Carefree wherever you may be from?

@CFCScience second blog for the Chelsea FanCast takes a fascinating look at the differences between the tribal London based support and those from overseas.

What is a ‘proper fan’? This question seems to come up quite frequently and has been known to cause bruised feelings and a certain resentment from those who were not on the terraces in ‘the bad old days’ towards those who like to point out that they were. To some extent, this potential for animosity is unavoidable – the huge increase in the number of people (both from Britain and abroad) who call themselves Chelsea fans has had an impact on the local support in west London and I can perceive a bit of a backlash against these Johnny-Come-Latelies. I’m not in any position to give a definitive answer to my opening question (I’m not from west London, and I’m a Chelsea fan by marriage rather than by birth) but as I am currently expatriated to the USA, I think I might be in a position to provide some observations about what supporting a team means in different places, and the implications this has for Chelsea’s worldwide support.

What it boils down to is that different cultures do sports in different ways. How fans express their passion for their team varies in different places and no culture can objectively declare itself the best (although individuals might prefer one rather than another). But when fans from different cultures interact there is a large potential for misunderstanding, and that is at least partly what is going on here. So, perhaps you’ll allow me to contrast the sporting culture in the two different societies in which I’ve lived and I hope that this comparison will help to shed some light on the issues for Chelsea fans.

In North America, sports are much more openly a money-making enterprise. The leagues sell franchises to owners who can move their team to a new city if they wish, commercial revenues are often pooled, and the yearly draft ensures that weak teams are bolstered each off-season so that fans are less likely to lose interest. The matches will stop for ‘TV timeout’s so that the broadcaster can cut to an ad break without missing any of the action, intermission entertainment is barely concealed advertising or an attempt to attract the attention of fans who don’t really like the sport.

In that environment, the level of a fan’s commitment to their team is at least partially judged by how much money they spend on their ticket, official merchandise, and food and drink at the stadium. And this affects how fans judge their sporting experiences. I was recently talking on facebook with an American who had gone to London and was desperate to get to the Bridge to see a game. The only way he could get in was to buy expensive hospitality tickets. His story of the day includes as much about the steak dinner, the open bar, and the comfort of his padded seat as it does the game itself. “What a way to see your team” was his enthusiastic conclusion. But the point is, to someone who is immersed in the American way of doing sport; this is an absolutely valid way to express support for your team. Spending a lot of money to get the ‘complete match day experience’ distinguishes you from the other match-goers who are able to spend less.

But what North Americans might not understand is the roots of ‘proper’ support in English football. The tribal nature of support has (I believe) its genesis in the class struggles of the Seventies, and unless one has a reasonable idea of what it was like to be working class then, I think they will fail to comprehend how football teams define their community and provide a focal point for the collective identity of a town. Of course life now is different from what is was back then and football support has moved on a long way from its often violent past, but that period of Britain’s history sets the backdrop against which football support is judged and informs the attitudes of fans even now. The unwritten rules that British fans treat as second nature (support your local team unless you have a really good reason not to, don’t ever change your team, and be vocal in your support no matter how bad your team are) will be baffling to someone from another country because the foreigner has no way of understanding how your behaviour as a fan reflects your commitment to your community.

So ‘proper’ fans who are immersed in this culture will scorn the ‘plastic’ support that only turns up when we’re winning and is more bothered with the peripheral things than with singing and chanting. And those who sit on twitter apparently treating Chelsea matches like an extension of Football Manager and slagging off the players at the end of a match will come in for even more ire. Is this justified? Possibly, although I’m not the right person to give a definitive judgement. But what about foreign fans (like my friend from facebook) who are supporting Chelsea the only way that they know how – is it reasonable to expect them to express their support like English fans do? Do those who attend every game get to set the rules for how other fans should behave? Where is the cut-off point between plastic and true support?

I leave these questions to the reader, but I hope that I have helped to show that there’s a strong sense in which fans from around the world bring with them a part of the culture where they are. And I don’t think that has to be a bad thing.

@CFCScience