England scored their first own goal of their World Cup summer this week – if you believe in a certain section of the tabloid press, that is.

With the national team limbering up for the tournament in Russia, The Sun’s front page screamed with indignation at Raheem Sterling’s freshly-inked tattoo of an AK-47 down the side of his right calf.

Their logic, presumably, was that a major football star and an example for millions of youngsters should not be ‘glorifying’ gun crime by parading around with a picture of an assault rifle where everyone could see it.

The only problem with this is that, if they had bothered to ask Sterling himself, they would have known it was done as a tribute to his father, who was gunned down when Raheem was a boy.

The footballer himself later explained in a statement that the tattoo, rather than glorifying guns, was a reminder that he would never pick up a gun after what had happened to his father.

He was formally backed by the Football Association, while on social media, the vast majority of casual observers turned on The Sun instead for taking such a dramatically one-sided stance on the issue.

There was a slight whiff of a debate on the matter, but it was summed up when Piers Morgan said it was unwise to have an image of a gun portrayed, only for others to point out that his beloved Arsenal have a cannon on their crest.

The farcical nature of the debate was made by others who said that ‘Arsenal’ is where guns are kept, the shield shape on which the London club’s cannons are shown is too warlike, and even the colour red is that of blood. They reduced the club’s badge to a blank space and said Arsenal’s nickname – The Gunners – should be changed too.

Identifying the hypocrisy of the criticism, other social media users found a news segment of Morgan wielding an assault rifle at a Texan shooting range during his time in the US.

However, a more disturbing thread emerged, based around the number of negative news pieces written about the England footballer, which included criticism of the winger being ‘tired’, buying his mother an expensive bathroom sink, driving a car which was ‘filthy’, shopping in Poundland (where he posed for photos with a fan), and flying with EasyJet.

Basically things which anyone else would consider perfectly normal, but when done by a successful athlete earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a week are apparently scandalous.

The Guardian called out the racial element of the negative press that Sterling was receiving, saying that ‘successful black men have a target on their back’.

However, The Sun refused to back down, and the next day wheeled out Damilola Taylor’s father to condemn Sterling’s tattoo as it related to gang violence. The fact that Damilola died of stab wounds was strangely missing from The Sun’s reporting.

Nor was it mentioned that Sterling’s England team-mate Jordan Pickford has a dagger tattooed on his body – which perhaps would have been more relevant.

It was also said that other international footballers with controversial tattoos have inexplicably escaped the wrath of The Sun – such as Republic of Ireland winger James McClean, who has a tattoo welcoming people to ‘Free Derry’ and in support of the Irish Republican movement, a topic which the red-top usually likes to attack with gusto.

But it was not just The Sun who jumped on the bandwagon of negative press, as Sky Sports were forced to apologise after a presumably innocent error in which they added the word ‘again’ to Sterling’s quote in which he said he would never touch a gun.

The nature of the error was to question the past behaviour of the footballer, and suggest that the tattoo was somehow atonement for something bad he had done or been involved in.

What the debate did end up doing was crystallise the treatment of the England footballer in the press, rather than the merits of his decision to have the tattoo done in the first place.

On social media, plenty of contrasting stories emerged showing Sterling in a positive light, posing for pictures with fans young and old, being an ambassador for charities and generally being a decent bloke.

What is certain is that if Sterling performs at the World Cup as many pundits believe he is capable of, the same critics won’t have enough superlatives to describe him.

It’s no wonder that our footballers crumble under the weight of the pressure put upon them when they are at major tournaments, as their performance on the pitch is used as a measure of the quality of their character.

For fans eager for success, perhaps it is coverage from The Sun which is shooting us all in the foot.