'English' football. (short blog)

td53

td53

Well-known member
I don't want to start a brexit debate. In the unlikely event that anyone is charting my political posts, you'll note I'm essentially ambivalent about brexit. I think I'm the only person in the world who shrugs and thinks "I can see both sides"

What I don't understand tho, is in a time when national identity, national culture and so on is forefront in the mind of many, why the control of our national sport doesn't seem to matter to huge swathes of those who follow it.

Presumably broadly half of football fans voted for self determination and 'taking back control'

Why doesn't this apply to our attitudes towards football en masse?

mclfoot.blogspot.com

The English Game?

A green and pleasant land What the world needs is definitely another blog about the Big Picture proposal. Here's one anyway. What this is is...
mclfoot.blogspot.com mclfoot.blogspot.com

(It's mercifully short by my standards)
 
Absolutely right. The game is being hijacked for purely financial reasons with no care for the history of the game. It makes my blood boil when some fans at our level see it as a good thing. It's such a blatant power grab I genuinely can't understand why others don't see it.
 
Capitalism is all about placing the control of society into the hands of those who control capital. Under capitalism, capital is a freely traded entity. When football clubs put themselves onto the open Capital market they sold themselves for a limited attempt at football glory. However, the owners of Capital are not interested in the glory of sport, only the power obtained through a greater accumulation of Capital.
Hence, the multiplicity of shirt colours and designs is not created to feed a pre-existing demand - it is created to make money. The owners of top Premier League football clubs are not interested in football. They are interested in wealth and power.
 
The other aspect to this is that I think those putting it forward expect to be knocked back and so they can take some kind of high ground by saying they just want reform for the better of the game. They'll claim those opposing it are opposed to any change at all and are holding back the League.

Maybe they expect to be knocked back so they can come back with a slightly different proposal that still leaves them with a similar outcome but looking like they've been reasonable and accommodating.
 
My question tho, is why doesn't the prevailing interest in sovereignty and national identity extend to football?

We know well enough what the interests of global capital are.

But why are we happy to see our game essentially given away to unaccountable, unelected foreign powers who as quite correctly identified above, mostly don't even seem to like or know much about football?

Why do we rage at Brussels (rightly or wrongly) but largely shrug and go 'well, it is what it is' about football?
 
td53 said:
My question tho, is why doesn't the prevailing interest in sovereignty and national identity extend to football?

We know well enough what the interests of global capital are.

But why are we happy to see our game essentially given away to unaccountable, unelected foreign powers who as quite correctly identified above, mostly don't even seem to like or know much about football?

Why do we rage at Brussels (rightly or wrongly) but largely shrug and go 'well, it is what it is' about football?
Click to expand...
Because it's easy to self-refence around the loyalty to a football club. That club continues to play it's matches at Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane, Old Trafford and Anfield.
It's also easy to rally around a flag and a comfort blanket of nationalism.
The concept of internationalism, when it's wrapped in a pacifist or a social class loyalty is much harder to sell because of it's intellectual content of a loyalty to unfamiliar people or unfamiliar beliefs, that we have not been brought up to see as being part of our familial or cultural construct.
We understand the lure and comfort of the familiar - the team, the stadium the historical loyalty - but reject the unfamiliar concepts of class exploitation by Capital or the seemingly threatening concept of an international, transnational coalition for the benefit of people we feel little association with.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Because it's easy to self-refence around the loyalty to a football club. That club continues to play it's matches at Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane, Old Trafford and Anfield.
It's also easy to rally around a flag and a comfort blanket of nationalism.
The concept of internationalism, when it's wrapped in a pacifist or a social class loyalty is much harder to sell because of it's intellectual content of a loyalty to unfamiliar people or unfamiliar beliefs, that we have not been brought up to see as being part of our familial or cultural construct.
We understand the lure and comfort of the familiar - the team, the stadium the historical loyalty - but reject the unfamiliar concepts of class exploitation by Capital or the seemingly threatening concept of an international, transnational coalition for the benefit of people we feel little association with.
Click to expand...
So in simple terms FSG are 'ours' to armchair Liverpool fans but Rochdale aren't?

Interesting point on Twitter. How will fans of big 6 take to threats to withdraw clubs from league.

Those are seismic changes to threaten and will potentially undermine hugely the sense of familiarity and create fractures within fanbases.

It's one thing to flog a dream of European football to armchair fans abroad but if that comes at a cost of alienating the actual fans who create the atmosphere those armchair fans want to be part of, it's a dangerous game to play.
 
Spot on td, who’d have thought Football would go the same way as most of our other assets, companies etc. over the years! Bring it on home to me, yeh,yeh’ Or as’The Pop Group’ once eluded to: We are all Prostitutes, everyone has their price!
 
td53 said:
So in simple terms FSG are 'ours' to armchair Liverpool fans but Rochdale aren't?

Interesting point on Twitter. How will fans of big 6 take to threats to withdraw clubs from league.

Those are seismic changes to threaten and will potentially undermine hugely the sense of familiarity and create fractures within fanbases.

It's one thing to flog a dream of European football to armchair fans abroad but if that comes at a cost of alienating the actual fans who create the atmosphere those armchair fans want to be part of, it's a dangerous game to play.
Click to expand...
Excuse my ignorance. FSG?
 
hampshire_exile said:
I can’t understand the mentality either. In one breath it’s “we are losing our culture” in the next everyone goes “well what can you do”?
Click to expand...
It's one think putting a cross on a piece of paper and then hoping for the best. But something like this requires active reactions from the fans. For example, how many do you see boycotting their clubs or even sky to make their point, especially fans of the Premiership and Championship.
 
I think its a green and peasant land now in relative terms. The mega wealthy who buy top prem clubs are not in existence here. The last of the big 6 in English hands is Spurs. I can pretty much guarantee if Levy decides to sell it will go 'abroad'.
Some overseas funds come from questionable quarters. You only have to look at the Saudi bid for Newcastle.
The horse bolted a long time ago.
Many Fans just want swathes of money pumped into their club. The more that is spent the greater the chance of success.
Some people want it here at LG1 level.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top