Comment by nephihaha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nephihaha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've been hearing this "football is working class" thing all my life. Honestly, depending on where you are in the UK, you will see working class people participating in rugby league (Northern England), rugby union (South Wales, West Country, Scottish Borders), hurling, Gaelic football (both NI), shinty (the Highlands), cricket (Yorkshire and one or two other places), basketball, boxing and all the rest. Apart from rugby league, none of these games is playing the "prolier than thou" card.

Several of those games are cheaper to go and watch. In fact, it's cheaper to go to the opera or ballet than the football as someone pointed out to me, even though those have a different image. Season tickets to major clubs are extortionate. (Yes, that includes the SPL.) It isn't as working class as it makes out, other than the fact anyone can play it in the park. (But the same is true of other sports.)

Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football (which looked more like rugby) and has basically covered up its posh origins. The "football" our ancestors played seven hundred years ago has almost no resemblance to soccer.

Literally none of the things you said refute my statement

> depending on where you are in the UK,

I specifically referred to English clubs. The fact that other home nations prefer different sports has no bearing on English culture. The fact that multiple sports are considered working class has no bearing on the fact that football is one of those sports.

> Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football

Irrelevant. My frame of reference was working class people over the last century. What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.

I don't live in England or follow any English football clubs.

> What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.

Maybe not yours. But what is association football today is actually the gentrified code, which was only taken up by the working class later on. Most Working class football was rougher and more like rugby, gridiron and Gaelic, not soccer. But if you read most soccer histories, you'd think it was a smooth transition between the two.

It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports. I've seen that so many times.

Even in the early twentieth century, there were plenty of "gentleman amateur" football clubs that were part of a much older tradition.

> I don't live in England

I can tell.

> Maybe not yours.

So why do you continue to talk about it? I know the history and it’s not relevant to my argument.

> It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports.

I’m not doing that, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

> there were plenty of "gentleman amateur"

This is the only part that’s relevant. It’s not a rebuttal because a small number of clubs doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority were being supported as part of a working class community.

This claim that football has always been the "people's game" is in the end sanctimonious romantic nonsense. It's been run for profit all my lifetime, and is barely unaffordable for many people. SPL clubs are not cheap for season tickets either. A Hearts season ticket was at one point dearer than a Man U one. Which is ridiculous. I suppose the Jambos were desperate for the money.

If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community" that way. But most major clubs consist of eleven millionaires (plus reserves) controlled by a billionaire. Nowadays the players and the owners have little connection to whichever town they are based in. Nowadays, many of the fans of English clubs, and even the Old Firm, have never lived in (or near) the cities the clubs based in. They may have never even lived in the UK or the same continent. Man U is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of such fans of other such major teams.

Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types. Profit was a motive even then but not to the modern day levels where the jerseys change every other month to milk the fan base.

If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.

Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject. Other sports are available. Some of them are a lot more entertaining too.

> This claim that football has always been the "people's game" is in the end sanctimonious romantic nonsense.

I never said that.

> If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community"

I never said that though it’s true, it’s not necessary for my argument.

> Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types.

True but irrelevant to my argument.

> If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.

Modern day Premier League attendance is a mix, depends on the club and it’s harder to assess because the class makeup of the UK has changed a lot in the past 50 years.

> Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject.

You have, most of it total nonsense. Best you stop before you show yourself up even more.

> You have, most of it total nonsense. Best you stop before you show yourself up even more.

I know far more about the early history of association football than you do, pal. I was good friends with Professor Grant Jarvie's parents for years, before they passed away. Prof. Jarvie is the premier authority on sports history in Scotland. I learnt far more off him than I ever would off you, and we've discussed early soccer together. I've also researched some of these things personally. By research, I mean looking at original physical documents in the National Library of Scotland, not Google and Wikipedia.

If all you have to bring to the table is personal abuse, then that is on you, not me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com