Why Was Macklemore Dropped From Ed Sheeran’s Tour? Who Actually Made the Decision?

Update — September 15, 2026: This article has been substantially updated following new statements from Robert Kraft and Ed Sheeran. Kraft has now confirmed that Gillette Stadium decided Macklemore would not be allowed to perform at Sheeran’s September 25–26 shows. Sheeran says Macklemore’s removal from the wider tour was the promoter’s decision, not his, while confirming that he personally negotiated with Kraft and other venues. All of Sheeran’s remaining scheduled opening acts—Aaron Rowe, Lukas Graham and Finneas—have now withdrawn from the tour following Macklemore’s removal. Beoga, the Irish group serving as Sheeran’s touring/backing band and performing several songs during his own set, has also pulled out. We have updated the article throughout to distinguish what is now confirmed from what remains disputed, particularly Macklemore’s allegation that Kraft helped coordinate the other objecting venues.^[1][2][3]

Macklemore was dropped from the remaining dates of Ed Sheeran’s U.S. Loop Tour because multiple venues told the tour promoter they would not allow concerts to proceed with Macklemore on the lineup. Messina Touring Group confirmed that pressure publicly.^[4]

We now know more.

Robert Kraft has confirmed that Gillette Stadium itself decided Macklemore could not participate in Sheeran’s September 25 and 26 concerts there.^[2:1]

Ed Sheeran has also confirmed that venues threatened to pull upcoming shows if Macklemore remained. Sheeran says he spent the week speaking with venues—including Kraft—and trying to broker a resolution. But he disputes Macklemore’s characterization of who formally removed him, saying: “Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine.”^[1:1]

Macklemore, by contrast, has said that “Ed Sheeran and his team” ultimately decided to remove him and alleges that Sheeran told him Kraft had rallied other stadium owners behind the ultimatum.^[5]

That broader coordination allegation remains unproven.

The best-supported answer is therefore no longer simply that “Ed Sheeran fired Macklemore,” nor is it that Sheeran was powerless.

The evidence points to a chain of institutional power:

venues threatened concerts → Kraft undeniably exercised that power at Gillette → Sheeran tried to negotiate → Messina remained the contractual promoter → Macklemore was removed.

The unresolved questions are who exercised the same authority at the other venues and whether Kraft actually coordinated them.

What happened after Macklemore said “Free Palestine”?

Macklemore opened for Sheeran at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on September 4 and 5, 2026.^[6][7]

During his performances, Macklemore expressed support for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, said “Free Palestine,” and performed his protest song “Hind’s Hall.” He also explicitly told Jewish members of the audience that his criticism of Israel was not criticism of them and described his message as one of peace, dignity and equal treatment.^[6:1]

The performances triggered immediate criticism.

The Israeli-American Council called for Sheeran to remove Macklemore, while StopAntisemitism criticized the performance. Pink also amplified criticism before later clarifying that she was not calling for Macklemore’s firing and did not object simply to the phrase “Free Palestine.”^[6:2]

Then the dispute moved from public criticism into commercial leverage.

Messina Touring Group subsequently told Rolling Stone that venues on upcoming dates had notified it that they “will not allow a concert to take place with Macklemore on the lineup.” Messina said the resulting cancellations could affect hundreds of thousands of fans and announced that Macklemore would no longer perform on his remaining support dates.^[4:1]

Macklemore had been scheduled for eight more U.S. appearances, including Philadelphia, two nights at Gillette Stadium, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Arlington and Tampa.^[4:2][7:1]

Venue pressure, in other words, is no longer an allegation.

The promoter confirmed it.

What is confirmed, disputed and still unknown?

The new statements make it possible to draw a much cleaner evidence line.

Confirmed: multiple venues threatened the tour

Messina Touring Group says multiple upcoming venues told it they would not permit a concert with Macklemore on the lineup.^[4:3]

Sheeran has now independently confirmed the same basic fact, saying venues communicated that they would pull shows if Macklemore remained as support.^[1:2]

Rolling Stone identified seven reportedly objecting stadiums:

• Lincoln Financial Field
• Gillette Stadium
• Mercedes-Benz Stadium
• Lucas Oil Stadium
• Bank of America Stadium
• AT&T Stadium
• Raymond James Stadium^[4:4]

Confirmed: Kraft and Gillette Stadium blocked Macklemore

This is the biggest change from the original version of this article.

Kraft has now acknowledged that Gillette Stadium determined Macklemore’s participation in the September 25 and 26 concerts would not be permitted.^[2:2]

Kraft attributed that decision to material from Macklemore’s MetLife performances and what he described as a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. He said Gillette does not want its events to provide a platform for hate speech.^[2:3]

Kraft also said his decision was not intended to deny Palestinian suffering or the right to advocate for Palestinians, and he offered to meet with Macklemore.^[2:4]

Kraft appeared in part to be referring to Macklemore’s controversial 2014 costume at a Seattle performance, which was widely criticized as an antisemitic caricature. Macklemore apologized at the time while saying he had intended simply to disguise himself rather than portray a Jewish stereotype.^[2:5]

Whatever one thinks of Kraft’s justification, his Gillette decision itself is now established fact.

Disputed: who formally removed Macklemore from the wider tour?

Macklemore and Sheeran now give different descriptions.

Macklemore wrote that “Ed Sheeran and his team have made the decision to remove me.”^[5:1]

Sheeran says the opposite regarding formal authority:

“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine.”^[1:3]

Sheeran says Macklemore’s tour contract was with the promoter rather than with him personally.^[1:4]

The underlying contract is not public, so that assertion cannot yet be independently checked against the actual agreement.

Messina’s original statement sits between the two accounts. It says Macklemore was removed “after discussions with stakeholders,” without publicly explaining who possessed the final contractual authority or exactly how the decision was reached.^[4:5]

The responsible conclusion is therefore:

It is established that Sheeran participated heavily in the negotiations. It is not established from the public evidence that Sheeran personally held or exercised the formal contractual authority to terminate Macklemore’s appearances.

Did Ed Sheeran fire Macklemore?

The most accurate answer now is:

Not demonstrably, at least not in the formal contractual sense.

Macklemore attributes the decision to “Ed Sheeran and his team.” Sheeran says Messina Touring Group made it.

What Sheeran does acknowledge is significant.

He says he spoke with the venues “at length all week” trying to build a bridge, that Kraft was one of the people he spoke with, and that he participated in discussions with promoters and activists on both sides.^[1:5]

That means Sheeran was not an uninvolved bystander.

But formal contractual authority and practical influence are two different things.

If Macklemore’s contract was indeed with Messina, as Sheeran says, the promoter may have possessed the legal mechanism for removing him.

At the same time, Sheeran was the headlining artist whose presence generated the stadium tour in the first place. His commercial leverage was plainly substantial.

The new evidence therefore changes the question from:

“Why did Ed Sheeran fire Macklemore?”

to:

“What did Ed Sheeran do once venues threatened to cancel his concerts?”

That is a more defensible question.

Sheeran says he tried to stop the dispute from reaching this point

This part of Sheeran’s statement matters and should not be ignored merely because it complicates the story.

Sheeran says he spent the week speaking with venues and attempting to find a compromise. He specifically confirms communicating with Kraft.^[1:6]

He says those efforts failed.

According to Sheeran, the positions of the venues and promoter became final.

He also explained why he did not cancel the tour in response. Sheeran said he would not abandon fans who had already made plans, or the touring crew, support acts and musicians whose livelihoods depended on the shows.^[1:7]

That provides new context missing from the original article.

It does not answer every question.

We still do not know whether Sheeran or Messina considered forcing individual venues to carry out their cancellation threats, challenging any of the objections contractually, publicly naming the decision-makers, rerouting future concerts, or contesting exclusions at publicly controlled venues.

But the evidence now supports something stronger than speculation that Sheeran simply accepted the demand without trying to change it.

Sheeran says he did push back and tried to negotiate.

The unresolved question is how much further he realistically could or should have gone.

The venue ultimatum still was never publicly tested

One analytical point from the original article remains unchanged.

A stadium threatening to cancel an Ed Sheeran concert imposes enormous costs on the tour.

It also imposes costs on the stadium.

Major concerts generate revenue through ticketing arrangements, concessions, parking, premium seating, sponsorship exposure, staffing and associated economic activity.

Had Sheeran or Messina refused to remove Macklemore, the objecting venues would eventually have faced their own decision:

Do we actually cancel the concert?

That did not happen.

Macklemore was removed before the threatened cancellations were tested.

That does not mean the venues were bluffing.

It means we cannot know whether all seven would ultimately have followed through.

What exactly has Robert Kraft confirmed?

Kraft’s response narrows the controversy considerably.

Macklemore said Sheeran told him Kraft had called and said Macklemore would not be allowed to perform at Gillette Stadium.^[5:2]

Kraft has now effectively confirmed that substance.

His statement says “we determined” that Macklemore’s participation in the September 25 and 26 Gillette concerts would cross the venue’s stated line against providing a platform for hate speech.^[2:6]

So the sequence:

Kraft/Gillette → Macklemore cannot perform at Gillette

is no longer disputed.

But Macklemore made a second allegation.

He says Sheeran told him Kraft had also “rallied some of the other stadium owners” and that they collectively presented an ultimatum.^[5:3]

That is a different and substantially more important claim.

Did Kraft rally the other stadiums against Macklemore?

We still do not know.

Kraft’s statement confirms what happened at his own venue.

It does not confirm that he contacted the other stadiums.

It also did not publicly deny that allegation in the statement reported by GBH and other outlets.^[2:7]

Silence is not proof.

The independent evidence currently establishes only this:

1. Kraft/Gillette rejected Macklemore.
2. Other venues also rejected Macklemore.
3. Sheeran confirms speaking with Kraft and multiple venues.
4. Macklemore says Sheeran told him Kraft helped rally those venues.

What remains missing is the connective evidence between steps one and two.

Emails, call records, text messages, venue correspondence or testimony from another participant could establish it.

Without that evidence, saying Kraft organized the entire seven-stadium effort would go beyond what is currently proven.

Messina Touring Group is now even more important to the story

Sheeran’s statement shifts substantially more attention toward Messina Touring Group.

Messina is not merely an intermediary passing messages between Sheeran and stadiums.

It is the promoter of the U.S. Loop Tour and part of AEG’s touring ecosystem.^[7:2]

Messina received the venue objections.

Messina issued the public statement announcing Macklemore’s removal.

And Sheeran now says Macklemore’s contract was with the promoter and that the promoter made the removal decision.^[1:8]

That creates several unresolved questions:

• What authority did Macklemore’s contract give Messina?
• Which venue notices did Messina receive?
• Were they written or verbal?
• Did Messina challenge any of them?
• Did Messina recommend Macklemore’s removal?
• What exactly occurred during the “discussions with stakeholders” it referenced?
• Did AEG participate?
• Were alternative arrangements investigated?
• Did lawyers examine the public-venue issues?

The actual contract and venue communications would answer far more than another round of competing public statements.

All remaining opening acts—and Sheeran’s touring band—have now pulled out

The fallout has now moved considerably closer to Sheeran’s own stage.

All of the remaining scheduled opening acts on the Loop Tour—Aaron Rowe, Lukas Graham and Finneas—have withdrawn following Macklemore’s removal. Beoga has also quit. That distinction matters because Beoga was not simply another future opening act: the longtime Irish collaborators were serving as Sheeran’s touring/backing band, performing several songs with him during the middle of his own set.

In other words, the controversy has progressed from the removal of one support artist to the departure of every remaining scheduled opener plus musicians embedded in Sheeran’s own performance.

That makes the leverage dynamic more significant than the first version of this article suggested. Venue pressure initially made keeping Macklemore costly. The subsequent artist withdrawals are now making his removal costly in the opposite direction.^[3:1]

The withdrawals matter because they reveal something important about the mechanics of the dispute.

The venue pressure worked by increasing the cost of keeping Macklemore.

Now other artists are increasing the cost of removing him.

This does not make the two actions legally or morally identical, and it does not establish that Macklemore will return.

But it demonstrates that leverage within a tour can operate in both directions.

The original venue objections made one artist expensive to retain.

The subsequent withdrawals have made his removal more disruptive than it was when Messina announced it.

Who actually owns and controls the seven stadiums?

This remains one of the most misunderstood parts of the story.

A viral social-media argument has portrayed the dispute by identifying the Jewish backgrounds of several NFL owners associated with the venues, describing five of the seven stadiums as effectively “Jewish-owned,” converting that into 71%, and comparing it with the Jewish share of the U.S. population.

That is not a reliable ownership analysis.

It collapses at least four separate concepts:

stadium ownership, NFL franchise ownership, operational control and event-booking authority.

The actual structures look like this:

Five of the seven therefore involve public ownership structures rather than straightforward personal ownership by the billionaire associated with the home NFL team.^{[8:1][10:1][11:1][13:1][14:1]}

That does not mean the public owner necessarily made the Macklemore decision.

Private team entities can possess extensive contractual authority within publicly owned facilities.

And that distinction is exactly why the viral demographic argument is unhelpful.

The relevant question is not the religion of people associated with the stadiums.

It is:

Who possessed the contractual power to reject Macklemore at each venue, and who exercised it?

Kraft’s conduct can now be examined directly because he has acknowledged the Gillette decision.

The same standard should be applied to everyone else.

Actions and communications are evidence.

Religious identity is not.

Public ownership creates a separate First Amendment question

Describing Macklemore’s removal as “censorship” in the broad social sense is different from establishing a First Amendment violation.

The First Amendment generally constrains government rather than purely private businesses.

The Supreme Court emphasized that distinction in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, explaining that a private entity does not automatically become a state actor merely because it operates a forum where speech occurs.^[15]

Publicly controlled performance venues can present a different problem.

In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, municipal officials denied a promoter access to a city-controlled theater for a production of Hair. The Supreme Court concluded that the system used to deny the performance constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.^[16]

Neither case automatically resolves Macklemore’s situation.

The central questions would include:

• Who actually made each venue’s decision?
• Was that decision attributable to a government entity?
• What authority had been contractually delegated to a private operator?
• What rights did Messina or Sheeran possess under the venue agreement?
• Was Macklemore himself a contracting party?
• What type of forum was involved?
• What contractual grounds did the venue invoke?

Public ownership alone does not answer those questions.

But it makes the identity of the actual decision-maker significantly more important.

Raymond James Stadium still presents the sharpest comparison

Raymond James Stadium is particularly interesting because a strikingly similar free-speech dispute occurred there only a few months ago.

In June 2026, political officials and community organizations pressured the Tampa Sports Authority to cancel concerts by Ye, formerly Kanye West, because of his history of explicitly antisemitic statements.^[17]

Raymond James is owned by Hillsborough County and operated by the public Tampa Sports Authority.^[14:2]

The Authority did not cancel the concerts.

Its public position emphasized its obligations as a government entity, while reporting on the contract revealed a provision restricting cancellation based on political viewpoints, previous statements and anticipated expressive content.^[17:1]

The Ye concerts proceeded.

Raymond James is now among the venues reported to have objected to Macklemore.^[4:6]

WUSF reported on September 15 that Macklemore had been removed from the Tampa date but did not establish that the Tampa Sports Authority itself was the entity that initiated or issued the objection.^[18]

That distinction is critical.

The cases may turn out to be very different.

Ye was the contracted headline artist in Tampa. Macklemore was a support act attached to another artist’s tour. The relevant contracts may contain different language. A private tour or tenant entity may have had authority that the public stadium operator did not exercise itself.

But until the decision-maker and contract are known, the comparison remains legitimate:

Who participated in the Macklemore exclusion at Raymond James, and why did that mechanism differ from the one used when officials sought to cancel Ye?

What did each participant actually control?

The updated evidence is clearer if responsibility is separated from authority.

Robert Kraft and Gillette Stadium

Kraft has acknowledged that Gillette determined Macklemore would not perform there.^[2:8]

That is a confirmed exercise of venue power.

The allegation that he organized the other venues remains unproven.

The other venues

Messina and Sheeran both confirm that multiple venues threatened upcoming shows.^[4:7][1:9]

But the individuals or entities behind those decisions have not been publicly identified in most cases.

The next evidentiary step is identifying who actually issued each objection.

Messina Touring Group

Messina was the promoter, received the venue objections and announced Macklemore’s removal.^[4:8]

Sheeran says Macklemore’s contract was with Messina and that the promoter made the formal removal decision.^[1:10]

The contract itself has not been published.

Ed Sheeran

Sheeran was the headliner and therefore possessed major practical bargaining power.

He says he did not make the formal removal decision and spent the week trying to broker a compromise with venues, Kraft, promoters and activists.^[1:11]

The public evidence does not tell us exactly what alternatives were considered or rejected.

Macklemore

Macklemore supplied the most detailed account of the private conversations, including the allegation that Kraft coordinated other stadium owners.^[5:4]

Parts of his account have now been corroborated: Kraft did reject him at Gillette, and other venues did threaten the tour.

The alleged connection between Kraft and those other venues remains the unverified portion.

That is a useful example of why allegations should sometimes be broken into components rather than accepted or rejected wholesale.

Did Sheeran still have leverage even if Messina made the formal decision?

Yes.

Formal authority and practical power are not synonymous.

A promoter may possess the contractual right to remove an opening act while the headline artist still possesses substantial commercial influence over the promoter and venues.

Sheeran himself says he exercised some of that influence by negotiating with the venues.^[1:12]

So his new statement weakens the claim that he personally fired Macklemore.

It does not establish that he was powerless.

The better question is what realistic options remained after his attempted negotiations failed.

We still do not know whether anyone seriously considered:

• requiring each venue to issue a written objection;
• forcing individual venues to decide publicly whether they would cancel;
• challenging exclusions at publicly controlled stadiums;
• invoking contractual remedies;
• changing future routing;
• restructuring individual support dates;
• or publicly identifying which venues were making which demands.

Some of those possibilities may have been legally or logistically impossible.

Without the contracts and negotiations, we should not assume they were available.

But we also should not assume they were impossible.

The most important evidence is still documentary

The public statements have answered several major questions.

They have not answered the most important one.

The evidence sherafy.com would most like to see now includes:

• the notices sent by each objecting venue to Messina;
• communications between Kraft or Kraft entities and other venues;
• communications between the seven stadiums or their NFL-team affiliates;
• Messina’s communications with Sheeran;
• communications involving AEG;
• the relevant Macklemore support-act contract;
• the venue contracts;
• communications held by public stadium authorities;
• and any legal analysis concerning publicly owned venues.

Those records could settle much of the remaining dispute.

If they show Kraft contacting other stadium operators and coordinating a common demand, Macklemore’s strongest allegation would gain direct corroboration.

If they show independent objections arising separately, the coordination theory would weaken.

If they show Messina possessed unilateral contractual authority and made the removal decision against Sheeran’s preference, Sheeran’s account would become considerably stronger.

If they show Sheeran’s representatives approving or directing the removal, Macklemore’s description would gain support.

And if public entities themselves participated in viewpoint-based exclusions, an entirely separate legal question could emerge.

The conclusion should follow those documents wherever they lead.

Bottom line: we know more now, but the central coordination question remains unanswered

The story is considerably clearer than it was when Macklemore first announced his removal.

Multiple venues really did threaten the tour.

Both Messina and Sheeran now say so.^[4:9][1:13]

Robert Kraft really did participate in blocking Macklemore from Gillette Stadium.

Kraft now says so himself.^[2:9]

Sheeran really was involved in negotiations with Kraft and the venues.

Sheeran now says so himself.^[1:14]

But Sheeran disputes that he formally removed Macklemore, saying that decision belonged to the promoter and that Macklemore’s contract was with Messina.^[1:15]

And Macklemore’s biggest allegation—that Kraft rallied the other stadium owners into a coordinated bloc—remains unproven.

Meanwhile, the withdrawal of four other acts shows that the leverage contest did not end when Macklemore was removed. Artists are now exerting pressure in the opposite direction.^[3:3]

The cleanest description of the evidence is therefore not that one person controlled everything.

It is that several institutions possessed different kinds of power.

Gillette could deny its stage.

Other venues could threaten their dates.

Messina could exercise whatever authority its contracts provided.

Sheeran could negotiate using his value as the headliner.

Other artists could withdraw their labor.

Macklemore could make the dispute public.

Understanding who ultimately controlled each decision requires separating those powers rather than collapsing them into one.

And the remaining question—whether the venue pressure was independently parallel or deliberately coordinated—will not be answered by speculation about anyone’s religion, politics or motives.

It will be answered by the communications.

References and Further Reading

Primary statements and tour records

Macklemore — September 14 statement on his Loop Tour removal. Macklemore’s primary account of his conversations with Sheeran and his allegation that Kraft helped organize broader stadium pressure. Parts of the account are now corroborated, but the coordination allegation remains unproven.

Ed Sheeran — September 15 response. Sheeran’s primary account. He confirms venue pressure and his discussions with Kraft and other parties but says the formal removal decision belonged to the promoter.

GBH News — Robert Kraft’s statement on the Gillette decision. Contains Kraft’s detailed explanation and confirms that Gillette Stadium decided Macklemore would not appear on the September 25–26 dates.

AEG Presents — Messina Touring. Establishes Messina’s role within AEG’s touring ecosystem.

AEG Presents — Ed Sheeran North American Loop Tour schedule. Primary tour listing showing Macklemore’s original support dates and the wider North American schedule.

Stadium ownership and control

New England Patriots — Robert Kraft official biography. Primary source describing Kraft family control of Gillette Stadium.

Indiana Stadium and Convention Building Authority — Lucas Oil Stadium. Primary state source explaining ownership, operation and the Colts’ subtenant relationship.

City of Arlington — AT&T Stadium lease extension. Municipal source establishing City ownership and Cowboys operation.

Tampa Sports Authority — Raymond James Stadium timeline. Primary source documenting Hillsborough County ownership and Tampa Sports Authority management.

Georgia World Congress Center Authority — Stadium License and Management Agreement. Primary agreement detailing the public/private governance structure behind Mercedes-Benz Stadium.

Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development — stadium financing and lease documents. Public records documenting the City/PAID/Eagles arrangement underlying Lincoln Financial Field.

Lincoln Financial Field — Suite License Terms and Conditions. Identifies Eagles Stadium Operator, LLC and provides evidence concerning operational control.

Bank of America Stadium — About the Stadium. Venue source describing Tepper Sports & Entertainment’s ownership.

Constitutional law

U.S. Supreme Court — Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad. Important precedent involving content-based denial of access to a municipally controlled performance venue.

U.S. Supreme Court — Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. Important counterweight explaining why private operation does not automatically become government action for First Amendment purposes.

Current reporting

Rolling Stone — Macklemore removed after venues objected. Contains Messina Touring Group’s confirmation of venue pressure and the reported list of seven objecting stadiums.

CBS News / Associated Press — four acts withdraw after Macklemore’s removal. Documents the expanding fallout following Sheeran’s response.

Pitchfork — Sheeran responds and remaining tour acts withdraw. Useful independent summary connecting Sheeran’s statement with the subsequent artist withdrawals.

The Guardian — original chronology of Macklemore’s remarks, backlash and removal. Provides detailed background on the MetLife performances and initial controversy.

WUSF — Macklemore’s removal from the Tampa date. Particularly useful because Raymond James Stadium is publicly owned and had recently confronted a separate artist-speech dispute involving Ye.

Spectrum Bay News 9 — contractual protections in the Ye dispute. Adds the contractual dimension to the Raymond James comparison.

Editorial currency note: This remains a developing story as of September 15, 2026. The most consequential missing evidence is now documentary: the individual venue notices, Macklemore’s support-act contract, communications involving Kraft and the other venues, and records held by publicly controlled stadium authorities. Any of those could materially alter the attribution of formal authority or establish—or undermine—the allegation of coordinated venue pressure.