claiming Robert Kraft – owner of the New England Patriots – had pressured Sheeran by threatening to pull his stadium from the tour dates and urging other venues to do the same. Sheeran’s team confirmed multiple venues had objected to Macklemore staying on the bill

“The stakes for him would have been very, very high,” said Dorian Lynskey, the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute: A History of Protest Songs. “Taking a stand meant potentially cancelling the rest of your tour, with all the refunds, people who work on the tour losing their work. It’s an enormous thing.”

Bragg also acknowledged the practical realities. “Undoubtedly Ed has contractual obligations, and he’d get sued and it would cost him money,” he said. “I can understand it.” But he believes Sheeran could have drawn a cleaner line between defending Macklemore’s right to speak and endorsing every word of it.

“He doesn’t have to come out and say ‘free Palestine’. Put purely on the grounds of free speech, he can say an artist must be able to express their view. He needs to let people know how he feels about billionaires deciding what can and can’t be said from a stage,” he said.

This thread is completely lacking nuance (as expected). The nuance isn’t about whether there’s a genocide (there obviously is) but rather what is expected of Ed Sheeran in this situation. You could make an argument that Sheeran taking a stance is worth the lost revenue/jobs, it’s just not as clear cut as people are making it out to be.