Football: Social Network or Big Business
Yesterday, London held the first Social Media Football derby. As the crowd went wild one thing stood out for me. Both teams lined up using the expected Twitter, Facebook, YouTube formation, unfortunately both of these managers seemed apologetic that although they had found a fun, exciting way to get closer to the fans, they have not yet developed the tactics neccesary to get behind your defence and open up your wallet.
Lord Burn’s opinion to the Deptartment of Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on the governance of football made it clear that he saw the Football Association having lost control of the game to the business interests of the Premier and Football League. Premier League owners are short-termists, they are business men looking for a quick buck, or oligarch’s buying glory. Roman Abromovich wishes to take home the Champions League trophy and putting up £50 million for one player is perfectly acceptable no matter how much it distorts the domestic game. Anyone who stayed up with the Superbowl last Sunday saw the Vince Lombardi Trophy lifted by a man in a suit. I fear that one day rather than watch the victorious sweated club captain ascending Wembley’s famous stairs, we will instead see Prince William turn to a media magnate or oil baron to hold the FA Cup aloft.
One thing you won’t see the Green Bay Packers doing is using social media or any other means to coin in on their victory, the Packers are the only Major American sports team to be in a not-for-profit community ownership model. The model itself contradicts big business friendly NFL ownership rules stating there cannot be more than 32 club shareholders as opposed to the 100,000 plus with a stake in Green Bay. As Premier League clubs have grown their influence and power, the worst parts of capitalism have flourished within the game. There is no room for a ‘Football’s the winner’ mentality. The Premier League and thereby English football is seen as a zero-sum power struggle. I don’t suggest that all ties should end in amicable draws, handshakes and a genial pint down the Dog and Duck, but clubs ran for profit and glory see the national team as another competitor to resource and therefore club dominance can hurt the game and society as a whole.
I recently attended a conference held by the Dutch government to discuss differences in the delivery of sport. We were addressed by representatives of the KNVB (the Dutch FA) who proudly boasted of a very different approach. In the delivery of football, effort was directed towards community and the development of the national team. Top professional Dutch sides were convinced to combine and establish regional youth academies. These centres then work with the larger amateur and smaller professional clubs to develop talent in its natural environment, working with grassroots football to encourage flair for the game without turning nine year old children in to raw material commodities to be hoarded awaiting their market value to rise.
Arsenal beat Chelsea in the Social Media derby, in no small part thanks to its 10 players tweeting to masses, bringing players back into the community. Chelsea have one star amongst the twitterati but Florent Malouda only tweets in French. Social Media can be exploited or it can allow people to meet, interact and communities to grow in a way that benefits everyone, just as football has done for generations. Whoever is encouraged to own football clubs following this select committee, it is important that Football returns to creating a network where people meet, interact and grow as a community rather than continue to be exploited as a resource in a global market.
