Saturday, May 14, 2005
Football, Inc.
I thought this post over at blogfc.com hit pretty close to the mark:
Am I exaggerating? Yeah, a bit. But if the elites of football view their game as just another entertainment product to be marketed and distributed around the globe, that is precisely what it will become. And in that case it won't matter too much if local support erodes or the traditional fanbase loses touch with the club. Yes, the stands need to be kept full, but this will be important mostly to maintain the quality of the "product" inside the stadium (what's traditionally been called "atmosphere"). The old supporters may stay home, but an adequate expansion of the fanbase will more than make up for it.
Glazer may deserve the ire of Man U supporters, but it's important to keep his actions in context. What's going on at Old Trafford is a window into a larger phenomenon that's shaping our world, spinning old institutions into unrecognizable ones with a speed and furor that hasn't been seen before.
Fans need to realize that with the glamour and glitz of a media-saturated, globalized game comes tradeoffs. And those tradeoffs include an erosion of a club's local bonds, along with an explosion of inequality and instability in the sport as a whole. They also threaten to make football less a participatory experience that expresses some kind of collective spirit and more an object of passive consumption. Some cynics will say it's always been this way, and supporters have always mistaken their club's gratitude for their money as their hearts. I disagree.
What made football so special to so many people has been undergoing a rapid transformation in the last decade plus. The oft-invoked "passion" of the game is being replaced by "brand loyalty," a fitting metaphor for the times. It's yet to be seen whether this sort of sentiment can propel the sport through the 21st century with a comparable amount of meaning and vitality that we witnessed in the last one. At this point, I wouldn't bet on it.
There seems to be a large amount of schadenfreude regarding the takeover of Manchester United by Malcom Glazer, but I can’t take any pleasure in it myself because this is just the latest chapter in the corporatisation of the sport.What began in most places around the world as a working class game that fostered communal bonds and, at times, a blinding tribalism is quickly turning into one more manifestation of late capitalism. All of the big boys now view themselves less as clubs and more as brands eager to penetrate untapped markets in Asia and the US. To them, the action on the pitch is becoming relevant so much as it keeps worldwide interest and profits high.
The Manchester United supporters groups are doing all they can to resist, but their claims that football is a special case have no grounds; once a company becomes a PLC, as United did, the only legal obligation they have is to their shareholders. Morality is actively prohibited by the charter of incorporation if it means reduced profit.
United are a victim of their own success; now a global brand, they are big money - and big money attracts predators like Glazer. And in order to recoup his investment, money will have to be squeezed from the externalities of the business - mainly, the fans. Ticket prices were already set to rise by around 25% in some cases next season, and you can expect to see that continue. If the original fanbase can’t pay it, there are plenty who will.
...PLCs don’t care about customers (much less fans), they care about keeping the numbers up. McDonalds don’t make most of their profit selling hamburgers, they make it buying property and leasing it to franchisers, who are also locked into an exclusive provision deal for food and equipment; hamburgers are just a way for the franchiser to afford his rent. Similarly, Football Club PLC makes its money from TV, merchandising and investment - the 40-50,000 fans in the stadium just facilitate those transactions.
So what’s the way to defeat a PLC? Take away its profit. Don’t go to games, don’t watch on Sky, don’t buy merchandise. Do that for a whole season and you’ll see how fast changes get made. But it takes a concerted effort from everyone to make it work; you have to make a big dent in revenue to get a corporation to hear you.
I wish the Manchester United fans all the best in their fight, and will give my support if I can. And anyone who laughs at them now, let’s see how hard you’re laughing five years down the line.
Am I exaggerating? Yeah, a bit. But if the elites of football view their game as just another entertainment product to be marketed and distributed around the globe, that is precisely what it will become. And in that case it won't matter too much if local support erodes or the traditional fanbase loses touch with the club. Yes, the stands need to be kept full, but this will be important mostly to maintain the quality of the "product" inside the stadium (what's traditionally been called "atmosphere"). The old supporters may stay home, but an adequate expansion of the fanbase will more than make up for it.
Glazer may deserve the ire of Man U supporters, but it's important to keep his actions in context. What's going on at Old Trafford is a window into a larger phenomenon that's shaping our world, spinning old institutions into unrecognizable ones with a speed and furor that hasn't been seen before.
Fans need to realize that with the glamour and glitz of a media-saturated, globalized game comes tradeoffs. And those tradeoffs include an erosion of a club's local bonds, along with an explosion of inequality and instability in the sport as a whole. They also threaten to make football less a participatory experience that expresses some kind of collective spirit and more an object of passive consumption. Some cynics will say it's always been this way, and supporters have always mistaken their club's gratitude for their money as their hearts. I disagree.
What made football so special to so many people has been undergoing a rapid transformation in the last decade plus. The oft-invoked "passion" of the game is being replaced by "brand loyalty," a fitting metaphor for the times. It's yet to be seen whether this sort of sentiment can propel the sport through the 21st century with a comparable amount of meaning and vitality that we witnessed in the last one. At this point, I wouldn't bet on it.
