Three months ago, Mary Earps released excerpts of her autobiography ahead of its official release. In those controversial sections, she spoke about her own difficulties with her sexuality, but the parts that caught the most attention were her controversies surrounding Sarina Wiegman and Hannah Hampton.
Earps retired from international football just five weeks before the Euros, after she was informed she would not be the number one goalkeeper for the competition.
In her book, she recounted how she found that Hampton had been "rewarded for bad behaviour" after a poor attitude in the 2022 Euros and being dropped by England, then being given her chance in goal ahead of Earps. Earps described Wiegman's handling of the situation as "bull----" and wrote in detail about what she described as a "difficult" relationship with Hampton.
Though harsh comments were amplified by public reaction and met with significant backlash for disrespecting the manager and teammate, Chelsea manager Sonia Bompastor was among those who responded publicly, criticising Earps for failing to show respect.
Since Bompastor Earps's reaction was in response to the hate she received, she has since sat down for another interview, in which she admitted that, at the time of publication, she did not understand the backlash.
Since its release at the end of last year, she can now understand why people reacted so strongly, which she struggled to understand at the time. I unfortunately do not give her such grace or certainty; what she said was rude, demeaning, and the fact that she did not see that at the time reflects poorly on her. But to come out and backtrack what you said, if you are going to make harsh statements, stand by your word.
She describes being in a headspace where she could not understand why certain parts of the book were being so intensely focused on.
She explains that the situation quickly escalated and "snowballed," describing how it "went out of control really, really quickly." She acknowledges that this is how social media operates and recognises that, given the success of the teams she has played for and what they have achieved, heightened scrutiny comes with the job. If she already knew all the above, why did she not expect this to happen when she made strong, harmful statements about others?
She describes the experience as her "first rodeo with cancelled culture" and rates it "0 out of 10." She admits that it was extremely difficult to navigate and hopes not to experience something similar again. However, she also reflects that the high expectations placed upon her can be viewed as a compliment and as a sign of how much the women's game has grown. But these comments or gossip only reinforce the idea that women do not belong in football.
She repeatedly emphasises that she takes full responsibility for the book and its reception, but has not apologised for the comments she made about others. She is only apologising because of the angry outburst, not because she realised what she said was wrong, but merely to save face. At no point did she say, "what I said about Sarina and Hannah was wrong," but merely apologised for others' reactions.
While it is understandable that at the time of writing the book, she was deeply emotional about retiring from international football, she explains that retiring meant losing a significant part of her identity, even if she did not fully recognise it at the time. But if international football was so important, why did she retire in the first place? Only amplifying the idea that she did not want to be second fiddle.
She reflects deeply on the period following publication, describing it as a time of inward reflection and difficult conversations with people close to her. She explains that she had to look at herself first and accept that there were things she could have done better. She says she has had to learn tough life lessons and re-prioritise, accept feedback, and take the backlash "on the chin."
She uses the phrase "you either evolve or repeat" to describe her mindset. She acknowledges that there were elements she could have articulated better and decisions that might have been different had she been in a different emotional state.
Her apology to me feels like she is making excuses and not owning up to her mistakes, finding reasons to justify her actions, like her emotional state affecting how she articulates herself and processes situations.
Earps is keen to clarify that the majority of her working relationship with Sarina Wiegman was positive. She expresses deep respect and admiration for Wiegman and says she would never want anyone to question that.
She confirms that she has spoken to Wiegman since the book's publication. They met face-to-face and had what she describes as a really positive conversation. She wants to keep the details of that conversation private, but says she is grateful to Wiegman for making it happen.
She frames this reconciliation as important and emphasises that she has always respected Wiegman and everything they achieved together.
Though that is a positive, and that she is respecting the privacy of the situation, what about Hampton? Why did you respect this privacy but not Hampton's when making statements about her character, when it was no longer relevant?
While I commend her for her accountability and emotional growth, I felt it needed to say, "I am sorry, Hampton and Wiegman, for what I said, and nothing can excuse my behaviour." Rather than speaking on the pressures of being a role model. While I can appreciate that she was emotional, how did no one think to prevent this from being published or know the impact it would have?
We will never truly know what happened or if she ever apologised to Hampton. But these interviews do feel like closures. If these comments had not blown up in the public, would she still have apologised?
Add comment
Comments