How figures like Joey Barton could fuel a culture of online hostility toward female athletes – new research
- Written by Wasim Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Hull
A criminal court recently pored over the social media posts of the ex-footballer Joey Barton and found them to be “grossly offensive”. So much so that he was handed a suspended prison sentence, ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and pay more than £20,000 in costs.
We also examined Barton’s comments on female footballers and pundits as part of our research into harmful online rhetoric[1] against women and girls in sport.
Our study[2] found that his posts not only targeted individual women[3] – including Mary Earps, Eni Aluko, Lucy Ward and Ava Easdon – but also alleged that it fuelled a wider culture of online hostility toward female athletes.
This is part of a digital culture which normalises misogyny, which then encourages online violence against women. They help to legitimise harmful narratives that might otherwise remain at the fringes of online discourse and extremes of society.
When people with significant reach engage in abusive or inflammatory commentary, their posts act as catalysts that shape polarised and hostile digital environments.
During our research we noticed that this can often occur with the symbolic use of emojis, using seemingly trivial icons as coded tools of intimidation and ridicule. In the extensive online abuse aimed at female athletes and pundits, we found combinations of weapon emojis such as 🗡️ (knife), 🔫 (gun), or 💣 (bomb) which were often paired with female-identifying emojis or gendered slurs to imply threats or intimidation.
We also found animal emojis like 🐷 (pig), 🐽 (pig snout), or 🐕 (dog) used to dehumanise women. There were sexualised emojis such as 🍑 (buttocks), 🍆 (phallic symbol), or 👅 (tongue) deployed alongside derogatory comments to humiliate or objectify them.
These emojis are often used to mask hostility as humour, making abusive remarks appear playful, despite inflicting real harm. They were also employed as a strategic tool for evading moderation systems, meaning that they can avoid having their comments and messages removed.
Digital violence functions as a mechanism of professional exclusion and economic sabotage. When female pundits are bombarded with threats of rape and death simply for analysing a football match, the goal of the abuse is clear: to silence them and drive them out of the industry.
This creates a violent effect where aspiring female journalists may self-censor or abandon their careers to avoid becoming the next target of a misogynistic pile-on.
And while celebrities can themselves be the victims of online abuse, our research shows that they can also use their status to incite hate. Networked misogyny and the mass circulation of anti-women and anti-feminist sentiments online have been perpetuated by popular online figures such as Barton, creating a new form of influencer known as “misogyny influencers”[4].
These influencers wield disproportionate cultural power. And when they engage in misogynistic or aggressive rhetoric, they reinforce and embolden harmful norms in online communities. Their influence can mobilise thousands of users and create hostile environments that women in sport must navigate daily.
For our research shows that when public figures attack women online, their followers often replicate and escalate the abuse. This turns personal hostility into a much broader campaign of misogyny.
Barton’s conviction – which he is appealing – demonstrates that status or celebrity does not shield individuals from responsibility when their words could incite hate. It affirms that online violence carries consequences and that public figures who weaponise their influence to target women can no longer assume impunity.
However, we must also confront a paradoxical reality. For someone like Barton, a suspended sentence may not be a deterrent, but a marketing asset. In the “manosphere” economy, legal censure often validates the influencer’s status as an anti-establishment truth-teller being “silenced” by the state.
By avoiding immediate jail time, Barton could spin this verdict to his supporters as a battle scar in a “war on free speech”. This allows him to use the controversy to his advantage, framing himself as a martyr while facing minimal restrictions on his liberty.
It is evident that online abuse is a persistent and highly significant societal issue that requires attention. It should be recognised as a direct threat to the safety of recipients and those exposed to such violence through online platforms.
Protecting athletes will require stronger policies, clearer sanctions for repeat offender and support for those targeted. Addressing this growing threat is essential if women and girls are to participate safely and fearlessly in sport.
References
- ^ online rhetoric (theconversation.com)
- ^ Our study (www.tandfonline.com)
- ^ targeted individual women (www.bbc.co.uk)
- ^ “misogyny influencers” (theconversation.com)
