek “stepped down” as CEO. He was replaced by Bob Iger, who was the CEO that Chapek had originally succeeded, so Iger came back into the post. The Florida issue was one of the things cited for the reason he stepped down, but it wasn’t the only thing. There’d been awful financial performance, issues over Disney+ profitability, and the fallout from the pandemic when all the parks were closed.

TL: So what was Iger’s response to all this?

KH: Iger was broadly against the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, and he hit back at DeSantis for punishing Disney for exercising a constitutional right—either the right to free speech. DeSantis then hit back against him and threatened to tax not just Disney, but local hotels, and put tolls on roads leading to Disney. It made no sense when you think about the local economy and the money Disney puts into it, but it was all just to get back at the company.

Disney then counter-sued DeSantis. They stopped a $1 billion development they were planning in Florida that could have brought 2,000 jobs to the state. They did that to make a point. DeSantis said Disney couldn’t afford that development anyway because it was a failing company, and it just went on and on. Eventually, they dropped the nonsense and reached a settlement in 2024, and I think they’ve even signed a 15-year expansion agreement now.

TL: That’s a lot of posturing, isn’t it? You mentioned earlier that we need to dig back into Disney’s history to understand its initial reaction—or lack of reaction—to the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. How far back are we going? Because I know Disney is an advocate now for LGBTQ+ rights, but it wasn’t always, was it?

KH: No, it really wasn’t, and I didn’t really know much about this—I find it really interesting. We need to go back to 1971, when Walt Disney World Resort first opened in Florida. That transformed Florida economically, as you can imagine. It brought huge numbers of tourists into the state from all over the world. It’s always been very beautiful, with beaches and such, but this really made it a destination for people all over the world.

It was a big deal for Florida at the time. At that stage, Disney was starting itself as a corporation with traditional “family values” (and you can’t see my air quotes, but I’m definitely making them). It had a very different feel to it then.

TL: Its films have always had a queer following, because there are lots of themes of being othered or seen as an outsider, and then triumphing over adversity, which, for obvious reasons, can really resonate with a queer audience. Was it aware of that? Do you think it actively targeted the LGBTQ+ audience?

KH: No, I don’t think it did. I think it was largely accidental, actually. In fact, in the 80s, Disney was sued for banning two men from dancing together because it had a policy of not allowing same-sex couples to dance as a couple. It had that policy since 1957, and two gay men challenged it in 1980 and then sued the park when security stepped in and stopped them dancing together.

Eventually, Disney did revise that policy, but only in 1985, which seems very late to me, and only in theory—to allow young teen girls, it said, to dance together with their friends. They were very determined not to say this allowed queer or same-sex couples to dance together.

TL: But I mean, doesn’t Disney have a Gay Day in its parks? You know? How does that sit with this conservative approach?

KH: It does have a Gay Day, but again, I think that was an accidental thing. That started in 1991, so 3,000 LGBTQ+ people turned up at Disney World wearing red shirts to identify themselves. That began a kind of annual tradition of the Gay Day. Originally, Disney would warn straight visitors about Gay Day, and they had white shirts on hand to give to straight visitors who’d accidentally turned up wearing red. Just amazing.

TL: I think they should have a carabiner day for the lesbians, actually. But that is wild, and, you know, I’m glad to say it’s got better since then, and there is slightly better representation in Disney films, for example, and better support for LGBTQ+ employees and park visitors. But it is definitely a problematic history, and it seems to have struggled to balance how it appeals to queer visitors with how it appeases conservative visitors. Yeah.

KH: It needs a Dolly Parton approach, doesn’t it? I think that’s really what’s so interesting about this whole story, and what makes it so relevant to organisations today, because nearly every media outlet that covered Disney versus DeSantis didn’t just cover the legal wrangle, but also dug into Disney’s history with the LGBTQ+ community, and that’s what kept the story alive and made it so interesting. Employees really got that, so when they were turning on the company to try and get Chapek to stand up for them, they actually turned on the company’s history themselves.

For example, during the campaign organised by employees against the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, some Pixar employees—Pixar being owned by Disney, of course—said that Disney executives had repeatedly pushed to cut anything that’s obviously gay from its films over a long period of time.

TL: So once again, this comes down to behaviour versus values, doesn’t it? Like so many of the crises we talk about on our podcast, you just can’t say one thing and do another. Organisations struggle with this all the time today. They want to stay neutral to protect their interests politically, but sometimes they just can’t do that, and they have to put their money where their mouth is—quite literally in Disney’s case—and they’ll get dragged into the conversation whether they want to or not. We’re going to dig into this with our guests just after this short break.

Break

TL: We’re joined by Rich Miles, who is the founder of the Diversity Standards Collective, which helps brands ensure their campaigns resonate with diverse audiences. It works by applying research and insights to help brands understand consumers better, and by testing campaigns or assets with communities ahead of launch. Rich, welcome to the podcast. I can think of so many brands that need your advice, and I’m looking forward to talking about this one with you. I know you have lots of experience working with the LGBTQIA+ community. What’s your take on how Disney responded initially?

Rich Miles: Well, first of all, thank you so much for having me. It’s always nice to talk about work when it’s intertwined with your own lived experience, so thank you very much.

KH: For all of us on this podcast, actually.

RM: I think Disney’s first response is very similar to a lot of other brands, which is: if you don’t know what to say, they don’t say anything at all. I think some brands come in a state of shock. I know there are a lot of internal conversations that go on, and their silence could also be internally fuelled with decision-making or conversations. You’d hope it wasn’t necessarily just silence, but for me it feels very standard for a lot of brands right now: it’s easier to stay silent than it is to say something.

Obviously they reacted after situations happened, and they came out and spoke outwardly about it and apologised. But with so much going on, and so much loaded conversation in the media, within advertising and in the world, brands are finding it safer to stay silent.

KH: It’s really interesting, isn’t it, because I think there is a real desire to stay neutral on what they perceive as a political issue. I’m kind of using air quotes around “political” because, I mean, is it political to be LGBTQ+? Anyway, there was politics involved in this, wasn’t there. But I know brands are trying to stay neutral on what they perceive as either divisive or political. Do you think it is ever possible for a brand to stay neutral on something like this?

RM: I think you can stay silent; I don’t think you can stay neutral. I’m not saying staying silent is the solution. Sexual orientation and gender aren’t political; they’re being talked about in political settings by people, but it’s not a political subject matter—it’s human rights.

I don’t think brands can be neutral. They have a consumer base and an employee base that they need to back and stand up for, so they do need to make a stand. They need to decide whether or not they support human rights or they support sexual orientation or gender or not. I don’t think you can not believe in either, because neutrality sounds like you don’t believe in either, and that doesn’t really make sense to me.

KH: I totally agree. It’s such an important distinction, isn’t it, that this is not political; this is human rights, as you say. It’s just being discussed in a very divisive political way. Let’s talk for a minute about whether Chapek should have seen this coming. I suppose, in a way, you have to go back quite a long way, but what’s the first thing he should have done? Do you think he should have seen it coming, and what should he have done straight away?

RM: That’s really difficult to answer in the sense that I don’t think you can ever see things coming. I’m surprised on a daily basis by what comes through the news or to my phone as information about what’s happening in the world today. I couldn’t predict what’s going to happen in the next couple of weeks or months, because it’s shocking that we are going backwards in so many different ways.

When something like this happens and it dramatically affects your consumers or your employees, you should at least say, “We’re thinking about it, we’re working on it, we’re looking into it.” You should at least say this is something that’s important to you—or not important, if that’s the other decision you make. Just by raising the point that you’re looking into the issue, you show you’re not neutral; you’re looking to make a decision and support whomever you wish. Yeah.

KH: And what can other organisations learn from that so they avoid getting into the sort of situation where Disney did? They were trying to stay neutral, trying not to say anything, and then, of course, had to reverse that position. What can other organisations learn from that?

RM: I think every organisation could, right now, get into a meeting, talk about what’s important to them, the consumers that are important to them, and the issues that are important to them, and decide what they would do if those consumers or issues came into a public debate. Would they make a stand? Would they not make a stand? What would they say? How would they support, or not support?

That’s pre-empting things that could happen—it’s crisis management, completely. It’s “what would we do if anything we stand for came under fire politically or by the media?” Where do we go from there, and what do we do? Create touchpoints so you don’t have to make that decision on the day something comes out, but make people aware that you’re going through that process.

In our work, a lot of research that comes back from consumers about how brands can help is just by making them aware it’s in their thought process. Many brands don’t have their D&I commitments or what they stand for on their websites, and policies are often old and outdated, so you’re not sure what they stand for. Then when something comes up, they go back and apologise. We should stop apologising and start looking at everything and saying, “What do we…?”—so I’m repeating myself, but—

TL: I think that’s so important. It is about what you stand for, and this whole situation really called into question Disney’s commitment to LGBTQIA+ people, customers and employees, and it put a spotlight on their values. How should an organisation’s values drive its response to something like this?

RM: A company’s values should absolutely drive everything they do, from responses to sales to marketing. If you haven’t got your values, what else do you have? It’s super important that your consumers also know what your values are, and with everybody—from brand to consumer—being aware of those values, you can work together to create solutions.

Brands should be more open about asking more questions to consumers when situations arise as well. They don’t have to solve it on their own. If they want help, advice or guidance, ask companies and ask consumers: “What would you do? Where would you start?” Be open, make the conversation a full-circle one, and then move forward to where you want to go.

KH: I think that’s really interesting, because I think we tend to believe leaders need to make those decisions on their own—somebody like Chapek needs to make that decision on his own. But if he had had—and presumably they do have—things like employee resource groups, he could have gone and talked to people and said, “How do you feel about this?” He could have come to somebody like you and said, “How does the community feel about this?”

We tend to make those decisions in isolation, and decisions are much better made when you ask people their opinion. I think that’s a really important point.

TL: And are you seeing—because we are living in “interesting times”, is that the phrase people use?—that organisations struggle with diversity values generally, or are they sticking to their guns even when it costs them financially? How would you actually advise companies to stay strong?

RM: I think companies internally are quite confused about their values. I definitely see confused conversations between marketing teams, HR and staff members about what their values are and what they stand for, because I don’t think they’re explicit all the time. Sometimes they can be a bit on the fence with their values, which creates confusion, or they make decisions that go against their values, maybe for monetary gain or other reasons.

There can be confusion internally, which makes it hard for them—and everyone else—to grasp. How do companies stay strong? I think they need to pause, ask and check: take a pause before something happens and then they have to react, ask their staff and other people, and then check what they want to do and check their values. Make sure everyone’s in line with them, and that strength of knowledge and unity should help guide them through situations that may occur, or strengthen them for when those occasions happen.

TL: Yeah, it’s such an interesting time because I think several years ago, we wouldn’t even have been having this conversation. Everyone was just like, well, of course, you need to stick to your values. You articulate your values. But I think people have almost had to hide away their values because they’re being, I suppose, punished for want of a better word.

KH: I was really interested, Rich, as well, that you said going back through policy, some of the policies are going to be really outdated around these things, because I suspect that people talk about values and missions and the kind of shiny stuff, but they forget the structure that supports that. So things like company policies. Do you advise companies to go back through those kinds of things and look at all the historic policy documents, you know, company history?

RM: The DSC itself—our services don’t really play within the realm of policies. We’re really in that marketing funnel. However, it is something that I would advise personally to people, because policies can be made 25 years ago and just not updated. They’re an extensive set of documents, and they can be placed in places that even staff can’t find. So it’s important that they are looked at. We do work on some crisis management situations where policies have not matched a company’s current values, and that’s come under fire publicly when there’s been a clash between them.

KH: So as ever with these things, it comes back to matching your behaviour to your values, doesn’t it? And that’s such a recurrent theme, I think, on all the podcasts we do, isn’t it, Tamara? Where there’s this mismatch, as you said, between a company’s behaviour and its values, that really is where organisations get themselves into trouble.

Rich, thank you so much. It’s been really interesting talking to you, and I advise anyone who thinks they might be about to hit a problem to come and talk to you, because we see so many misfires from organisations that need your advice. So thank you very much for coming on the podcast.

Outro

You’ve been listening to “What Just Happened?” with Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton. If you enjoyed the podcast, please subscribe, rate, and review.

Introduction

This is “What Just Happened?,” the podcast that looks at the biggest brand crises of our time, what they meant for organisational strategy and behaviour, and their lasting impact on our approach to crisis communication.

I’m Kate Hartley. And I’m Tamara Littleton. And together, we’ll delve into what happened, why it mattered, and whether it could happen again.

Episode 

Tamara Littleton: Today we’re talking about an event that was seen by millions of people on live television. It triggered a massive backlash against sexism in sport and sparked a major debate about consent.

Kate Hartley: So today we’re talking, of course, about Luis Rubiales, who is the former boss of the Spanish Football Federation. He was found guilty of sexual assault after he kissed World Cup winner Jenny Hermoso on the lips after Spain won the Women’s World Cup on 20th August 2023 in Australia.

TL: I remember watching that game and the celebration afterwards, and feeling really uncomfortable at the time when I saw the kiss. He had his hands on both sides of her head and kissed her full on the mouth.

KH: It was really, really uncomfortable to watch, wasn’t it? And later, he said that he’d asked her permission and that she’d said yes, but she said in a statement on social media that wasn’t true, and that the kiss was not consensual. There’s also a video that went out on Instagram Live right after the kiss, where the team’s celebrating the win, and somebody said, “He kissed you,” and she said, “I didn’t like it,” twice.

TL: This was part of a much bigger issue and conversation about women’s rights in general, wasn’t it, and particularly in Spanish women’s football.

KH: It was just amazing to see how the women stuck together on this. So, 81 players said they wouldn’t play for Spain’s women’s team until Rubiales was removed from his post, which I think was really amazing. What I think is really interesting is that right after it happened, literally the day after, on the 21st of August, Rubiales apologised – or sort of apologised.

TL: I mean, yeah, “sort of” is the key here, because that was a pretty inadequate apology. It was terrible. He didn’t really say sorry to her – more saying sorry for other people not understanding what had happened.

KH: Yeah, it was really bad. He basically said in a video on social media that this was the greatest day in Spanish women’s football – which, you know, it was amazing – and that this had somewhat tarnished the celebration. And of course, this is a translation, but he said he somewhat regretted it and that he had a magnificent relationship with Hermoso, and it was all done without any intention in a moment of celebration, basically, is what he was saying.

So he then said he didn’t understand the controversy. He said, “We saw it as something natural and normal, but outside it seems there’s been a cohesion.” Then the actual apology bit sounded something like this – again, this is a translation – but he said something along the lines of, “If there are people who have felt damaged by this, I have to apologise. I have no other choice.” And also, “I can learn from this – that when you are the president of an important institution as the Federation, in ceremonies of this type, you need to be more careful.” Now, that’s a rough translation, and my Spanish isn’t perfect, but you get the idea. And there are a lot of caveats in that sentence, aren’t there? A lot of kind of “ifs” – if people have been damaged, if you’re in a job that’s important – it’s not great.

TL: And it’s a good job that we’re on audio only, so you’re not going to see my massive eye roll. But there are a couple of things here that I think are really interesting. There’s a bit of “here it’s okay – it’s everyone else outside that thinks it’s a problem,” first of all. And then, “when you’re in a position like this, you need to be careful.” He doesn’t say anything about consent, or that you need to respect the wishes of players or women more generally, but just focuses on taking care when representing the Federation. It’s very obvious to me that he didn’t think it was a problem.

KH: I totally agree with you, and his demeanour in that video was pretty nonsense. I thought he was almost shrugging it off, and there were times when he was almost smiling about it. It’s like this really isn’t an issue. But then you fast forward a few days, and there’s a video online of him addressing the General Assembly of Spain’s Football Federation after there had been calls for him to resign, which had happened pretty much straight away.

There was a big kind of outrage on social media, and his demeanour had completely changed from that initial video. He talks about the fact that he’s done the best job for Spanish football and he asks, “Is this issue so serious that people think I should resign?” And there’s a really, really deeply uncomfortable moment – at least for me – where he shouts, “I will not resign,” over and over again. He says it five times in total. And if you look at that video, all the men in the room are clapping, and the women are mostly staying very, very still. It’s really uncomfortable to watch.

TL: So uncomfortable to watch. Yeah, it’s horrible.

KH: In that speech to the Federation, he said that Hermoso lifted him up and held his hips, and when she put him on the floor, they hugged. He says he asked her for a kiss, and she said yes. He then goes on – and this is really interesting and we’ll maybe come on to this – but he talks about false feminism, which he describes as a great scourge in our country. So he’s painting himself as the victim of a social assassination – which are the words that he used. I think that’s really interesting, because he’s almost been entrenched in his view by that backlash against him.

TL: And the kiss wasn’t the only controversy, though, was it? I remember seeing pictures on social media that showed Rubiales grabbing his crotch as he celebrated the win. Nice. And that’s, yeah, very Michael Jackson-esque, and that’s bad enough on its own. Also, a lot of people on social media pointed out that he was in the VIP area with the Spanish royal family. He was standing next to the Queen and near her 16-year-old daughter, and people quite rightly said that it was disrespectful.

KH: Yeah, and again, he apologised for doing that in front of the Queen and her daughter – although I completely agree that’s not exactly the only problem here. But he also lifted one of the other players over his shoulder after the game was over, which was, I think, pretty inappropriate. There were some other allegations against him as well, of harassment. This wasn’t the first time he’d been accused of it.

He’d been accused by a former colleague of asking her about the colour of her underwear, for example, and also joking – again, my eye roll, you can’t see – joking in the loosest sense of the word about wearing knee pads in meetings. So, pretty dodgy stuff.

TL: And it does now start to look less like an impetuous moment of madness – which is how some people tried to frame it – and more like a trend.

KH: I think that’s really, really important, because I know at the time there were a lot of people who – particularly, probably our generation and above – maybe said, “Oh, come on. It was just a kiss. It was a celebration. It was just a moment of not thinking.” But the point is here, it was non-consensual, and it followed a pattern of behaviour and a culture that was absolutely rife in the game.

Now, the good thing, I think, is that FIFA – who I don’t think necessarily are known for being really good about this stuff – did see pretty quickly the direction that things were going. On the 26th of August, so just a few days later, Rubiales was suspended by FIFA – the body that governs world football. But the Spanish Federation was still saying he’d done nothing wrong.

They were even saying they would take legal action against Jenny Hermoso or – and this is again a quote from them – “anyone spreading lies on her behalf.” They said categorically, “Mr President has not lied.” But there were calls for him to resign from all areas of sport, including the Spanish men’s team, which I think is great. The Spanish government also got involved.

There was a quote from the acting Labour Minister, Yolanda Díaz, who said on social media, “We stand with you, Jenny, and all women.” And I think that’s the crux of it. This became a case for all women. It became Spanish football’s Me Too moment.

TL: And other things came out too, didn’t they? Jorge Vilda, who was the Spanish head coach, was accused of inappropriately touching a colleague. It was very telling, I thought – and again, I remember this at the time – that the team ignored him when he went onto the pitch after they’d won. You’d think he’d be celebrating with them.

KH: I remember being really struck by that as well – that the natural thing would have been to go straight in and celebrate with your team, and that really didn’t happen. Again, I think this is part of a bigger picture. There’d been lots of complaints about the culture that he’d created – that he was very controlling, and he was doing things like not allowing players to shut the doors of their rooms until he checked in on them at night. Some really strange things.

To the point where a number of players refused to play under his leadership and complained to the Spanish FA about him.

TL: Now that’s a huge thing – to turn down the opportunity to play for your country in order to make a stand against someone is very brave. It kind of completely goes against your instinct to want to represent your country.

KH: It really does, doesn’t it? It’s incredibly brave, I think. And ultimately, it worked. Vilda was also fired on 5th September – although I think he was fired as part of restructuring. But this was a really, really important moment for Spanish football.

Tamara, you mentioned earlier, players were boycotting the game until there were changes made – and those changes really were made. The Federation sacked the Secretary General and a number of senior officials as well, some of whom had actually been named by the players.

But until absolutely the last minute, the Spanish Federation was fighting. They were threatening players with fines for the boycott, and the Spanish government had to step in, saying players who still refused their call-ups wouldn’t face repercussions. But eventually, the Federation had no choice, and they had to backtrack.

They said in a statement that they were aiming to create a safe, professional environment for players, and that they would support players. They also apologised to players for the enormous damage caused by Rubiales, which they said was completely unacceptable. The Federation also said they’d take down their original statement that accused Hermoso of lying and of defamation.

TL: It sounds a bit like the Harrods case we talked about recently with Anne-Marie Blake. So the Federation is trying to distance itself now from Rubiales and not focus on the culture that allowed that behaviour to happen – and even supported it.

KH: Yeah, I think that’s exactly what they’re doing. But then on the 6th of September, Jenny Hermoso did something that, again, I think is incredibly brave. She filed a legal complaint, and two days later, that complaint was filed in the high court against Rubiales for sexual assault and coercion. Three weeks after the World Cup, on 10th September, he eventually resigned, and he showed absolutely no contrition for what happened.

In an interview with Piers Morgan – interesting choice – he talked about how he needed to walk away with dignity and not damage those around him, nor the sport he loves. Nothing at all about the fact that he has damaged those around him and the sport he loves. In October, FIFA banned him from all football-related activity for three years, which I guess probably effectively ends his football career. In court, Jenny Hermoso said – and there’s a quote from her – “I think it was a moment that tainted one of the happiest days of my life.” She went on to say, “For me, it is very important to say that at no time did I seek that act and much less expect it.” She said, “My boss was kissing me, and this shouldn’t happen in any social or work setting.”

TL: That’s really critical, isn’t it? It’s the balance of power here. By bringing it back to work language – talking about her boss – perhaps she helps draw those lines for others who did see it as part of a post-sport celebration. I think that wording really matters. I’ve got so much respect for her bravery.

KH: I totally agree. I do think that wording really matters as well. It’s not acceptable in any situation for your boss to behave like that. It’s not acceptable for anybody – but particularly not, as you say, with that balance of power.

As we now know, of course, Rubiales was found guilty of sexual assault. He was fined 10,800 euros – around £9,000 – and told to give Hermoso 3,000 euros. He was also banned from contacting her for a year or even going within a 200-metre radius of her. Now, obviously the amount of the fine is not a lot. To put it into context, he’s estimated to earn around 675,000 euros a year – so that’s about 1.5% of his salary. But the verdict itself is actually, I think, what really matters here.

TL: Yeah. I’m sure he’ll make lots of money going on chat shows with Piers Morgan, maybe.

KH: But it is so sad that this should have been such an amazing moment for her and for the team, and it’s been overshadowed by this assault. Hermoso faced scrutiny and criticism for nearly two years, with people saying that she shouldn’t have brought the case. People around her have said it has had a huge emotional impact on her.

KH: It’s such a familiar story, isn’t it? Sadly, we know that women just are not taken seriously when they report this stuff. Much was made of the fact that, because it was beamed around the world – because people actually saw the kiss and saw what happened – that’s potentially the only reason that this was taken seriously. There was such a backlash against his assault of her because it was so public.

But the fact that she eventually was taken seriously – by the courts, by the Spanish government, by FIFA and by the Spanish men’s team as well – gives me hope. I think things are changing, slowly. There were some amazing things to come from it. I think there was a huge conversation around consent, and there was also the renaming of the national team, which I thought was really interesting.

Previously, the men’s team had been called the Spanish national football team, and the women’s team was the Spanish women’s national football team. Now they’re both the national football team. So again, it’s kind of sparked this conversation about equality in sport.

TL: Well, there’s so much more that we can go into here, and to do that, we’re going to be talking to our guest, Emma Woollcott, who will join us after this short break.

Break

TL: We’re joined by Emma Woollcott, partner at Mishcon de Reya and the head of the Reputation Protection and Crisis Management Group. Thank you for joining us, Emma. I already know that you’re going to have a lot of opinions on this crisis, so I’m going to kick-start – if this is okay – by asking: what is your view on how this changed the conversation around consent?

Emma Woollcott: Hello, thank you so much for having me. It’s a real pleasure. Yes, I don’t know that this example changed the conversation around consent, because actually it was quite clear for most people watching the video that she didn’t consent. It was quite odd that he claimed that she did.

I think it was clear to many people that it was a non-consensual advance. What perhaps kept the conversation running was: what does that mean? What does that mean in criminal law – to be forcibly kissed on the mouth? What offence is committed, and how should Rubiales, the criminal law, and the club and the FA have reacted?

KH: I just want to lead on from that, because this might sound like an odd question, but can we talk about what the legal position is in terms of what is and isn’t okay? I mean, I think – hopefully – we would instinctively know what that is. But my feeling is that this exposed a bit of a split in understanding about what constitutes assault, and whether that split was along gender lines or possibly age.

There were a lot of people going, “Oh, it’s a fuss about nothing,” or, “Does it matter?” Those are the kind of conversations I certainly heard being had, and I think it would be really interesting to hear your view on that – on what is legally acceptable, what isn’t, and whether people generally understand where that line is drawn.

EW: To answer the last point first – it’s clear from the debate that surrounded it that those sorts of acts, non-consensual advances, are unclear in criminal law and in public perception as to where the line’s drawn and what’s actionable. But the criminal court – the criminal system in Spain – convicted him. It was clearly a crime committed.

What I think is really interesting is I suspect that if Rubiales had acted differently, she would never have brought that complaint. These sorts of non-consensual advances sometimes can be a result of people misreading the situation or acting impulsively, but the police don’t tend to take action unless there’s a complainant. I suspect that this victim felt so aggrieved by how he reacted to the situation that that played a huge part in what motivated her to push forward with the complaint and support a conviction.

KH: I think that’s such an important point, because I think when she said afterwards, “This would not be okay in any workplace,” that was a really hard-hitting thing, wasn’t it? Because you think, actually – this is a workplace for her, and he was her boss. As you said, that’s a huge abuse of power.

In that way, it suddenly became very, very clear. The point you make about impulsiveness was sort of his argument, wasn’t it – that this was an impulsive moment, he just acted on the spur of the moment. And actually, that’s not okay.

EW: It’s really not. What’s very interesting is that a lot of his reaction afterwards was about being forced to apologise because of his position. I think leaders and businesses have to take very seriously and understand that dynamic in the workplace – that position of power and authority over others – it has to be very carefully used, and there’s a lot of scrutiny over it.

The Financial Conduct Authority – the regulator for financial services – has spent a lot of focus on increasing individual and firm accountability, and putting an active duty on businesses to create cultures which minimise abuse of power. Unfortunately, I’ve spent a lot of the past several years dealing with allegations of and investigations into what we call “non-financial misconduct” – allegations of this nature within workplaces.

There’s a real need for businesses to learn the lessons from these situations, to know that not only are they understanding what information is coming from their workforce – knowing how employees feel about management – but also that if something like this bubbled up, there wouldn’t be this undercurrent of frustration and dissatisfaction, and there wouldn’t be several other examples that come afterwards.

One of the things that struck me from the Rubiales case – to use a kind of football metaphor – is that he had a huge own goal. He had an opportunity in the moment to apologise and be really contrite, and because he refused to do that – refused to say, “I got carried away, that wasn’t okay, I’m sorry” – he opened the door to other complaints.

Journalists kept digging. There was the social media swirl. Ultimately, I think that led to the criminal complaint and him being fired. If he had reacted better, quicker, and apologised sooner – and meant it – a lot of that might have been avoided. I suspect it wouldn’t have made the headlines it did or had the consequences it did.

One of the biggest problems he had was that room of men clapping when he said, “I will not resign.” They were all of the same mind. They all wanted to dismiss it. No one was there holding a mirror up to him, saying, “If you actually take the temperature here and listen properly, there is a lot of sexism and there are a lot of issues with the culture you’ve overseen.” And because no one said that, he didn’t make the decision in the moment to apologise and hopefully move on in a more constructive way.

TL: And let’s just stay on the concept of risk and maybe think about other companies, because how do you spot this as a risk? You were talking about culture, but how do you spot it? Because what we saw here was a pattern of behaviour by an individual.

Can companies truly prepare for their leaders going rogue? For example, I’m trying to imagine a conversation where the internal team, or a legal team, would talk to the CEO about crisis preparation in case they sexually harass someone. So how do you actually advise clients on being prepared for leaders going rogue?

EW: I think it’s difficult to prepare for people going rogue. But perhaps this isn’t someone going rogue – this was an example of someone behaving as they had always behaved. It was an exaggerated example, but it wasn’t new. On the same day, wasn’t he seen rubbing his crotch or something?

It wasn’t rogue behaviour for him. It was accepted, tolerated behaviour. And I think that is something you can spot and prepare for. So often, when we’re talking to clients about reputational resilience, we do talk about culture and the way that challenge is made, and the opportunities they create for honest feedback.

Here’s a massive shout out to internal comms – and the connectivity between HR, executives, and the board is super important. Businesses need to know that they are getting data and information from their organisations – that they’re regularly doing engagement surveys or taking the temperature of how people feel – and that they’re listening to and responding to that.

Because if they don’t do that, they lack the information they need to make good decisions. Part of making those decisions is to know whether something is rogue behaviour, the tip of an iceberg, or symptomatic of a wider issue. Often, if you have good information flows between people teams, comms teams, and executives, they’re alert to the right amount of information.

We’ve had examples of executives who have been very affronted and surprised when they’ve received feedback that their manner is not what they expected, or that they’re perceived as oppressive or even a bit pervy. When you dig deeper, there have often been investigations and complaints that have been managed by HR but haven’t really bubbled up into their consciousness.

So actually, I think it’s really important for leaders to ask for, accept, and listen to feedback – so they’re not starved of the information they need to truly understand how they’re perceived – and to be able to reflect on that and change their behaviour.

KH: It’s kind of sad in a way, isn’t it, that we need that clarity for people – but we really do. There is probably a generation of people who think, “Well, this is how we’ve always done things.”

We’re all of a generation where we put up with things that we absolutely wouldn’t expect people to put up with now – which is obviously a good thing, in terms of change. But we do need that clarity. We need people to say, “This is acceptable, this isn’t.”

We say that a lot in crisis training, don’t we, Tamara – that giving people guidelines alone isn’t enough. You need examples of what’s okay and what isn’t, so that you can teach people until it becomes so embedded that they instinctively know what’s okay and what isn’t.

EW: And you need to listen to different perspectives. There’s an example that we use in my team quite a lot – and the female lawyer who was in this story hates me telling it – but I think it’s a really important one.

I was on a Teams call with a senior male executive who was answering questions about having put his hand on the back of a young female colleague’s neck. My colleague flinched – she’s in her early 20s.

KH: She flinched – well, we both flinched. Yeah, it’s such an intimate thing. The neck is such an intimate area.

EW: Exactly. It’s an intimate place. I’m slightly more weathered to these things, and I didn’t flinch, but the client saw the young woman flinch and said, “What was that? Let’s talk about that.”

Rather embarrassingly for her, he said, “Well, what was going on there?” And she said, “Well no, that’s an intimate thing. That’s not a casual touch. I’m not a man you’re playing sport with that you can tap on the shoulder. Touching my neck is really quite intimate and intrusive.”

She said, “I’ll offer you my hand to meet in a business environment – you can shake that. But don’t touch any other part of my body.” He looked genuinely shocked. I think he had been non-consensually touching people’s necks for years and none of them had flinched or told him not to.

So he wasn’t aware that time had moved on. That was his blind spot. It was a surprising example, but unless you’re seeing the reactions of people with different perspectives – if you’re only surrounded by people who have the same mentality as you – you’re never going to get that flinch. You’re never going to get that moment of reflection.

TL: Yeah, it’s an ongoing conversation. And I think it’s also really important that this is included in the risk register as well. I’m so pleased to hear you talk about culture and how that really matters, because I know that in a previous episode, when we were talking about the Harrods crisis, it all came back to culture there as well.

So it kind of does make me happy that companies are really looking at culture as a key area to avoid these kinds of crises. And obviously, people need to constantly learn and educate themselves as well.

Outro

You’ve been listening to “What Just Happened?” with Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton. If you enjoyed the podcast, please subscribe, rate, and review.