| |
|
And when you've finished scoring glorious victory after glorious victory against the straw men XI...
My defences thus far have been that you have not managed to produce any actual support for your thesis that the interests of the corporations who profit from the game are in any way advanced by the violence connected with it, barring some flimflammery about "raising the tension". As a result of this, your contention that the violence, sexism, racism and homophobia you atrribute to "football" is in any way specific to and caused by football itself, and not that football matches provide a convenient locus for large groups of pissed, stupid men to congregate and behave like...large groups of pissed, stupid men. If your complaint is simpoly that football events provide a "venue" for sexism, racism and homophobia then a) don't want to break your multiple heart, but *the world* provides a venue for sexism, racism and homophobia, and one that is used with gusto and b) why should we not also be campaigning for the abolition of nightclubs, bars and Balearic resorts, all venues for jingoism, racism, sexism, homophobia, violent behaviour kai ta loipa.
You have failed totally to address any of my comments (and still waiting to hear how Wilson in 1966 was a victory of the jingoistic right, or how the Front Nationale is served by one of the embodiments of Frenchness being of Algerian descent, whose iconic status comes from his successful interaction with a racially mixed group of teammates), instead merely choosing to cry "yes, but go see England-Germany in a pub!" - which, as I say, I have - and then trotting out a specious comparison to institutional racism - as it is clearly *not* in the best interests of clubs or sponsors to have their brand associated with racism, violence or other nasties which are likely to alienate high-value middle-class consumers, and as clubs such as Millwall and Cardiff who fail to control their fans lose money through FA fines, higher policing costs, repair bills...the best you can offer is that they raise the "frenzy" or the "tension", and as such are naturally complicit in inciting racism and violent behaviour. Obviously. Like chess.
There are many things wrong with football, or arising from the popularity and self-construction of football. One of those things is hooliganism, another is the feeling of separation between clubs and local communities at the top end of the game, another is the spiralling wage bills and transfer fees creating an artificial and unsustainable drain on resources, another is the cooption of the flsg by the right (not a problem solely of football, of course), another is the difficulty of cracking down completely on unacceptable behaviour in crowds of 60,000, and the inefficiency of international customs in identifying and excluding hooligans more effectively. All of these must be addressed if football is not to implode or drive away its supporters, leaving only eejits looking for a ruck (many of whom are likely to turn up in Japan without any tickets to see a match, btw, much as Dutch hoolies now arrange to meet for fights at landmarks away from the actual ground and its concomitant policing, thus giving up completelky on the idea of actually watching or supporting the footballers they claim to love). It is possible that football will not be able to adapt, and as such I heartily agree that the current situation may well lead to a bust, some clubs going to the wall, others having to throw themselves on the mercy of precisely the local fanbase they have been neglecting (and which is driven away by, amongh other things, crappy behaviour at and around the ground) and hope there is enough cash and enough goodwill to keep them afloat.
However, your comments so far are built not so much on sand as on flannel (what is football in its current incarnation? Do you mean with a ball not made of leather, or with high wage levels and high sponsorship fees? Is the collapse of the German sports licensing agency and ITVDigital the death knell for this "incarnation" of football - without some idea of what you mean by this term, this comment is meaningless). You have now gone through the classic Dao paradigm - sweeping proposition followed by abuse followed by condescension and withdrawal when the tiny ones under your care do not fall to their knees before your vague and cloudy argument. Which is a shame, because I think we probably broadly agree on much about football, but your terminology is so wooly and your argumentation so lazy and so founded on the presumption of rectitude that the pitch is, in effect, unplayable.
Right. I am now back to lovely warm schnoogles. |
|
|
