A Big Fish in a Bigger Pond

“You can pay off Meta, you can’t pay off me.”

— Macklemore, “Hind’s Hall”

Ed Sheeran is among the most commercially successful musicians on the planet. Spotify ranks him sixth among its most-streamed artists of all time, and he has sold more than 19 million concert tickets. His net worth is estimated at around $350 million. If financial success translates into influence, few artists would seem better positioned to stand their ground.

Yet all that success, wealth, and fame proved insufficient when he faced pressure from the billionaire class.

On Sheeran’s current stadium tour, Macklemore wasn't just another opening act management selected. He and Sheeran had been friends for nearly 13 years, and Macklemore personally asked to join the LOOP tour. As Sheeran later explained, "Macklemore asked to join my tour last year, and I agreed, because I respect him as an artist."

Sheeran selected Macklemore knowing he was unlikely to leave politics at the door. "Hind's Hall" reached No. 7 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart and became a central part of Macklemore’s live performances. Its lyrics directly criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza, the same political position that would soon become central to the controversy over his place on the tour.

There is little reason to believe the video shown during Macklemore’s performance surprised the tour’s organizers. The Gaza footage had become a recurring feature of his live shows, and stadium productions are not entirely spontaneous. Video content is generally prepared, tested, and queued before the show begins.

Yet when controversy erupted after Macklemore's first two appearances on the LOOP Tour, Sheeran ultimately allowed his friend to be removed from the lineup. Sheeran blamed the tour's promoter for making the decision, but fans were buying tickets to see him, not the promoter. He could have insisted that the tour would only proceed if the promoter honored his decision to include Macklemore on the tour. Instead, Sheeran was willing to continue the tour without his friend on the bill.

Canceling shows would have disappointed fans who had made plans to attend and put the livelihood of the tour’s crew at risk. Still, there were other ways to address this without caving to the demands of the stadium owners and the promoter. It is admirable that Sheeran tried to forge a compromise, but when that failed, he could have issued his own ultimatum: let the tour continue with the lineup I put together, or I will make other arrangements to bring the show to my fans.

“The problem isn't the protests, it's what they're protesting”

- Macklemore, “Hind’s Hall”

The controversy has gone beyond Macklemore’s political position. Sheeran should not be faulted for declining to offer his opinion on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza; it is his right to keep politics out of his brand. However, when another artist was censored, he had a responsibility to step up. Instead, he chose to let the show go on, making him complicit in removing Macklemore from the platform he had given him.  

In the aftermath of Macklemore’s removal from the tour, Sheeran has emphasized that he gives his opening acts the freedom to “play a setlist of their choosing.” This is an empty gesture if he stands down when others exert editorial control over those artists, especially when they lack his power to fight back.

“Claimin' it's antisemitic to be anti-Zionist”

- Macklemore, “Hind’s Hall”

Robert Kraft, the billionaire whom Macklemore has accused of orchestrating his removal from the LOOP tour, said he refused to let Macklemore perform at Gillette Stadium because the venue is committed to “ensuring that events held at [the] venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.” This reflects a familiar line of attack against those protesting Israeli actions in Gaza, where accusations of “antisemitism” are sometimes directed at critics whose objections are aimed at the Israeli government or Zionism rather than Jewish people or Judaism. 

Criticism of Israel is not the equivalent of antisemitism, and the importance of the country to the Jewish faith should not be invoked to shield it from accountability for its actions. The religious beliefs and cultural history of Judaism should not be conflated with the political actions of the Israeli state.

Ironically, Kraft criticized Macklemore for “only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas” during his performance at MetLife, citing this as one reason for barring him from Gillette Stadium. Yet removing him from the tour also silenced that point of view for the audiences he would otherwise have reached. Kraft could have used his enormous wealth to respond to Macklemore in ways that the other 99% of us could never afford. Instead, he just took away his microphone.

If Kraft is truly concerned about making sure that complete information about the conflict in Gaza is shared, his political spending has not backed it up. This includes a $1 million donation by Kraft Group LLC to United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that spends heavily in congressional elections on behalf of candidates who support its views of the relationship between the United States and Israel. That spending suggests Kraft is more comfortable using his influence to advance a political position than giving opposing views an equal platform. 

Could the Founders of America have envisioned that their grand experiment in democracy would eventually confront a different threat to free expression? The First Amendment protects speech from government censorship, not private censorship. Today, however, an increasing amount of public expression passes through institutions controlled by billionaires, from entertainment companies to sports stadiums. The First Amendment may prevent the government from silencing an artist, but it cannot stop the people who control the venues and platforms that artists need to reach an audience.

Ed Sheeran’s bank account may pale in comparison to Kraft’s, but his fan base still gives him considerable power. He has far more opportunity to influence public discourse than any individual fan does. If he didn’t want to use the microphone himself, the least he could have done was ensure that Macklemore was able to use his.

Sheeran eventually spoke out against the censorship that had engulfed his tour, saying he was “deeply worried” about venues exerting influence over performers’ content. But Macklemore had already lost his platform, and other artists had already walked away. The lesson remains: even a star as powerful as Ed Sheeran can find his influence diminished when it collides with the people who control access to the stage.