1. The Construct of Football Fans
ICTs especially social media and mobile technologies facilitate high levels of time and space free connectivity which serve to strengthen disparate communities. The football community has experienced greater opportunities to connect, communicate and organise as a result of the increasing prevalence and domestication of ICTs. It is not uncommon to see fans listening to rival teams’ matches whilst at a game or texting the latest score. It is easier to organise to meet up before or after a match, and to compose and circulate the latest football chants in readiness for the weekend’s match.
However, not coincidentally, the negative construct of football supporters as “hooligans” has experienced a revival. As early as 1999 the media began to focus on the role of ICTs in football violence. Following a series of fights between Cardiff City and Milwall fans news headlines such as “Soccer Hooligans Organise on the Net” and “UK Soccer Fans Organise Riot on the Web” appeared (BBC, 1999). ICTs are frequently shown to be a facilitator of crime in many contexts (Smith and Rupp, 2002; Wall, 2007), the world of football is no exception. The revived and continued construct of the “football hooligan” began to be amplified through media reports of football hooligans using mobile technologies to organise violence, video clashes and circulate footage instantly on the web. Significantly, in 1999, the National Criminal Intelligence Service highlighted the use of ICTs in football violence as a key issue for concern (Auty, 2002) Postings referring to live violence helped to fuel the flames of this debate and the “demonisation” of both football supporters and mobile technologies.
What the majority of the media failed to note was that Paul Dodd was a notorious football hooligan, set on stirring up violence with or without ICTs.
In response to this reported use of ICTs, the police also began to adopt new technologies into their surveillance and prevention operations. In what the media described as a “technology race” (Nutall, 1999) between the police and football hooligans, hand held CCTV cameras began to be used at matches facilitating the broadcast of violence (perpetuating the “supporter as hooligan” construct) and to facilitate arrests. Further, police forces began to monitor independent supporters’ sites in their campaign against hooliganism another example of corporate and media interest prompting an invasion of supporters’ independent space or “Lifeworld”. The issue of self regulation, evident in many postings on football related discussion forums goes unreported.
2. Ebbsfleet United
In 2007, amid media hype of revolutionising the football industry, “MyFootballClub.com (MYFC) suggested a novel way of “empowering fans and banishing the Board of Governors forever.” (Rajan, 2007). Set up by a former football journalist (Will Brooks), MYFootballClub.com promised to give fans a say in the running of the club by making them stakeholders in return for an annual fee of thirty five pounds. Fans would have a say in all issues, including kit design, transfers, team selection and even brands of beer served in the club bar. The only decisions fans would not be involved in are those taken during the match. In April, 2007 when MyFootballClub.com went live more than 53000 people registered an interest. Football fans were eager to blur the boundaries between fantasy football and reality and become involved in “real” virtual football.
In November 2007 a deal was reached to purchase Ebbsfleet United in the Blue Square Premier Division (MyFootballclub.com, 2008). Since then members have voted on issues such as accepting Nike as the club’s kit and merchandise supplier, freezing season ticket prices, and setting the weekly playing budget. In March 2008, seven members of MyFootballClub.com were elected on to My football Club’s limited board giving fans more say in decisions. In May, Ebbsfleet United won the FA Trophy at Wembley the club’s greatest achievement since it began in 1890. At the opening of the 2008 season, it was announced that two fan’s representatives are to be allowed into the board room on match days "Fan representation runs right through this club now," said Ebbsfleet Chief Executive David Davis (Ebbsfleet United FC, 2008). The MyFootballClub.com initiative does indeed appear to offer an alternative to the current state of the football league system which is increasingly alienating fans. Brooks describes his initiative as an “ethical mission”
"I've created a vehicle that will pool fans' opinions, passion and wealth and turn fantasy football into reality. This is an unprecedented opportunity for fans to get closer to football than ever before - to have, at long, long last, a say in what goes on on and off the field". (Brooks quoted in Rajan, 2007)
In terms of the AGIL framework Ebbsfleet United initially appears to show a harmonious blurring of the Lifeworld of supporters with the System (Corporate and Media interests). The backlash from other club managers appears almost to confirm that what Ebbsfleet offers stands in opposition to the mainstream corporate world of football. The Independent on Sunday reported the views of other club managers. Lee Power, the Chairman of Cambridge United, who are third on the MYFC list of desireable acquisitions commented:
" You can't just whisk up genuine commitment by charging £35. Fifty-three thousand new fans would be great, but are these people going to buy football kits, match programmes, hot dogs? That's what a club needs, not internet voting." (Power quoted by Rajan, 2007)
Further, Barry Hearn, Owner of Leyton Orient attacked the MYFC concept saying:
"The idea is totally impractical. As far as I'm concerned, when you're running a football club, the ideal size of the ruling committee is one. I don't buy this mass voting nonsense; democracy and football don't mix." (Hearn quoted by Rajan, 2007)
and Jack Charlton said:
"I've never heard anything like it in my life. It sounds completely daft. Only one person should pick a team and that's the manager." (Charlton quoted by Harris, 2007)
These attacks get to the heart of the issue; the world of football is hierarchical, financially motivated and increasingly commercialised. Fans are a commodity used to generate income through increasingly inflated season ticket charges, and merchandise sales. In reality, Ebbsfleet United members get very little in return for their annual thirty five pounds membership fee; membership is not the same as being a season ticket holder. Action, or lack of it (only 50% of members voted on how many members of MyFootballClub.com should be elected onto My football Club’s limited board, and who should supply the kits and merchandise, and discussion forum postings appear to suggest that members are already beginning to feel disempowered and alienated just as supporters of mainstream football are.
The postings suggest that members are beginning to recognise that they do not have as much power as they were promised. Daish, the manager, overrules votes and controls transfers, members powers “are being eroded”. One post even states that MYFC is “a scam” and several postings state that they will not renew their membership, reminiscent of season ticket holders deciding not to renew as a protest at the colonisation of their lifeworld. This declining interest could have serious wider implications. Kevin Rye, Supporters Directs's spokesman, said: "This might be seen as a one-off gimmick and harmless enough by many, however this is a real club, these are real finances and real fans. What happens if the novelty starts to wear off?" It appears that it already has, fans are beginning to see through the “ethical mission”. A most powerful statement of this was made on fansfocus.com. This fan clearly defines himself as a “free man” rather than a member of MYFC and goes on to illustrate that MYFC is, like any other football club, made up of a few genuine fans and a number of power seeking profiteers. The “ethical mission” which appeared to offer an alternative to the corporate world of football has fallen short of the promise.
|