The effort to remove Macklemore from Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour may go down as one of the music industry’s more spectacular own goals.

What began with objections to Macklemore saying “Free Palestine” during two September shows at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium has now become a far bigger story. Macklemore is off the tour, four other acts have withdrawn in solidarity, Sheeran has faced a wave of criticism, and questions about who actually controls the stages of the world’s biggest artists have moved to the centre of the controversy.  

The attempt to reduce Macklemore’s platform has instead multiplied it.

Macklemore’s Two Shows Became the Story

During his September 4 set, Macklemore spoke about Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank before saying “Free Palestine.” The following night, he addressed Jewish audience members directly, saying criticism of Israel and its government was not criticism of Jewish people and framing his message around equal dignity and human rights.

The Israeli American Council subsequently launched a petition seeking his removal. Singer Pink criticised elements of his presentation but said she was not calling for him to be fired, while Macklemore rejected claims that his support for Palestinians was antisemitic.

Then the pressure moved from social media to the venues. Macklemore said Sheeran told him that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose company owns Gillette Stadium, would not permit him to perform there and had encouraged other stadium owners to take a similar position. Tour promoter Messina Touring Group later confirmed that multiple venues had told it they would not host concerts with Macklemore on the bill. Kraft has acknowledged opposing Macklemore’s appearance, saying his objection concerned what he described as a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery.

The result was predictable. Macklemore was removed. The aftermath was not.

Ed Sheeran’s Explanation Created Another Problem

Sheeran responded by stressing that the promoter, not him, made the final decision. He said he had spent the week speaking with venues, promoters and activists while trying to “build bridges,” but refused to cancel shows that fans had already planned to attend or jeopardise work for musicians and crew.

He also explained that he deliberately keeps politics away from his concerts, describing them as spaces for unity, escapism and people from different backgrounds. That defence immediately ran into two problems.

First, music-industry professionals told the Associated Press that although promoters finance and organise major tours, stadium-level artists usually hold enormous influence over what happens under their name. Entertainment lawyer Dean Sheldon Serwin told AP that a superstar headliner will generally have approval over virtually everything, even if a venue can ultimately refuse to open its doors.  

So “the promoter decided” does not completely settle the question of how much leverage one of the world’s biggest touring artists could have exercised.

Second, Sheeran’s claim that he avoids using his professional platform for politics does not fit neatly with his own history.

In 2022, Sheeran headlined the Concert for Ukraine fundraiser, publicly declared “I stand with Ukraine,” donated royalties from his Kyiv-filmed “2step” video to the DEC Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal and collaborated with Ukrainian band Antytila.  

There is nothing inconsistent about supporting Ukraine. The inconsistency lies in presenting political engagement itself as something his professional platform does not accommodate when he has previously used that platform for a major international conflict.

Embed from Getty Images

Ed Sheeran performs at the Concert for Ukraine in Birmingham in March 2022, where proceeds supported the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal.

Then His Own Musicians Walked Away

Sheeran’s statement also emphasised the livelihoods of the people working on his tour. Within hours, several of those people chose to leave anyway.

Irish singer Aaron Rowe withdrew, saying he could not continue under the circumstances. Sheeran’s longtime Irish collaborators Beoga also left the tour, saying they opposed what they described as the silencing of Macklemore. Danish band Lukas Graham withdrew, arguing that wealth should not determine who gets to speak about civilian suffering. Finneas separately pulled out of six scheduled South American dates and expressed support for Palestinians.

That transformed the controversy. This was no longer simply Macklemore versus a venue owner. Artists with valuable career opportunities were voluntarily giving those opportunities up.

For Sheeran, that made the argument about protecting his supporting musicians particularly awkward. Several artists connected to the tour ultimately decided that remaining was not worth the compromise.

Robert Kraft Is Not Some Random Stadium Executive

Kraft’s role also deserves scrutiny because he is more than the owner of a venue. The billionaire owns the New England Patriots and Gillette Stadium and has spent substantial sums combating antisemitism and supporting Jewish and Israeli causes. His work has earned praise from Israeli leaders, while his organisation says it also supports dialogue and humanitarian assistance. Kraft argues that his decision regarding Macklemore concerned antisemitism, not an attempt to prohibit support for Palestinians.  

There is also a personal connection between Kraft and Sheeran. Sheeran performed “Perfect” at Kraft’s 2022 wedding to Dana Blumberg, alongside a celebrity guest list that included Elton John and Tom Brady.  

That does not prove Kraft dictated Sheeran’s decisions. It does make this more complicated than an anonymous venue simply enforcing a policy.

That makes the venue pressure even more striking. Macklemore says Kraft rallied other stadium owners to block him from the tour, and promoters later confirmed that several venues threatened cancellations if he remained. Yet at least one stadium on Sheeran’s tour, Raymond James Stadium, had hosted Ye despite years of explicit antisemitic rhetoric, including his 2025 song “Heil Hitler.” If venues are invoking antisemitism as the reason to exclude Macklemore, that uneven standard deserves scrutiny.

The Attempt to Reduce Macklemore’s Platform Expanded It

The strangest part of this entire episode is how badly the original strategy appears to have worked. Macklemore had two enormous stages and used them to talk about Palestine. Removing him ensured that those remarks then became international news. Other artists repeated the debate. Major publications investigated the power of promoters and stadium owners. Sheeran had to issue a lengthy statement. Kraft had to defend his involvement.

Macklemore has since pledged his $1 million in tour earnings to organisations supporting Palestinians and challenged Kraft to match it. Kraft later said Sheeran had already pledged $2 million in humanitarian aid and asked him to do the same. Kraft agreed, bringing the three men’s announced pledges to $5 million.

So the attempt to make one artist stop talking about Palestine ended with considerably more people talking about Palestine. The people who wanted his message removed from a stadium did not make it disappear. They turned it into the defining story of Ed Sheeran’s tour.

Discover more from Feminegra

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.