The France v. England friendly went ahead on Tuesday night, just four days after last Friday’s horrific attacks in Paris. Did this show a lack of respect, a sporting stand against terrorism, or was it just plain foolish?

Every time I wonder how to carry on after the attacks that happened 10 minutes from where I’m living this year, I always think about what the victims would have wanted. It is, of course, impossible to know, but I think their top priorities would be twofold: to make sure no one else gets hurt, and to make a stand against terrorist groups. But the problem lies in finding a balance between the two.

There are valid reasons why the game, which England won 2-0, should not have taken place. The planned Belgium v. Spain match was cancelled due to security fears. The FA’s Chief Executive Martin Glenn, after discussions with the French authorities, said: “There were two conditions to hold the game. UK authorities needed to make sure that it was safe, and the French wanted to play.” Currently, large crowds are a danger. They present a perfect target for terrorists in an environment where there is already a high terrorist risk. London is very close to Paris and Wembley Stadium very similar to the Stade de France, around which three suicide bombers blew themselves up last Friday. The original plan appears to have been to detonate inside the stadium.

Despite the security risk, there are emotions at stake for the French team. As they played their last match, their capital city was hit by an atrocious attack. I remember watching the game on television, thinking: “These players have no idea.”

What could have been the alternative to playing this friendly? This weekend’s matches for Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 will take place, but without visiting spectators. This reduction of sport to its basic function was never a possibility for the Wembley game. It was always all or nothing. When I mentioned the possibility of postponing the friendly to a French colleague, she immediately replied: “Until when? A year’s time? Ten years’ time?” If Friday’s events show us anything, it is that terrorist attacks can happen anywhere at any time; we cannot wait for a period of greater security because, in reality, there isn’t going to be one. If we lived in fear, how many more matches would we have to postpone or cancel as a result? Would the Davis Cup be affected? And what about huge-scale events like the Olympics?

In terms of security, it is important to establish the difference between Tuesday’s event, in Wembley stadium, and the cafés, bars and concert hall where the Paris attacks took place. Security was obviously not focused on the latter because no one could have known they would be a target. With Wembley, everyone knows it is a potential target and security forces can prepare accordingly. Indeed, extra officers were placed on duty for the game, many heavily armed, and spectators faced security checks upon entering the stadium.

Cancelling the match would have been seen as act of cowardice, giving ISIS the big international response they wanted, letting them further their disruption. Carrying on is a worldwide statement of resistance to terrorism. Roy Hodgson declared: “I can’t deny there’s something hanging over which is far, far greater than a football match”, and Martin Glenn added that the game would have “massive global significance”.
“It is a chance to demonstrate terrorism can’t win. We can’t afford to let this act of terror cow us.”

The game also gave England a prime opportunity to show solidarity with France. More people than ever wanted to be there: the FA expected a near-full house at the 90,000 capacity stadium, with thousands of tickets sold since the attacks and fewer than 100 returned. David Cameron and Prince William also decided to attend. The event was modified to show maximum support for the French: ‘La Marseillaise’ was sung after ‘God Save the Queen’, giving it pride of place in a change of protocol; sheets of paper were distributed on seats in England home end of the stadium, which formed the French Tricolore when fans held them up during the anthem; the Wembley arch was lit up in red, white and blue, with Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité displayed on the side of the stadium, and a minute’s silence was held.

What about the actual game itself? Did England feel compelled to lose? The score line suggests not. Is the actual game, outside the decision to host the match in the first place, still influenced by politics? How would you feel as an England player slide tackling someone whose friends might just have died in the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe for 10 years? I asked a Frenchman, Louis, his thoughts on this before the game on Tuesday: “I think that nobody cares about the actual game of football anymore, the score and all of that. I spoke to loads of French people today and nobody talked about football. On Tuesday, French people will watch the game as an act of resistance, because life must go on or [the terrorists] win.”

There is a distinction between the event and the actual game of football. A political reading of the football itself is unnecessary: there is already enough politics around the hosting of the event. Louis’s comment suggests that politics have flattened the importance of the football, as there are so many more important issues going on in the world right now. I would say that it is not a coincidence that football was the stage upon which such an important stand was taken. Sport, whether bringing together a country or the team itself, has always stood for unity. Competition, yes, but also unity. As well as being a political statement, the game is at the same time an oasis of calm, an escape from the troubles of the world around us. In the aftermath of the attack all I have wanted to do is play sport, so my mind is not focused on the world around me.
I think that, on balance, it was right that the England v. France game went ahead. Was it a big risk? Yes. But it was also a massive opportunity. We cannot let such an occasion for a high profile stand against terrorism slip. We cannot let the fear engulf us. Yes, the show must go on.