top flight football is pop. it has been since the 60s, and with the advent of television. but then "pop" is now distinctly less interesting than it was then. pop is now a pure consumer culture, with strict (if often imperceptible) codes and protocols - and despite all its "hip" pose and "high style" - has become completely transparent. it is completely cynical and lacking any of even the naive virtues created by the illusion of a previous "counter-culture"; and, with the vibrancy and excitement of discovery which was its most meaningful legacy. perhaps, at the moment, no where is this lack more evident - or important - as it is in english football.
in the early part of the 21st century, top-flight football - together and in conjunction with other media-based monopolies - contrives to control and maintain its traditional power base in their respective markets. the premiership was built on TV and the dominance of TV as the modern medium of football is all important. this was not always true, and the very existence of the premier league in england - and similar breakaways from other foreign domestic leagues - came about pragmatically as a move away from the medium of the over-crowded, predominantly standing room, and increasingly dangerous stadiums; to the potentials of television, where heretofore the football authorities - while realizing it was unavoidable - had had a tentative and resistant attitude towards the new medium, as it was a definite threat to gate-receipts. the resulting compromise was MATCH OF THE DAY; live internationals, and live cup finals. this was one of the reasons that the FA CUP felt so much more imortant than it does now. it was the annual showcase day for english football in every english home. it was a day that made heroes.
but somewhere in the middle of all this - and with the advent cable TV technology causing the rapid specialization and the interational localization of what had previously been a homogeneous mainstream - someone realized that a 30,000 gate with a million TV viewers around the world, was the more lucractive model than a 60,000 gate alone, and the little bits of money generated by MOTD, and BBC radio licensing.
in the 1950s, football in england was a way for a young person of working class origins to make enough money and (in the long term) "contacts", so as to raise oneself to the status of bourgeoisie or middle class. jeff astle retired from football after a successful ten-year career and went into the industrial cleaning business. at one time, bobby robson was the captain of west bromwich albion - then, one of the top teams in the country. he was also the starting right-half for england. he walked to training every morning kicking a tennis ball along the pavement, and had a part-time job, working at an engineering firm in the afternoons to help meet the bills required by a young man raising a family with a couple of kids. this was the state of a player's life
before the phenomenon of football as pop culture.
in the 1960s, when brian epstein was approached by someone in the states with the idea of adding the beatles as a subject matter to a popular line of tin lunch-boxes, it never occurred to him that he should make any money from this - he could only imagine the publicity that they would get out of it, which would undoubtedly be catalyst in selling more records in the states. it was a different world; but we were obviously already looking to pop for salvation.
as children, the baby-boomers and the tail-enders to their legacy - had, in the TV, film, radio and electric music - a kind of fantasy image of the world; where, for example, it would never have occurred to me as a kid that george best would die broke; or that my first footballing hero, charlie george, would end up working as a tour-guide at emirates stadium. on the TV show "the avengers", diana rigg was originally payed less per episode than the cameraman. the musicians (including hendrix himself) were paid $500 each for recording the first jimi hendrix experience album. but there was an illusion that went with pop celebrity - surely, we must have thought as kids, that these people lived a life more glamourous than imaginable and never had to think about money(!?!?!)
the more you pay for something, the less you appreciate it. i was watching an old DVD i have of the infamous 5-3 match, where the 78-79 albion beat manchester united at old trafford. the third goal (i think) - that put united 2-1 up was scored by sammy mcilroy and came about through the albion forwards not being able to clear the ball from their own penalty area. what struck me as i was watching, was the attitude of the commentators, compared to what it might be today:
"... the albion are caught trying to football their way out of trouble... ali brown loses the ball to mcilroy who cuts back inside - changes feet... OH!!! WHAT A GREAT GOAL! WHAT A GOOD GOAL... AGAIN!!!"
there was no miserable colour-man with a regional accent making mean and emphatic pronouncements of so-and-so's "dreadful defensive mistake" or evidence the albion "being punished for poor defending in not being able to clear the ball"; just good commentary that - while appropriately building with the passage of play, attested to albion being "stuck... having to football their way out of trouble", losing the ball to mcilroy who then scores a terrific goal, cutting left then making a deft switch of direction to the right, bringing the ball toward the goal and onto his shooting foot. in other words, the focus was on the positive aspects of the play that had just passed and the skill involved in taking the opportunity and making it happen when it appeared. nowadays, there would be a practical pronouncement about the poor decision in not clearing the ball directly; and then an assessment on the poor quality of the actual play - or lack thereof. in the old days, this sort of thing was not anything to be
overly critical of... a great tragedy, as it is today. the focus was on the skill required to take advantage of the situation; not the "mistake" that had facilitated it. in other words: the forward used to win the ball from the fullback; nowadays the fullback
loses the ball to the forward.
when i was a little boy - maybe 11 or 12 - i remember how shocked everyone had been at the first six-figure transfer-fee. again, the more you pay for something, it seems, the less you appreciate it and the more you expect from it - sometimes to the point of resentment. you have to remember, as well, that amateurs were still occasionally used by top teams in those days. i'm not absolutely sure, but i seem to remember steve heighway played his first few games for liverpool as an amateur, in order that he could keep his full-time student status and complete his studies. although, and certainly by 1970, this would have been a most unusual situation, and was no longer common practice as it had been back in the 1930s.
just as managers today make the decision to rest certain players for cup competitions, and field their strongest teams in the important league fixtures, so has it always been. in the 1935 FA Cup campaign, the albion played an amateur - a school teacher, in fact - by the name of arthur gale, in place of star player, tommy glidden. he scored in every round except the semi-final, and was dropped for the final itself in favour of glidden. ironically, the albion - who were favoured to beat sheffield wednesday in the wembley final - lost the match 4-2.
on the 27th of may this year, barcelona will play manchester united for the uefa champions league title . in terms of european football, it is the football pop-fest of the year; and needless to say there will be no amateurs participating in
this competition. constantly looking in the marshall mcluhan rear-view mirror, the british pundits will all be asking - and then either answering or obfuscating the response for themselves - as is the case with any particular provocative, pop media question: "is this the greatest manchester united side of all time?"
of all the unanswerable questions...
the football of today is played by top-flight athletes who play the game at twice the pace it was played 30 years ago. and 30 years ago, it was played by footballers and not athletes. footballers couldn't play the modern game; it moves too fast and the defensive strategies and positions that the players are required to move into in relationship to the ball would have been too much work for the alcoholic, cigarette-smoking footballers of the 1960s and 70s. jesus christ! they'd think after about 10 seconds of modern football, these lads close everything down so quickly there's no where to run!!! how am i supposed to get into position!?!
in its practical application, the modern game is all about pace and running like hell. after that, you worry about getting all this pace and running onto the end of a long ball and directing it at goal. believe me, nobody was looking at agbonlahor with an eye to his dribbling and ball control abilities. because those are things that would just slow him down... run like hell and try get on the end of the ball so it is directed towards the goal - and don't try to control it and push it on more than once - unless you absolutely have to!!!
