In any crisis situation, it is understandable that organisations – when they can – are tempted to reach for a version of this sentence.
It was our supplier, not us.
That decision was out of our control.
Ultimately, we did not make the call.
What makes this line of defence so seductive is that it’s usually true. What makes it so risky is that just because it’s true doesn’t necessarily mean that it works. To demonstrate this, let’s look at the escalating crisis that has engulfed the singer Ed Sheeran.
On 15 September, Ed Sheeran responded to the removal of his friend, the rapper Macklemore, from the remaining dates of his Loop Tour. This followed Macklemore calling for a free Palestine at MetLife Stadium on 4 September, where he also performed his protest song Hind’s Hall.
This prompted certain advocacy groups to campaign for his dismissal from the tour, with several venues notifying the tour promoter that they would not allow Macklemore to perform on the bill.
Sheeran said he was “appalled by the conflict”, that he was “not complicit” and that his shows were not meant as a political forum. Then he added “Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision… not mine,” and noted that Macklemore’s contract was with the promoter, not him.
Technically he was correct, but…
The promoter, Messina Touring Group, confirmed that venues had refused to allow Macklemore to perform. Robert Kraft, who owns Gillette Stadium, separately confirmed that he had barred Macklemore from performing there.
So, what Sheeran said in his statement appears to have been accurate – it wasn’t his decision.
Not that it did him much good. Within hours of Sheeran posting his statement online, Finneas, Lukas Graham, Dublin singer-songwriter Aaron Rowe and Irish folk band Beoga (who actually performed as part of Sheeran’s band) all withdrew from the tour.
So, how did a statement that was factually correct still manage to make his position worse?
Ed Sheeran ticket prices plunge after Macklemore backlash https://t.co/tgDo1gDfNi pic.twitter.com/AFIIX2NOOf
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) September 19, 2026
In any crisis situation, there are two issues running in parallel. The first one concerns legal accuracy: are we telling the truth? Is what we’re saying accurate and consistent with our legal obligations?
The second issue has to do with reputational accuracy: does what we’re saying tally with how the public perceives us and understands our role?
No problem with the first issue – as we know, Sheeran’s statement was true and consistent with the contract. The second issue is what tripped him up because for most people, it didn’t matter who had a contract with who or what the fine print said – if your name is on the ticket, it’s your show and you’re the one in charge.
While Sheeran’s camp assumed they were in the clear on both issues (legal/reputational), his statement appeared to offer the excuse that he had no control over his own support acts. This where the trouble really began.
Sheeran feels his friends threw him under the bus, showing he doesn't grasp what he did wrong. No one demanded he take a political stand. He should simply have defended Macklemore's, HIS FRIEND'S right to do so.
— Mitchell Plitnick 🔥🕎 (@MJPlitnick) September 19, 2026
No, Ed. It was you who turned your back on your friends in most…
Sheeran’s statement that he had no influence over the decision to remove Macklemore – it’s the contract – invited questions: did he try to influence the decision? How hard did he try? Very quickly, many fans, and several musicians with whom he had been sharing a stage up to then, made up their minds that he had not tried hard enough.
Although Sheeran’s statement did say he had spent the week talking to venues to try to “build a bridge, this line sat underneath the contractual point rather than leading it.
Where the situation goes from here is anyone’s guess, but there seems little doubt that Ed Sheeran will never be seen in the same light again.
Somebody needs to take the shovel from Ed Sheeran or they’ll need to abseil to get him out.
— liam cunningham (@liamcunningham1) September 20, 2026
What would staff think of ‘the decision’?
For organisations (and their PR/comms agencies) who are tempted to issue a statement explaining that a decision was not really theirs, here’s a useful exercise in crisis management. Take out that part of the statement and read what’s left, then ask these three questions:
- Does the public believe we had influence or authority over this situation?
- Have we said what we tried to do to effect a positive outcome?
- Would this statement satisfy our own staff, who know how the decision was reached?
That last one is often the most telling. In Sheeran’s case, his statement did not pass muster with his own touring party, who knew better than anyone how the decision had been reached and voted with their feet. Staff are usually the earliest honest indicator of whether a company’s official position will hold.
What we’ve seen last week shows that while contractual/legal accuracy can protect you in a dispute, it will not necessarily sway the court of public attention. That doesn’t mean the public is right but it does mean that organisations, just like global pop superstars, have a duty to live up to their reputations.
