Shifts in the Class Identity of English Soccer
Note: This is an idea I’ve been kicking around in my head for a while. It’s something I believe to be true, but am not 100% sure of it, especially being as far away from England as I am. I would love to hear readers’ thoughts on this post, especially those of my English readers.
Perhaps it’s the Marx I’ve been reading, but I’ve been thinking about the class identity of soccer recently. Is soccer a sport of the working class, the middle class, or the wealthy? Of course, the answer is yes. It is everyone’s sport. But I believe that throughout time, and especially in England, the sport has shifted in terms of the class of people it is primarily identified with.
Many stories exist about soccer’s origins (does it come from the Chinese game of cuju? Native American ball games? Ancient Italian calcio?), but it was clearly codified into the modern-day sport in England around the the middle of the 19th century. Students at several of England’s elite public schools (the equivalent of private schools to us Americans, see this explanation) and universities wrote down the rules to ball games common at the time, and these rules established the sport known today as soccer.
Soccer grew popular in elite schools such as Eton College as well as Cambridge and Oxford Universities. It is no surprise, then, that the sport was initially seen as the game of the upper class. David Goldblatt writes in his book The Ball is Round that “[i]n the early 1870s football remained a minor recreational pastime for a very narrow stratum of Victorian society” (32).
The 1874 FA Cup winners, Oxford University AFC (photo: Answers.com)
Goldblatt writes that the church was responsible for soccer moving its way down the English social ladder. Especially in the north of England, soccer was seen as a creative form of outreach: “In response to the decline of organized religion among the poor, evangelical sportsmen had spread the gospel of football through various forms of missionary and social work in the new industrial cities” (40). Many clubs formed during this period by churches as a creative way to increase their congregation have remained to this day, including Birmingham City, Everton, and Bolton (for more information on the role of churches in early English soccer, see Peter Lupson’s Thank God for Football).
Soccer also expanded from the elite schools that had given it rise and came to be played at institutions with students of widely varying backgrounds. Goldblatt writes that “by the 1880s the spread of football down the social scale was sufficiently entrenched that old boys of the most lowly state school could create sustainable football clubs” (39).
Soccer was initially a game played exclusively for fun. But when it became a business, those in charge of teams had every incentive to increase their fan bases. Attending soccer matches was marketed to the masses as a form of entertainment and the fans came out in force. FA Cup Finals had attendances of over 100,000 on several occasions in the first quarter of the 20th century (it is estimated that over 200,000 packed in to Wembley for the 1923 match, since known as the White Horse Final, for the mounted policeman who cleared the crowd, many of whom had overflowed onto the pitch). Crowds of these sizes indicated that football had become the sport of the masses.
The proletariat are escorted from the pitch (photo: Virgin Media)
English players throughout the 20th century came from similar backgrounds as many of the fans (the maximum wage, abolished only in 1961, ensured that they remained in the same class). The 1966 World Cup-winning team was led by a former bricklayer in net (Gordon Banks) and a former coal miner in front of him (Jack Charlton). Players of better-off backgrounds, such as Liverpool’s Steve Heighway, were noticeable by their limited numbers.
The late 20th century saw a rise in violent incidents perpetrated by football hooligans. One consequence of this development was that all of English football became associated with what many assumed were the largely working-class males who were most likely to become hooligans (in fact, people of all social classes became hooligans). Especially after the Heysel and Hillsborough stadium disasters, soccer became increasingly unrespectable, especially for those in middle and upper classes, and attendances dipped.
The inception of the Premier League in 1992 can be seen as a turning point in the class identity of English soccer. A major reason that the Premier League has become the most profitable in the world is due to its attracting fans from all social strata. Middle-class and wealthy people who kept their distance from the game have returned in large numbers. One only need look at the shirt sponsors of Premier League clubs to realize the demographic that is watching. Manchester United is sponsored by insurance firm AIG, Birmingham City by investment company F&C, and Arsenal by Emirates Airline, whose first class cabin looks both incredibly comfortable and incredibly expensive.
This shift has led some to complain that football is losing its identity, which for most of recent memory, has been markedly working-class. Roy Keane’s famous diatribe against Manchester United’s “prawn sandwich eating fans” was emblematic of this concern. Many have complained recently about rising ticket prices in the Premier League. An article in the Sun last year quoted Malcolm Clarke, chairman of the Football Supporters’ Federation, as saying that “Premier clubs are pricing large sections of society out of football.”
Middlesborough’s Riverside Stadium had entire sections empty at a 2005 Carling Cup game. Is the low attendance due to high ticket prices? (photo: BBC)
My own impression is that English football today is followed by perhaps a wider range of people than ever before. It may be true that Premier League ticket prices are pricing many working- and even middle-class supporters out, but the increasing number of games available on television means that everyone can feel connected in some way.Soccer in England has gone through many changes in its class identity in its century and a half of existence, from its invention in elite schools to its popularization among the working classes to its current following among what seems like nearly every group in English society. The character of the English game in the future will likely continue to be shaped by the backgrounds of the fans who follow it.
October 28th, 2007 11:04
Some of the lament we hear over the changing class character is wrapped up too much in a sense of masculinity that makes for painful listening and skewed analysis.
Changes in the game are a little sad because the crowds are wealthier and quieter. (I couldn’t believe how quiet the Liverpool home crowd was versus Tottenham. Spurs fans could be clearly heard throughout the match!)
However, you hear some nostalgia for getting drunk, peeing on the wall, homophobic chants (even though they are common), and even fights. The working class is not wrapped up that.
There are middle-class louts. England’s worse away fans have to have some money for air fare and a hotel.
One solution would be to require teams give away a free ticket to a future game for every empty seat. The TV companies should demand because it looks horrible. Distribute them through low-income schools.
October 28th, 2007 12:19
I think the Premier League clubs today have almost given up on the traditional English crowd. The number of so-called “working class” fans is dwindling – they’re still football fans, but they can’t afford to go the stadium. Gone are the days when a group of teenagers can go to the stadium together and years later a good proportion are still going.
With the changes in stadiums to all-seaters, and then the current trend towards corporate seating, the top clubs have essentially told us that there’s no money to be made from the working class crowd.
Rather than going down the route of saying that fans don’t go because the games are on TV, I would instead say that due to games being on TV clubs receive much more money via TV contracts, and and such they don’t see the fans turning up as quite so important.
October 28th, 2007 19:28
this is a topic i’ve covered a bit recently but all the time there are thousands queuing for season tickets and match tickets it makes no economic sense for clubs to do anything
however while the new breed may have the resources needed to be a ‘fan’ these days they lack the roots and traditions that come from generations following the same club. when the media finds something else that interests them they will take many of the new breed with them and the clubs will come a calling on those they have alienated
football isnt, or shouldn t, just be about ponds, shillings and pence. it s about traditions, values, soul, loyalty…
http://jakartacasual.blogspot.com/2007/10/denton-edelman-and-wagon-wheels.html
October 29th, 2007 10:24
Interesting debate but the idea of English clubs taking anything but a short term view is as laughable as them giving any thought to what the traditional fan base actully needs or wants. It always has been.
Hence, we have a Premiership and a national stadium which is largely devoid of any real match day atmosphere in spite of the fact that this remains a central selling point for the English game.
Yet when it all goes wrong, as it inevitably will when the prawn sandwich brigade discover something else and the game becomes less fashionable, the traditional fan is exactly who the game will go running to cap in hand.
October 30th, 2007 18:41
Good piece Dave. While I’m a reader from the US and a supporter of DC United, the most decorated club in MLS, I have thought some about the different historical birth of English clubs and the franchise nature of MLS clubs. As some of your other posts indicate it was not rare that working class groups, through their employers, would start teams, field them and support them. In the US teams are started by an investor who starts from scratch, or tries to draw the fans from Latin America into US soccer. Most marketing campaigns, for DC United at least, don’t show up in places I’m in, as a white American man, but I see them more in Spanish or focused at families (the classic 4 tickets, 4 personal pizzas and 4 drinks). I’ve also heard that 1/3 of DC tickets are free because they want to draw fans in. In other words the teams in MLS have to create a fan base instead of growing out of a community capable of supporting a club. Thought I’d put this out there and see what you/others think.
October 31st, 2007 03:34
The fact that the MLS clubs are having to develop a fan base rather than deal with one they already have is a great point Shyler.
One not many people think about when talking about football in the States.
November 1st, 2007 16:20
It’s not a class divide anymore, it’s an age divide. I remember reading that the average Premier League fan is in their 40s now.
People of my age, in their teens and twenties probably follow the game in bigger numbers than before the equivilent age range 20 years ago. The difference is that we watch on TV because the prices are too high. Which means a whole generation isn’t getting into the habit of going to games which, I think, spells problems for the future.
November 1st, 2007 17:47
I really appreciate the discussion this post has brought about. I’m sorry that my studies don’t allow me as much time to respond to all the comments, but I’m thankful for the time y’all put into your comments.
A few points:
Alex – I agree that it’s an age divide. David Conn had a piece in the Guardian making exactly the same point.
I agree with several people who say that clubs don’t care as much these days about getting fans to stadiums because they make so much money from TV deals (both in the UK and, increasingly importantly, abroad). I think a lot of people’s frustration in England with the way the game has changed is due to the fact that, historically, there is a stronger tradition of going to live games there than in other places. Perhaps due to the small size and ease with which people can go to away games (I know the Guardian’s Sid Lowe has said that Spanish fans rarely go to away games), English fans have historically been used to attending games. In many ways, that is being a fan. Coming from such a huge country, I am not used to being able to attend games unless they happen to take place close to where I live (which, growing up in Ohio, was rare). I think that, despite the short-sighted and misguided views of clubs to raise ticket prices and make it unaffordable for so many to attend matches, there remains a high level of support among nearly all classes in England that hasn’t existed previously. But then, I’m saying that from thousands of miles away and so I’m glad to have the opinions of those of you closer to the phenomenon itself.
November 2nd, 2007 11:24
Great post. I think the changing class character of English football is also emblematic of the larger trend of entertainment sector falling prey to monopoly business and pricing out of the masses.
An interesting parallel is the rise of multiplex cinemas in South Asia. Exclusive and exorbitantly priced theatres are replacing widely accessed cinema halls and the working class and lower middle class are being excluded from the previously popular medium of entertainment.
It is the inherent consequence of commercialising the game. Commerce responds only to consumers with money, not to fans with passion for a game.
November 12th, 2007 03:28
I think what it actually means to be working class needs to be clarified. Following strictly marxist lines the majority of football fans in England, like the majority of the British, are actually working class. In as much as they need to work for a living to survive, and own a mximum of one property, if any. However, many of these people will identify themselves as middle class, because they have a niceish car, work in an office, and maybe eat prawn sanwiches (or even worse, bagettes). Lumpenproles they are not. Educated they are. But working class they/we are. The proletariat is recruited from all stratas of society. The changing nature of western economies, with the commodities and primary resources sucked up from the devloping world rather than sourced at home, change the face of capitalism, less people get dirty and sweaty while making the cogs go round than they did in the past. But just because you don’t work down a mine you don’t cease to be a worker.
In this respect the fans are stil working class, but the biggest difference now, compared to before, is that many fans harbour more middle class, bourgeoise, aspirations. And are willing to pay more for a season ticket, or Sky Sports +, in evidence of this.
December 17th, 2007 15:29
I am a litle late to the party, but here are my thoughts. The profile of the typical football fan depends upon the country we are talking about. The EPL is now the richest in the wold, with the most corporate revenues and the highest ticket prices. Also, going to Emirates staduim ot to Old Trafford is now very chic. In my country, France, football is still attended primarily by factory workers because the prices are kept low due to the partnership between clubs and municipalities. Today, France only has 1 truly rich club, Lyon. But Lyon annual revenues are only a third of those of Man. United or Arsenal. In Latin countries such as Spain, Italy and France, the fans are still very much from the lower strata of the society. Traditionally, in France, football has been a great equalizer sport; a way for immigrants to integrate in the French society. It is incredible how many son’s of immigrants have succeeded in France’s football: Platini, Zidane, Lopez, Kopa, Revelli, Fernandez, Pires, Djorkaeff, Boghosian, Viera, Makelele… Even our next generation is going to be led by son’s of immigrants like Benzema, Benarfa, Nasri… The son’s of the middle class have options. They can go to school and earn a decent living working in an office building. The poor kids from immigrant backgrounds want to get their families out of poverty as soon as possible. If they have the talent for football, they will take the incredible risk of turning pro at 16th years old and forgo school altogether. The incredible success of football worldwide, has to do with the fact that anybody can play it. You need no fancy equipment, you have a choice of 11 different positions requiring various skills, you can be tall or short, it does not matter much (except for goalies). Because we can all play, we can also all appreciate the brilliance of the truly great player. I remember last year WC, at my house, during France-Brazil, people had tears in their eyes over Zidane’s brilliance. Recently, I travelled to Argentina on business. Upon my arrival, the company driver picked me up and asked which country I was from; I responded “I was from France”. He just said “Si, si Zizou”. It’s for these moments that I love football.
(sorry is I made some English errors)
February 15th, 2008 05:45
I agree chris c paul, in addition would add that a large part of the crowd at Emirates appear to be older well off working classes. When I used to stand on Highbury North Bank in mid eighties the crowd was much much youngerand tickets were £3.50. While the crowds are gentrified the change is more one of wealth and age rather than class. Go to see England Rugby team at Twickenham to experience a middle class crowd.