This is a Government which – however hapless it might have appeared at times in the face of an undeniably severe set of challenges – enjoys a comfortable Parliamentary majority.

Yet it folded like the Villa defence when confronted by the young Manchester United striker and his 2.8 million Twitter followers.

It is a moment that you sense will merit more than a footnote in any serious study of the complex and frequently confrontational relationship between modern media and democratic decision-making.

Would Margaret Thatcher have considered even for one second capitulating before a similar demand in the 1980s from, say, Gary Lineker? No.

Would De Gaulle have allowed himself to be pushed around by, I don't know, Colette Besson? Absurd. 

So, there seems every reason to suppose this is a sign of the times, and that celebrities, including elite athletes, have been bestowed with more power than their equally illustrious forebears by the capacity to communicate effortlessly – and without intermediaries – with a mass audience.

How does this play out in the Olympic Movement?

Well, first, I do not and never have believed that athletes are unquestionably and unconditionally on the side of the angels in the debates that are breaking out over their freedom to emit messages of one kind or another, especially during the Olympic Games.

It seems to me that very frequently commercial motivations get mixed up with high principles on both sides of the fence.

Yes, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), I have not the slightest doubt, wishes to uphold the Fundamental Principles set out in the Olympic Charter; but it also has a strong rationale for wanting to protect the investments of commercial sponsors who have paid millions of dollars for exclusive rights to associate their brands with Olympic properties.

Similarly, if Rule 50 were to be swept away, as Global Athlete has called for, athletes would no longer be forced to "choose between competing in silence and standing up for what’s right"; but the ban on commercial messaging on sportswear and equipment, except for identification of the manufacturer, would also fall.

When it comes to podium ceremonies, meanwhile, there is something that needs saying about the importance of ritual.

First, by taking part in, and respecting, the same ceremony as everyone else, an Olympic competitor, though she may be a champion, is committing an act of humility and acknowledging their part in the Olympic continuum, just like any other competitor.

Second, it is not in anyone's interest to turn the podium into a politicised or overly commercialised circus-ring.

Like it or not, the power of podium protests depends partly on their scarcity value.

If every Olympic medallist starts using their moment in the spotlight to promote something, however wonderful and/or personally meaningful, the media will quickly lose interest, potentially starting a spiral whereby such promotions become ever noisier and more in-your-face so as to have some hope of drawing attention.

So what should Bach and the IOC top brass, already caught up in the Sturm und Drang of coronavirus and all their other problems, do?

Individually, few Olympic athletes have the heft of Rashford; but collectively they could be even stronger.

So, while coordinating campaigns across borders is always more complicated, and while many Olympians and Paralympians inhabit countries where it still takes great courage to speak out about any issue that is remotely controversial, I think the IOC would be well-advised to give ground.

They can ill afford to be seen as perpetually at loggerheads with the main actors in the dramas with which they hope to entrance the world while they have so much else on their plate.

But this should not lead to a free-for-all.

A compromise might see athletes involved in podium ceremonies permitted to make one personal statement, either by displaying a small logo for a cause or commercial brand on their uniform, or by making a gesture such as taking a knee during their country's – but only their country's – national anthem.

Any sign athletes display, or gesture they make, would have to be in alignment with the seven Fundamental Principles of Olympism, including non-discrimination of any kind.

Such a system would enable athletes, should they so desire, to use their big moment to make an impact on behalf of a cause dear to their hearts.

It ought also to allow the lawyers who draft contracts for the long-term sponsorship deals on which the financial strength of the IOC, and hence the Movement, partly depends, to define the maximum extent to which sponsors' zealously-guarded sectoral exclusivity might be compromised.