Oxford United have withdrawn a new American-style sportswear range after it inadvertently referenced the September 11 attacks. The League One club launched its “Campus Collection” on Friday morning, but by lunchtime it had been removed from sale after the designs were found to carry the slogan “United 93”. The U’s then issued an apology acknowledging a lack of understanding of “the historical context and associations” linked to the branding, adding “sincere apologies for this error and any offence caused.”
The collection had been presented as “inspired by the style and culture of American sports,” and Oxford originally trailed it for an 11 September launch — the 25th anniversary of the atrocity that killed nearly 3,000 people. Concerns about sensitivity led to that launch being delayed. When the online collection eventually went on sale on Friday, images showed models wearing an NFL-style shirt with “United 93” on the chest, intended to recognise the club’s founding in 1893.
United 93 was one of four domestic passenger jets seized by al-Qaida terrorists on 11 September 2001. Passengers attempted a mutiny that prevented the hijackers from using the plane to destroy a government building in Washington DC; it ultimately crashed into a field, killing all 44 people on board. A film also titled “United 93” was made about the tragedy.
The Campus Collection was live for roughly two hours on Friday before the webpage was deleted after the club realised the meaning of the phrase. In its statement, Oxford United said: “The range was released without understanding of the historical context and associations. It should not have reached the point of sale and we take full responsibility for not undertaking proper due diligence.” The club added that it had removed the collection with immediate effect and was reviewing its approval processes to ensure nothing similar happens again, repeating its “sincere apologies for this error and any offence caused.”
Reaction among Oxford supporters was mixed. Some were outraged, while others were inclined to forgive the error. One user on the Yellows Forum described it as a “monumental cock-up that I would expect to be sacked for if I’d signed off on it,” while another wrote: “Whilst not ideal … everyone who sees this realises there’s no malicious intent. Ultimately there was just no consideration to it at all.”