When the going gets rough, Clough gets going: The wit and wisdom of Nottingham’s greatest football legend, by Professor Mark Griffiths

OK, so the two semi-finals are over and we all have a bit of ‘down time’ before this weekend’s World Cup Final. Time for a bit of frivolity before the business end of the tournament kicks off.

In a previous blog (“I’ll get my quote”: Managing their reputation), I recounted some of my favourite quotes from football managers around the world. I also mentioned that some football managers could have a whole column to themselves and top of the list would be the best manager England never had – Brian Clough, OBE (“old big ‘ead” to the masses). Cloughie was arrogant, as typified in his most famous quote when reflecting on his management career (“I wouldn’t say I was the best manager in the business. But I was in the top one”).

Here are my other golden Cloughie moments starting with some more arrogant claims:

• “The river Trent is lovely, I know because I have walked on it for 18 years”
• “When I go, God’s going to have to give up his favourite chair”
• “We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right”
• “I’ve decided to pick my moment to retire very carefully – in about 200 years time”
• “Telling the entire world and his dog how good a manager I was. I knew I was the best but I should have said nowt and kept the pressure off ‘cos they’d have worked it out for themselves”
• “I’m sure the England selectors thought if they took me on and gave me the job [as England Manager), I’d want to run the show. They were shrewd, because that’s exactly what I would have done”
• “Rome wasn’t built in a day. But I wasn’t on that particular job”

On England’s exit from the 2000 European Football Championship:

• “Players lose you games, not tactics. There’s so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes”

On his alcoholism:

• “Walk on water? I know most people out there will be saying that instead of walking on it, I should have taken more of it with my drinks. They are absolutely right”
• “I’m dealing with my drinking problem and I have a reputation for getting things done”

On Sir Alec Ferguson only winning one European Cup:

• “For all his horses, knighthoods and championships, he hasn’t got two of what I’ve got. And I don’t mean balls!”

On women’s football:

• “I like my women to be feminine, not sliding into tackles and covered in mud”

On Sven Goran Eriksson, former England manager:

• “At last they’ve got a manager who speaks better English than they do”
• “I might be an old codger now and slightly past my best as a gaffer, but the FA would know they’re safe with me. At least I’d keep my trousers on”

On managing Roy Keane:

• “I only ever hit Roy the once. He got up so I couldn’t have hit him very hard”

On football hooliganism:

“Football hooligans? Well, there are 92 club chairmen for a start”

Classic Clough. Nuff said.

Professor Mark Griffiths, psychologist, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Professor Griffiths, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Battle hacks: Football, stereotypes, and the national identity, by Professor Mark Griffiths

I don’t know about you, but I take a keen interest in how newspapers use narratives, metaphors, analogies, stereotypes, and puns when they write about the build up to a football match or the post-match analysis. Even after the drubbing by Germany, The Sun’s headline was “All 4-1 and one for all”. Here the message was that the England team was united – even in defeat. Before the Germany match, every story had somewhat predictable headlines in an attempt to either rally the country behind England (“Stand up and be counted”, “It’s revenge time”), to make rhetorical capital out of individuals like the England goalkeeper David James (“He’s got the whole world in his Hans”) and Germany’s ex-captain Franz Beckenbauer (“Kaiser sticks Das Boot in”), and/or poke racist fun – or should that be racist pun? – at the whole German team (“We’re ganna bish bash the Bosch”, “Keep it English, it’s the only way to sour the Krauts”).

There has been relatively little academic research carried out on the narratives used by the football media in relation to how national football teams are portrayed in print. However, in 2006, Liz Crolley (from Liverpool University) and her colleague David Hand, published a book called Football and European Identity based on their academic research over a number of years. They claimed that newspaper narratives about football matches don’t just reflect the game itself, but also help shape readers’ awareness of national identities. To support this view, Crolley and Hand analysed the written content of various European newspapers’ match coverage of football tournaments. I was particularly interested in their analysis of the 1996 European Football Championship when England reached the semi-finals and got knocked out by Germany on penalties (the nearest I have ever got to seeing England win a major trophy as I was born one month after England won the World Cup).

Their research concluded that the overriding theme of British press reports about the 1996 England team was in the form of battlefield and warfare analogies coupled with the English sporting virtues of energy and commitment – words not really used by journalists in the England 2010 World Cup campaign. For instance, in the semi-final against Germany they were “gallant” and played “combative football” with “fighting spirit” – typified by England’s “absolute refusal to surrender to what appeared to be a better team.” Tony Adams and Alan Shearer were both described by the press as “lionhearts”. In the 4-0 demolition of Holland “the lions were rampant” as “England roar(ed) into the quarter-finals.”

Crolley and Hand also examined the press portrayal of the German team. Newspaper reports characterised Germany’s strength, efficiency, and self-belief – also using military metaphors. They also asserted that the German team received more metaphorical references to warfare than any other football team. The “mighty Germany” made “sorties” and “forays” and led “the battle on two fronts.” They prepared to “ambush” England. As a team, they constantly “regroup” and “march on.” Jurgen Klinsmann, Germany’s talismanic striker, was described by the press as “the blond bomber” who will help Germany “to conquer Europe.”

In addition to examining football stories about England and Germany, Crolley and Hand also studied newspaper narratives relating to the football teams of France and Spain. They claim their analysis helps us to understand the mechanisms at work in the construction of national stereotypes (i.e., English fighting spirit, German efficiency, French flair, and Spanish toughness). The language used by newspaper articles about national football matches is “varied, entertaining, highly inventive and often provocative, evoking references to warfare, politics, history, economics and popular culture”. The authors conclude that in many cases, the principal elements of the stereotypes represented by European newspaper stories are the same from country to country.

Professor Mark Griffiths, psychologist, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Professor Griffiths, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

“I’ll get my quote”: Managing their reputation, by Professor Mark Griffiths

Much was made of England manager Fabio Capello’s quote about John Terry’s “big mistake” in talking to the media before he had talked to the manager about what was going on in the England camp behind closed doors. The “big mistake” quote garnered acres of news coverage yet the quote itself was underwhelming and not particularly memorable (to say the least). Anyway, it did get me wondering about which managers’ quotes will stand the test of time. Here are some of my favourites. Some managers could have had a whole column to themselves (Clough, Mourinho, Keegan and Venables spring to mind) but here, the managers only get a ‘one quote’ quota. Hope you like my selection.

• “Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don’t like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that” (Bill Shankly)

• “I wouldn’t say I was the best manager but I was in the top one” (Brian Clough)

• “If history is going to repeat itself I should think we can expect the same thing again” (Terry Venables)

• “If we played like this every week, we wouldn’t be so inconsistent!” (Brian Robson)

• “I’m not a believer in luck… but I do believe you need it!” (Alan Ball)

• “When an Italian says it’s pasta I check under the sauce to make sure. They are innovators of the smokescreen” (Sir Alex Ferguson)

• “Some of these players never dreamed they would be playing in a Cup Final at Wembley, and now here they are fulfilling those dreams” (Lawrie McMenemy)

• “I don’t read the papers, I don’t gamble, I don’t even know what day it is!” (Steve McClaren)

• “England have the best fans in the world and Scotland’s fans are second to none” (Kevin Keegan)

• “I got a fantastic reception from the crowd here at Upton Park – and why shouldn’t I? Now I’m looking forward to getting one off the wife. Reception I mean. I’m too old for all that kind of stuff” (Harry Redknapp)

• “Playing with wingers is more effective against European sides like Brazil than English sides like Wales” (Ron Greenwood)

• “We have top players and, sorry if I’m arrogant, we have a top manager” (Jose Mourinho)

• I suppose that [the referee] was at least consistent. He was bad all night!” (George Graham)

• “The Brazilians aren’t as good as they used to be, or as they are now” (Kenny Dalglish)

• “If I walked on water, my accusers would say it is because I can’t swim” (Bertie Vogts)

Many of these still bring a smile to my face – no matter how many times I hear them. How long before Fabio makes my Top 15 Manager’s quotes?

Professor Mark Griffiths, psychologist, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Professor Griffiths, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Knowing England’s opponent: Algeria and a nation’s passion for football, by Dr Imad El-Anis

The modern history of Algeria is full of twists and turns, characterised by intense periods of change which have led to the strengthening of an Algerian national identity but also tragic set-backs and challenges.

Football, more than any other sport, has the potential to unite any nation and the World Cup finals always demonstrate just how much we can all pull together behind our team. For fans, passions run high and a sense of communal belonging is magnified. Algerians are as passionate about their football as any other nation taking part in this year’s World Cup, if not more so. This passion for football that is found across all sectors of Algerian society from rich to poor, city-dwellers to rural communities, the religious to secular, is rooted in the fight to emerge from a colonial history into the modern world as a unified and independent state. This has, unfortunately, not been a simple task for Algerians who since independence from France in 1962 have faced decades of military rule, a decade-long civil war in the 1990s and early 2000s and a slow move towards economic development and democracy.

After all of these challenges though, Algeria has begun to really make strides forward in its development. The petering off of the civil war in the early 2000s allowed a sense of normalcy to return to Algerian society and an atmosphere of ‘business as usual’ helped to attract greater investment from abroad, more visitors and a greater sense of confidence in the ability of Algerians to achieve a better future. The scars and divisions that the civil war left, however, have not been all that easy to heal and what is needed now is a deepening of a sense of nation-hood, common identity and common pursuits. And what better occasion is there for a nation to be united than the World Cup finals as their team competes for sporting glory on the world stage?

And glory is not too strong a word to use as far as Algerians are concerned. There is much optimism in Algeria’s future now. Even though the world has been through some tough times since the end of 2007, the global financial crisis and recession has not hit the Algerian economy as much as it has affected other countries. High prices for oil and gas on the global market since the early 2000s have helped to buoy Algeria’s economic development and encouraged greater foreign investment in Algeria. This steady economic development along with increasing domestic stability and cohesion has begun to give Algerians a new sense of confidence in their nation’s abilities. The qualifying rounds for the World Cup finals also helped to reinforce national pride as Algeria overcame the defending Africa Cup of Nations champions, Egypt in a three-game battle which ended with a 1-0 Algerian playoff victory. Although Egypt and Algeria share a long and close relationship dating back centuries, their modern experiences of colonialism and independence have led to a unique identity for both, and this is nowhere more obvious than in the sporting world where Algeria and Egypt have become classic rivals. Beating Egypt and qualifying for the finals was, therefore, a real coup for Algeria.

While we are all very optimistic and hopeful for England’s chances in this World Cup we should not underestimate the passion and the confidence that this Algerian team will bring to the competition. England’s group rivals will all be highly-motivated but perhaps none as much as an Algerian team which is the very symbol of their nation’s dreams for a better future.

Dr Imad El-Anis

To speak to Imad, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8785 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Honduras and the 100 hours war, by Professor Lloyd Pettiford

Map of Honduras, where most of the fighting took place during the 'Football War'

I will be supporting England but in a reluctant, painful and obligated way.  However, I will also be following Honduras, for reasons both trivial and important.

International Relations: An overworked football cliché says the game is more important than life and death. In reality it is rarely even a matter of life and death, but in 1969 Honduras were involved in ‘The Football War’; this resulted in 3,000 deaths, mostly Honduran civilians. Also known as the 100 hours war, this conflict with El Salvador, took place after qualification matches for the World Cup (1970).

The name ‘Football War’ caught on largely because it provides a better headline than the real reason: ‘Years long disagreement over cross-border migration caused by differential population pressures, land availability and levels of state repression in two Central American countries turns into a short War’ doesn’t sound nearly so catchy!

Notwithstanding socio-economic and political roots of conflict, the fact that Honduras was involved in a football war fascinated me, especially because to the extent that there are ‘good guys’ in war, it was Honduras on this occasion.

Politics: Like others, Honduras is said to be ‘so far from God, so near the United States’; this ensures a political/economic system dominated by the rich few. For this reason, Central America can seem a very sad place at times. Honduras is one of the poorest nations in Latin America. Nonetheless, its people remain cheerful and resilient. After its political problems (and the costly loss of its best player before the tournament) Honduras is an underdog worthy of your support.

Football: I was alive when England won the World Cup but had to wait until I was 16 to see them play (Spain, 1982). I’ve forgotten the pain in Spain for Brooking, Keegan etc but how can I forget the efforts of Honduras that year!?  Against the hosts, they adopted a strategy of shoot from anywhere (including the kick-off) and almost pulled off the World Cup shock of all time.  They were robbed of victory by the most shameful of home team penalties (Alex Ferguson would have blushed had it been awarded to Manchester United at Old Trafford!). Furthermore, like the Conference South’s Bishops Stortford FC they play in dark blue and white stripes. They got to South Africa at the expense of Costa Rica (slayers of ‘mighty’ Scotland in 1990).

Personal/Trivial: I’ve been there twice and it’s great. The circus acrobat leaving Honduras for the first time who cheered me up on the bus from Tegucigalpa to Managua. Fito Alvarado who will never be an acrobat. Pyramids, forests and beautiful bay islands. The bar owner in Roatan who greeted everyone with the catch-phrase ‘I’m still alive’ (I wonder if he still is?). And all those prepared to drink ‘Salva Vida’ with me and listen to my often preposterous thoughts about el futbol!

Drawn again against Spain and with other fixtures against Switzerland and Chile, I tip them to go through with 4 points.

Touched by the hand of Fat Les! World Cup songs – part 2 – by Jared Wilson

Since my last blog on World Cup songs, several readers have been kind enough to point out that there are plenty more terrible anthems to get worked up about other than the mediocrity of Embrace and the constant annoying re-jigging of Three Lions. Frankly it’s all been educational as these people have helped me realise how deep this rabbit hole of football-related music actually goes. So here I present you with thoughts on another five songs suggested by readers, which were written to inspire our country to sporting greatness.

World Cup Willie – Lonnie Donegan (1966)
The granddaddy of all World Cup songs. Recorded by skiffle musician Lonnie Donegan, it can proudly claim to be the only soundtrack thus far to a winning England World Cup side. This is even more surprising when you consider that it’s actually just a song about a cartoon lion, with thinly veiled euphemisms all over the place. Maybe we’ve unwittingly stumbled across a formula for a successful, ultimate England team-inspiring song here? Anyone got numbers for the agents of Lady Gaga and Tony the Tiger?

This Time (We’ll Get It Right) – England World Cup Squad and Crispy Productions (1982)

I was only three years old when this record came out, but I’m assured by older friends that it was seminal for its era. I’m guessing it’s because the nation had spent the last dozen years in the football wilderness having not even qualified for the tournament since 1970. Did the songwriters get it right? Well, it’s an easy one for people to sing along to with its rather basic lyrical content. But you can’t escape the fact that it sounds a bit like a Tetley Tea commercial. Did the England team get it right? No; they were eliminated at the second round stage despite not actually losing a match. Doh!

Pop Will Eat Itself – Touched by the Hand of Cicciolina (1990)
Why should a band bother with getting official FA permission if they want to release a World Cup song? Or indeed with writing lyrics? In a perfect world all bands could just do it the PWEI way and put together a jazzy dancy loop of sound and name it in honour of a Italian politician who decided it was a good idea to make and release hardcore pornography whilst still in office. Then pass it off as a football song during World Cup season to shift a few more units. Great stuff!

World In Motion – New Order (1990)

If you asked a group of random group of football fans “What’s the best England World Cup song ever,” then those with functioning senses of taste and hearing would undoubtedly say this. Originally titled ‘E is For England’ on the back of the house music boom, the FA unsurprisingly decided that drug references in official FA songs were not quite the done thing.
Co-penned by Keith Allen (whose entire musical career amounts to writing football songs and spawning Lily) and featuring the second outing of John Barnes’ lyrical flow (two years after The Anfield Rap) this song is the all-round giant of England anthems. New Order were flying high at the time on the back of the Madchester boom and it tuned into the sound of the era.   It was also the first single I ever bought with my pocket money (well, joint first alongside Turtle Power by Partners In Kryme) so I admit I may be a bit biased. Subsequent attempts to remix and re-release it have thankfully either flopped (1996 – it didn’t even make the Top 40) or been aborted (2002 – vetoed by the FA after David Beckham was mooted for the rapping). So it still sounds as fresh and untainted as ever.

Vindaloo – Fat Les (1998)

Originally recorded as a parody of football chants, Fat Les was a joint effort between Blur bassist Alex James (music), serial World Cup song releaser Keith Allen (lyrics) and cow-bothering artist Damian Hurst (no, we’re not sure what his part in it was either). Despite the fact that it was just a simple ode to the British curry, it worked as a football anthem – not least because most of the lyrics are slightly muffled and lend themselves to half-arsed crowd renditions well. The accompanying video, a parody of The Verve’s Bittersweet Symphony, still amuses me to this day.

Jared Wilson, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Jared, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8785 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

The importance of sport in forming a national identity, by Dr Matt Ashton

In the mid 1990s the political theorist Robert Putnam popularised the term ‘social capital’, in his bestselling book Bowling Alone. Broadly speaking, social capital referred to the links between people. If you had lots of friends willing to help you out when you were in trouble you’d be rich in social capital even if you were poor in physical or intellectual capital.  A variety of different studies have argued that the more social capital a country has the happier it is, as there are strong bonds tying society together. National identity with its shared sense of belonging is a key way of generating and promoting social capital.

For most countries national identity evolves naturally over time, based largely on a shared language, history and cultural touchstones. When any of these things are missing there is much more likely to be conflict between different groups that can sometimes slide into civil war. In Britain, our sense of national identity influences how we speak, behave and relate to others on a daily basis. For instance, politicians often refer to the ‘spirit of Dunkirk’ as a way of conjuring up the idea of succeeding against the odds. This reference would be quite familiar to the average citizen thanks to a diet of old war films and half remembered history lessons. However, for most people in Latin America or Asia the phrase might as well be meaningless.

This is where sport comes in. Nothing fosters a sense of shared national identity better than the country taking part in a global sporting competition (short of declaring a popular war). It draws people together into supporting the national team and this is partly why the World Cup is so important for South Africa. Due to its traumatic history, fractured by the apartheid regime, there are still huge differences in South African society with pronounced divisions between rich and poor and the various social and ethnic groups.

Sport increasingly crosses cultural and political boundaries in a way that few other activities can. The recent Clint Eastwood film Invictus deals with this subject in that the newly released Nelson Mandela saw the rugby world cup team as a vehicle to help bring the country together with a shared purpose. The teams’ success, eventually winning the competition, provided a huge boost to his government and helped the society make the transition from the Apartheid dictatorship to democracy. Now cracks are emerging again, prompted in part by the economic crisis that has swept the world in recent years. The question remains however, while the World Cup might temporarily paper over these cracks, can it help develop the social capital needed for solutions to the long term problems facing South Africa?

Dr Matt Ashton, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Ashton, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Hosting the World Cup: Challenges for South Africa, by Dr David Hindley

This summer’s FIFA World Cup – the first to be held in Africa – will come under incredible scrutiny. In the build-up to the event, question marks have been raised by an increasingly critical European media, identifying concerns over the preparedness of stadiums, ticket arrangements and slow sales, security fears, transport and accommodation. Indeed back in 2006 rumours circulated that the tournament were to be moved to another country following fears, including reportedly amongst some FIFA executives, over the lack of progress in South Africa’s preparations. This drew a ferocious outburst from FIFA President Sepp Blatter who accused ‘the Old World’ of prejudice and a lack of respect for the hosts.

Of course Blatter – whose World Cup in South Africa has long been understood to be his personal ‘pet’ project – has a huge emotional investment in the tournament, meaning that he too, and his tenure as FIFA President will come under the spotlight.

To some extent the level of examination represents nothing new. As the level of competition by nations to host sporting mega events such as the World Cup or the Olympic Games has intensified, so too have the calls on the organisers to justify the public expenditure and prove that they have fulfilled their often inflated promises of what their event will deliver. It is now the norm to talk about a sporting legacy, a nation that will become enthralled by the sporting drama, as well as the by-products of regeneration and national prestige. The language of legacy enveloping South Africa is no different in that regard. In return for the £800 million public investment, the hosts will be hoping that the country will enjoy a substantial economic boost, swelled by the expected masses of visitors to the tournament, as well as basking in the prestige that such mega events purport, broadcasting to a global audience a positive image of South Africa.

Sceptics have already questioned whether such aspirations are realistic. It is unarguable that former hosts Germany produced a sizeable profit (believed to be around 135 million Euro) as well as significant tourist revenues, but then relatively little had to be spent on infrastructure in preparation for the tournament. South Africa is however facing a very different scenario, having to invest hugely in building new stadia, a massive road expansion programme, and rail links specifically built for the World Cup. In addition, the hosts have had to spend significantly on allaying safety fears, investing more than £100 million on extra security, as well as a promise of a blanket deployment of police and security officers.

So as the curtain rises on Africa’s biggest sporting moment, critics will be waiting for their ‘told you so’ moment, whilst supporters will be hopeful that the World Cup will be a catalyst for positive change.

Dr David Hindley, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Hindley, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8751 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

The World Cup as a political event, by Dr Matt Ashton

A colleague of mine recently stated that he’d be glad when the general election was out of the way so that he could concentrate on the upcoming World Cup in South Africa. This struck me as an interesting comment as sporting events have more often than not been about politics as much as they’ve been about sport.

In ancient Rome, the games at the Coliseum were seen as a way of ensuring the loyalty of the citizens as well as a monument to the greatness of the Empire. More recently, the stunning opening ceremony at the Beijing Olympics was communist China’s attempt to present themselves as a new global superpower for the 21^st century. National governments have always used sports as a means to publicise and advance their own (often political) agendas, and the World Cup is no different.

On the other side of the fence, the media often presents and analyses politics almost as if it were a sport. The Frost/Nixon TV interviews of the 1970s were portrayed in the media as if it was a gladiatorial contest between the two men. Equally, in the televised electoral debates, many of the commentators kept referring to the party leaders as if they were watching a sporting event, ‘Brown is on the ropes’, ‘will Cameron land a decisive blow’ etc.

The World Cup in South Africa is no exception to this and Jacob Zuma’s government has a lot riding on making sure that the event will be a success. South Africa can truthfully be regarded as one of the political success stories in Africa, but more often than not the Western media tends to focus on stories about political corruption, racial unrest and the continuing poor standard of living in many areas. As the most watched sporting event outside of the Olympics, and the first World Cup held in Africa, this will be a once in a lifetime chance for the government to influence global perceptions of their country.

A successful World Cup will mean positive publicity for the nation, along with the possibility of future foreign investment. Already, huge amounts of money have been spent upgrading sporting facilities and building new infrastructure. However, many have commented on whether this is the best use of public funds in a country where millions still live in relative poverty. Additionally, there have been disturbing reports in the press about forced evictions from slums to help ‘beautify’ various cities for foreign tourists.

Zuma will also be hoping for a good performance from the South African squad. Politicians are normally the first to associate themselves with a team when they do well and the first to distance themselves when they lose. England’s defeat to West Germany in the quarter finals of the 1970 World Cup has been blamed by many for Harold Wilson’s election loss a few days after. Ultimately, the success or failure of the World Cup and how it is viewed in the media will have a lasting impact on politics in South Africa far into the future.

Dr Matt Ashton, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Ashton, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Newcastle FC and the Daily Mail: Who needs who? By Dr Matt Ashton

There'll be some empty seats at the next Newcastle FC press conference

It’s been announced today that Newcastle Football Club has banned the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail from their grounds and press conferences. This is in response to their revelations about Lord Triesmen which has potentially cost England the World Cup 2018 bid.

The world of football has always had an uneasy relationship with the press. On the one hand clubs need the press to publicise themselves and their players. Modern footballers are more than just sportsmen, they’re media brands capable of generating millions of pounds just by selling shirts with their names on them. In order to do this they need to build a media profile, hence a never ending round of adverts, personal appearances and charity work, all designed to give themselves and the club good PR. The press in return will cover this as it fills space and sells newspapers. In this way then it’s a symbiotic relationship, with both sides needing each other, and it can be argued that the modern media has done more to turn football into a global phenomena than just about anything else.

The press however are always interested in increasing their readership and nothing sells like scandal with some footballers now more famous for their private lives then their activities on the pitch. As a result, many players, clubs and managers are increasingly wary of having anything to do with reporters. Some deal with this by avoiding the press whenever possible, Alex Ferguson springs to mind. Others like Brian Clough positively relished being in the limelight and actively courted the media.

The press like to portray themselves as tireless crusaders for the truth. Admittedly there have been many instances over the years where newspapers have uncovered serious wrong doing leading to reform of the game. However there have been countless instances where they’ve overstepped the mark, either inventing stories (The Sun’s coverage of Hillsborough for instance) or invading the privacy of others.

The media would argue that when the players volunteer to appear in the media as advertising figures they forfeit their right to a private life. Whether accepting money to promote a product gives others the right to go through your rubbish in the hope of finding something scandalous about you is debatable to say the least.

More often than not the press damage the game when they print these stories. The media made a huge deal about Wayne Bridge’s decision not to be part of England’s World Cup squad this year after the John Terry scandal. They laid the blame for this squarely on Terry and while clearly this was an important factor they failed to mention that they themselves played a role in this. If Wayne had gone, every single question the press asked would have been about his relationship with John Terry and I can fully understand why he’d not want to put himself under that kind of scrutiny. However, this factor was swept under the carpet by the majority of the media.

As Gyles Brandreth once said ‘The press are never wrong and they never apologise’.

Dr Matt Ashton, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Ashton, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]