Damocles said:
Thinking more about it, I disagree with this whole logic of "gloryhunter". You guys understand that they don't tend to show Stoke vs Wigan much in the US? It's all games involving the top teams. How were they meant to pick us up without ever having the chance to watch us?
Invariably, people sit and watch a team and build an admiration for something. This is why Arsenal have so many foreign fans, because they played fantastic football which attracted people to watch them more and then learn about the club. This is why Wigan don't, they aren't attractive except possibly as an underdog.
This building admiration is exactly what been a fan is. I mean at the very core of the idea of fandom, is that you build an admiration for something that eventually becomes an obsession.
Some people didn't have the luxury to be born inside of the M60. Some didn't have the privilege to have a father or brother was was in to football. Does this mean that they are permanently stuck in the footballing ether? Why? Who says?
I will take issue with this because it goes to the crux of the matter regarding my personal view on this subject.
And, yes, that is a personal view, before the more hysterical amongst us wet themselves and wrongly see it as some sort of violent crusade to ethnically cleanse the crowd.
I fundamentally disagree with this notion that being a fan of a football club is exclusively based on admiration. Without doubt, for a certain type of person, looking to get a certain something out of football, it is.
But historically, and still for the majority (just about, I think) of people, the club that they support has nothing to do with admiration for a certain ethos.
It is all to do with geography and/or family. Now, it is unfashionable to cite geography and it is, in certain parts, laughably painted as some sort of fascist concept or backwards view of world business to suggest that geography is relevant to football clubs and their fans.
However, that is nonsense, in my view. Geography is and has been the central and fundamental tenant of football and football support for, well, ever.
This is not a franchise system. These clubs were formed to represent geographical areas. They take the name of those areas. They play in those areas. They represent the people of those areas. To seek to discount this and club that such comments are somehow stuck in the past is absolute nonsense. Yet, as more and more people seek out sporting success stories to attach themselves to, there are more and more voices that have a huge vested interest in totally detaching the concept of geography from football clubs. When they are joined by those who are desperate for their clubs to grow rich on such people's cravings for success (both other fans and the money men at the clubs) it is easy to imagine that, yes, football clubs are no longer central to the areas they represent and have no attachment to those places. And, so the thinking goes, therefore why should the 'fans'.
Well I disagree with that completely.
I don't support Manchester City because I have a deep seated appreciation for the ethos of the club under Swales. Or because I admired the football played under a certain manager. In fact, I can honestly say that I know no-one, amongst dozens of City fans, that does either. I support City because they represent where I am from and because of family links.
The notion of supporting a club because of admiration for a random part of their set-up/history is bizarre.
Look at it this way. I have never seen football played in the way Barca play it. I would watch them whenever I can on TV, often to the detriment of other plans. Yes, I go to bed late or cancel nights out sometimes to do so. I do so because I admire their football more than any other team I've ever seen.
But does this overwhelming admiration mean that I am a fan of theirs? Well, only in the very loosest sense of the word. Does it mean that I would ever say to anyone that I am a 'fan' of Barcelona? Of course not. I'm not. Would I ever consider comparing my admiration for them and staying up late to watch some of their games to that of Catalans who have a historical and geographical connection to the club that goes well beyond 'admiration'? No I wouldn't. Would I ever consider myself someone other than a bloke that has nothing to do with them but has the utmost respect for what they do and how they do it? No.
Yet, it seems that by many people's definitions I should be telling people how big a Barca man I am, pontificating about just that on the internet and aiming to, sometime in the future, turn up at the Nou Camp and consider myself just the same as all those who have supported Barca all their lives and have a real connection to the club - regardless of their success.
Well, yes, I would feel a complete prick and a fraud doing that. Yet I am expected to change my outlet completely when a similar situation occurs at City?
(This is a good point to state that I have no interest in ever trying to impose my views on others and I am nothing other than the face of hospitality at any match to those who might fit that bill. I don't want to spoil their day but I do question their thinking - in my head, not to their face).
I take issue with the notion that people must attach themselves to something. I will watch any NFL on TV. I love the tactical aspect of the game. I could genuinely be consider a fan of the sport. Yet, I have never, ever, felt the urge to brand myself a fan of a team.
Why should I? I like the game. Definitely. But I don't have any feeling for a team. I have nothing invested in them. There have been many teams I admire greatly, returning to that theme, but isn't it extremely childish to want to attach myself to that team in order to somehow bask in their reflective glory? Even if that glory isn't silverware, isn't being desperate to be viewed by others as "one of that team" just a little bit strange?
What would I gain from it, other than some sort of sense of belonging or ownership? And why would I want them? Those concepts have nothing at all to do with my feelings towards the sport and all to do with my need to, as City realise with their saying, 'be part of something'.
And the whole concept of having to be part of something, even if it is in such a tenuous manner as to only being part of it by dint of simply saying that you are, is needy, childish and pathetic in my view. Not just in sport, but in any aspect of life. To manufacture a relationship is, in my mind, unfathomable. The only motivations I can attach to it are negative emotions and needs of a very poor order.
Why would a sane, mature adult need to enhance their love of something by manufacturing an attachment or support for a previous totally unrelated entity? It can only be for reasons of self delusion and self-aggrandisement.
I could go on to talk about a huge amount of other sporting teams that I admire greatly. Or other movements and concepts around the world, much more important than football, that I have great admiration for. But I will always return to the question - why would I be desperate to translate my admiration into a desire for people to view me as part of those entities?
Simply put, I just find it all very, very, very needy. Even more so when people shun their local set up in order to manufacture an attachment (usually immediately term as a 'love/passion') to a completely unrelated set up.
(and yes, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, etc, etc, etc)
Oh, and one more thing. Why is this sort of thing always subject to double standards when it comes to international sport. Millions of people will invent all sorts of reasons and justifications for their manufactured attachment to a completely unrelated team, yet most of them will consider it treason to do a similar thing with international sport. I have never received anything approaching a logical answer to why a United fan from Dublin would not also support the Spanish national team at the expense of their native Ireland.
