Joey Barton says Charlie Kirk's assassination will be remembered as a bigger moment in history than Martin Luther King's death
The controversial former England midfielder sparked online backlash with remarks on his Common Sense podcast.
Former England international Joey Barton sparked online uproar after claiming on his Common Sense podcast that Charlie Kirk's assassination would be remembered as a bigger moment in history than Martin Luther King's death. The comments, made on the latest episode published Wednesday, quickly circulated on social media, drawing criticism from fans and public commentators alike.
On the show, Barton argued that Kirk's death would be more seismic than King's, invoking Kirk's age of 31 and contrasting his life with King’s. He said: "I felt that Charlie Kirk getting killed is a bigger moment - a more seismic moment - in history than Martin Luther King getting killed. It will be remembered by our kids and maybe their kids as a seismic moment, similar to - but I think way above - Martin Luther King." His co-host appeared to push back, replying that the true significance would likely become clear in about five years. Barton then pressed on, insisting: "No, I'll tell you the reasons why. He [Kirk] was 31-years-old, obviously Martin Luther King was 53-years-old or whatever."
The remarks quickly drew scrutiny as clips circulated online. Critics pointed out that King died in 1968 at age 39, not 53, and that Kirk’s death is not a contemporary event. Online commentators chastised Barton for the comparison, with some mocking the calculation of ages and others questioning the premise of equating historical civil-rights milestones with the death of a modern public figure.
Barton, 42 at the time of the remarks, has long been one of football’s most controversial figures. His career in the Premier League was marked by on-field incidents, and since retiring he has remained a polarizing voice in English sport. In July, a High Court libel ruling required him to pay about £200,000 to a BBC presenter after a series of online harassing posts. The same court previously addressed another libel claim in which a female analyst had accused him of damaging her broadcasting career; the judge found that one of his posts carried a defamatory meaning, while another did not, though it carried an innuendo.
The broader reaction to Barton's comments has underscored how outspoken figures in sports can ignite rapid online debate about history, memory, and the responsibilities of athletes and media personalities when discussing sensitive topics. The Daily Mail’s coverage of the episode notes that the remarks emerged amid Barton's ongoing public commentary since retirement and his established record of provocative statements.
As with many such moments in sports discourse, the incident has sparked a wider conversation about the line between stoking controversy and responsibility in public commentary, especially when discussing figures tied to civil rights movements and historically significant events. The exchange also illustrates how even a single podcast episode can reverberate across platforms, prompting fact-checking and corrections from observers who highlight misstatements about historical figures.
This report relies on coverage from the Daily Mail, which published the initial account of Barton's remarks and the ensuing online reactions. The story does not reflect endorsement by any club or league, and it emphasizes how a single comment can become a news topic in the age of rapid social-media dissemination.