In a little over two weeks, the World Cup finals begin in Russia. You would expect the nation to be concentrating its efforts on over-hyping England’s chances and lauding our potential star players. Instead, some parts seem hell-bent on finding reasons to criticise one of the country’s top prospects, Raheem Sterling.

After scoring 18 goals from midfield for the runaway winners of this year’s Premier League, you’d expect Sterling to be one of England’s darlings. At the tender age of 23, he has already represented his country at two tournaments, and played key roles for two of England’s biggest teams, Liverpool and Manchester City. As a player with speed, genuine flair and an eye for goal, Sterling is a rarity in the England setup.

But this week, there were calls for him to be dropped from the squad after a gun tattoo was spotted on his right leg. Even after Sterling, whose father was killed in a shooting in Jamaica when he was just two, explained that he was vehemently against guns and that the unfinished tattoo symbolised the ability of his right foot as well as being a tribute to his father, some commentators – including Piers Morgan – were still not ready to back down.

Morgan told his 6.5 million Twitter followers that Sterling’s tattoo, which looks like an AR15 assault rifle, was inappropriate because it was the same gun sometimes used in school shootings in the USA. After Sterling posted his response, Morgan said: “Perhaps he should explain it better then. Because I fail to see why tattooing an assault rifle on your leg does anything to combat gun violence.”

The pattern seems clear: Raheem has money now and some parts of the media don’t like how he spends it

Even when it was pointed out that Morgan’s beloved Arsenal is nicknamed “the Gunners”, has a cannon on its club crest and was founded by munition workers, he was still trying to dictate what kind of tattoos the young footballer should wear on his skin. “Here’s an idea: Stick a big X across that assault rifle tattoo & the words ‘NO TO GUNS’. Then it works how I presume you intended it to work. At the moment, it looks like you’re glamourising gun use.”

Readers of the Sun, which often leads the charge against Sterling, are predominantly working class, so the stories read more like cautionary warnings on the sorts of behaviour that should be frowned upon. The paper encourages its readers to resent Sterling’s wealth while rarely challenging the money and behaviour of the established middle classes.

After the latest story broke and Sterling received overwhelming support, the Sun, which has form for annoying football fans, attempted to immunise itself from allegations of racism by doubling down. Richard Taylor, whose son Damilola died back in 2000 after being attacked on the streets in Peckham, south London, was quoted: “Footballers need to be aware kids look up to them. He must apologise to the families of gun victims.”

But even the Sun’s choice in approaching Taylor for comment shows their muddled thinking on black communities. Damilola’s tragic death happened after he was attacked and fell on to some broken glass. It had nothing to do with gun violence. I can imagine someone at the Sun lamenting they had no more current contacts with families of those who have died from actual gun violence in the UK, and then shrugging and saying to themselves, “Well, close enough”.

For Sterling, this latest “controversy” must have been met with an air of resignation. The young player is rarely out of the newspapers for some perceived misdemeanour or other. As a lifelong Liverpool fan, I may have been disappointed by the way he left the club, but the treatment he gets from the press seems relentless and unjustified. He was called greedy for asking to be paid relative to his skills while at Liverpool. He was called obscene for spending too much money when he did up his mum’s house, buying her a fancy sink. Then he is criticised for being too frugal when he shops at Primark, Poundland, Greggs or when he flies on a budget airline. He has been criticised for smoking a shisha pipe and inhaling nitrous oxide from balloons, when both activities are legal. He has even been criticised for not keeping his expensive car clean enough.

When these criticisms are viewed together, the pattern seems clear: Raheem has money now and some parts of the media don’t like how he spends it. They will talk about “his character” but really they just seem to think he’s a bit too flash and isn’t humble enough (although the stories about him liking pasties and pound shops would seem to indicate otherwise). Almost every story about him references his birth in Jamaica, his humble upbringing in northwest London and his relatively new wealth. They are thinly veiled attacks on all confident, working-class and yes, black young men who appear not to know their place.

When Stormzy has the cheek to comment on Grenfell or when Mario Ballotelli gives money to a homeless person they are not pleasing some middle-class commentators. The subtext seems to be, “your talents may have earned you some cash, but don’t get uppity – know your place”.

When Morgan was warned that his attacks on Sterling might impact on the star’s World Cup performance, he replied: “Oh Pur-lease. We fail at World Cups because we don’t play well enough. If you can’t stand a bit of media scrutiny, go and be a dustman.” The routes out of poverty are very scarce for the young, working-class black man. Sport, music and entertainment do provide a path for the select few. The narrative reserved for those who make it, though, often sounds a lot like, “We have let you in, now don’t do anything that makes us regret it”.

• Maurice Mcleod is a social commentator and director of Media Diversified