New Fans, New Flag, New England? Changing News ... - CiteSeerX

New Fans, New Flag, New England? Changing News Values in the English Press Coverage of World Cup 2002 Emma Poulton University of Durham Durham, England Abstract This paper examines the English press representation of English football fans during the 2002 World Cup. English fans have acquired notoriety over the years due to incidents of what is popularly labelled ‘football hooliganism’. The media have regularly stoked public feelings of shame by affirming that English football fans are synonymous with hooliganism, overlooking the fact that not all fans are ‘hooligans’. This paper therefore investigates the press framing of English fans as they travelled to Japan for the World Cup, through an exploratory qualitative analysis of English newspapers for the duration of the tournament. With the widespread predictions of trouble involving England fans failing to materialise, the 2002 World Cup appeared to witness a sea change in the media’s agenda-setting. The most significant shift in the news values characterising the reporting of this World Cup was the widespread and positive profile of ordinary English supporters, which contributed to a more accurate insight into English fan culture.

Introduction This paper examines the English press coverage of the 2002 World Cup. Specifically, the concern is the media representation of English football fans during the tournament. English fans have acquired – and some enjoyed – notoriety over the past few decades due to incidents of what is popularly labelled ‘football hooliganism’. Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning and John Williams (1988) observed how since the 1960s an increase in football-related violence involving English supporters, alongside a much more sensationalist style of media reporting, brought ‘hooliganism’ to the forefront of the national political agenda, so perpetuating the media’s interest and maintaining prominence on their own agenda. This, Murphy et al. (1988) contend, was none more pronounced than during the late 1970s and through the 1980s, which may explain the research published during the period examining the media coverage of ‘football hooliganism’ (Adams, 1978; Hall, 1978; Whannel, 1979). For as Stuart Hall (1978: 15) observed, ‘the nature and pattern of this coverage is a phenomenon worth analysing in its own right’. Despite this, the phenomenon remains an under-researched area, with a few intermittent exceptions (Garland & Rowe, 1999; Poulton, 2001; Weed, 2001). Yet meanwhile there have been a catalogue of disturbances in Rotterdam, Sardinia, Stockholm, Malmo, Dublin, Rome, 19

English Press Coverage of World Cup 2002

Marseilles, Istanbul and Copenhagen, each one framed by the media as ‘the latest chapter in England’s long and shameful history of hooliganism’ (Chaudhary & Arlidge, 2000: 3). The media have regularly stoked public feelings of shame and disgust by affirming that English football fans are synonymous with hooliganism. During France 98, for example, Mike Waters of the Daily Mirror (1998: 40) lamented how ‘Anglais has become a byword for unspeakable thuggery, a byword for hooliganism’. This ignores, however, the fact that football-related disorder is a global social problem and occurs, to varying degrees and in different forms, in almost every country in which the game is played (Armstrong & Giulianotti, 2001; Dunning, 1999). Consequently, it is not just the ‘English Disease’ as it is commonly referred to in the media. Furthermore, media rhetoric like this also overlooks that not all England football fans are ‘football hooligans’. As Gary Armstrong (1998: 53) has noted: ‘The ‘yob’ and the football fan – the terms become interchangeable – has become a metaphor and symbol of most of the ills of English society’. Hysterical headlines, emotive language, evocative imagery, usually borrowed from the battlefield, and graphic photographs, all help to perpetuate the ‘fancum-hooligan’ as a member of a homogenous group of ‘drunken, tattooed, crop-headed oafs’ (Letts, 2000: 6). Media discourse of this kind was typical during the coverage of incidents of public disorder during France 98 and Euro 2000 (see Poulton, 2001). This paper therefore investigates the press framing of England fans as they travelled to Japan for the 2002 World Cup, through an exploratory qualitative analysis of English newspapers for the duration of the tournament. Would the widespread predictions of trouble involving England fans manifest themselves in the Far East, or would England, or more correctly, the English media, bid ‘Sayonara to the Neanderthal Fan’? New Fans or New Frame? ‘Sayonara to the Neanderthal Fan’ was the none-too-fond farewell to England’s hooligan reputation of Mick Dennis (2002: 59), sports columnist for the Daily Mirror, on returning from his World Cup 2002 posting. Reviewing his time in Japan, he told readers how ‘most of my best memories involve the camaraderie between supporters from different countries’. Among his recollections were ‘giving a little Argentine lad an England pin badge and the boy instinctively offering his hat in his country’s colours’ and ‘listening in wonder as England fans broke into a chant of ‘Nippon! Nippon!’ – a spontaneous tribute to their ever-smiling, ever helpful hosts’. Dennis then asked, ‘Wait a minute. What’s that? England supporters characterised all over the world as bigots, showing appreciation of foreigners? Yes, and it confirmed my own prejudices’. He explained: 20

Football Studies, vol. 6 no. 1 2003

You see, I’ve always refused to believe English football folk are all Neanderthal nutters. Of course, some get lagered up and some enjoy a ruck and, if pushed around by police in riot gear, some will shove back and might eventually gear up for a riot. And certainly supporting a football team is a tribal pursuit which encourages antagonism towards people from a different tribe. So it was inevitable that, before this World Cup kicked off, the Japanese media, like so much of our own, chose to portray the old brutal stereotype of England fans. But like all stereotypes, it is a generalisation and this time it proved inaccurate. England supporters have proved most of them are fundamentally decent people, and if you treat them decently, they’ll behave decently (Dennis, 2002: 59). In part this may be an admission of guilt on the part of Dennis’, and other newspapers’ coverage of England fans in the past. During Euro 2000, for example, a Daily Mirror front-page headline (20 June 2000: 1) dismissed all of the national team’s supporters in Belgium and Holland as ‘drunken, violent, mindless creeps’, with the message: ‘GRUNT GRUNT GRUNT. That’s Neanderthal for: just behave, you mindless, pathetic excuses for Englishmen’. Such descriptors are typical of the ‘dismissive labelling’ and the ‘verbal reduction of football hooligans to the level of animals, or the insane’ (Hall, 1978: 28) and the tendency to characterise the perpetrators as ‘mindless lunatics’ and a ‘sub-human species’ (Whannel, 1979). Other writers shared Dennis’ observations of what it meant to be an England fan in Japan. Richard Lloyd-Parry described ‘a remarkable metamorphosis from hooligans to heroes’ (Independent on Sunday, 9 June 2002: 3) while Jeff Powell wrote of how the conversion of the fans on the road to Japan has been one of Damascene proportions. From the vile, brawling, drunken and shaming rabble of so many football championships, they appear to have been transformed into human beings, exchanging polite bows in accordance with Japanese custom rather than beating the locals over the head with beer bottles (Daily Mail, 21 June 2002: 92). What remained unclear in these pieces was the process of change. Had an entire body of fans changed overnight into friendly ambassadors for team and country or had these people been there all along and it was just that the journalists had rarely opted to notice them? A Sunday Times journalist reflected the former school of thought:

21


As well as a reborn team, a new type of fan seems to have emerged. Gone is the beer-sozzled ‘foolian’ (as the Japanese say); in has come a new sophistication. The Japanese have watched in curiosity as many English supporters have queued politely to check their emails at airport internet cafes and produced laptop computers to while away the time. At lam yesterday, two England fans, daubed with paint, astonished staff in one Sapporo restaurant by ordering fried squid and beer in fluent Japanese. The good behaviour has come as a shock (Chittenden, 2002: 13). Yet this ‘new fan’ has not just appeared from nowhere. They have always been there. Owing to prevailing news values, however, there has been a frequent failure by the media to distinguish between the various sections of England’s support (Poulton, 2001; 2002). Rather, they are typically framed as a homogenous group, all ‘potential’ hooligans (Poulton, 2002). This has resulted in the misrepresentation of the vast majority. As soon as trouble breaks out, almost all distinctions between the violent, xenophobic minority and nonviolent majority is lost in the media coverage that emphasises the behaviour of the hooligans, which makes for much better copy. Consequently, the majority loses all sense of identity, voice and presence (Poulton, 2001; 2002). False Prophesies... The English media regularly boost feelings of national shame by framing English fans as synonymous with hooliganism and claims that the ‘English Disease’ is ‘our best soccer export’ (Phillips, 2002: 8), overlooking the fact that football-related disorder blights countless other countries (Armstrong & Giulianotti, 2001; Dunning, 1999). Evidence of this was seen during the 2002 World Cup. The Guardian (12 June 2002: 5) reported unrest in Moscow as ‘Up to 8,000 people rampaged as Russia lost 1-0 to Japan, setting cars on fire, smashing windows, and fighting police and each other’. The riot left two dead. Meanwhile, Jeff Powell (2002: 92) in the Daily Mail wrote of ‘running battles in African townships between surrogate supporters of Argentina and Brazil’. Yet there was none of the widely predicted trouble involving England fans. Just as before Euro 96, France 98 and Euro 2000, the domestic media’s agenda was dominated by an almost ghoulish interest in the host police’s preparation for the 2002 World Cup, focusing on measures for preventing, but particularly dealing with, outbreaks of unrest. This is characteristic of the ‘amplification spiral’ evident in the press coverage of football-related disorder, which can excite and exaggerate (or downplay) the phenomenon at particular times (Hall, 1978; Murphy et al., 1988; Giulianotti, 1999). This was evident in numerous stories in both the press and television news bulletins forecasting disorder in Japan, where England were to play their matches. The Daily Mail (Powell, 2002: 92) documented how the Japanese had ‘beefed up its military 22


preparations in trepidation’. There was particular interest in how the Japanese police were extensively trained in numerous martial arts and how, according to the Daily Mirror’s Jeremy Armstrong (2002: 2), they would be ‘armed with water cannon which they carry on their backs and Spiderman net-guns’. Meanwhile, on television, there was the timely BBC 2 documentary series Hooligans: Kicking Off (screened May 2002), while Channel 4 screened Football’s Fight Club (screened June 2002). This theme was commonplace for the first week of the tournament, as it had been during the build up, as if to keep the potential threat of trouble ever present in the public’s minds. The Daily Mirror’s David Randall (2002: 3) told how ‘Former soccer hooligan Chris ‘Combat’ Henderson was stopped trying to enter Japan and faces deportation to Thailand where he runs a bar with a fellow ex-member of the Chelsea Headhunters’. An article in the Independent on Sunday (9 June 2002: 3) informed its readership of the preventative measures that had been taken to minimise the risk of disorder, explaining: Manchester has won the police premiership for the force that prevented the most hooligans travelling to the World Cup. They obtained 151 banning orders on local yobs, pipping Staffordshire who managed 150. West Yorkshire was third on 89, with the Met trailing in fourth with 82. Even after a fortnight, when any trouble had still failed to materialise, there were still the scare-mongering doubters. Joseph Harker in The Guardian (2002: 18) warned: I know everyone’s talking about how well behaved the fans have been this time, but we know it only takes an England defeat for it all to change. Remember Euro 2000? England lost to Portugal: the fans rioted. They lost to Romania: they rioted again. The fact that neither of these so-called ‘riots’ occurred only adds to the weakness of Harker’s argument (see Miles, 2000; Poulton, 2001). But the cynicism does its woeful damage. On the day of England’s final group match against Nigeria, and following peaceful match-days in Saitama and Sapporo previously, The Times (2002: 14) was still reporting on how the Japanese had been ‘bracing themselves for months for an invasion of the so-called Igirisuno furigans – the English hooligans’. In the absence of any trouble correspondents were left to report on what might have been. According to one journalist reviewing the Argentina game: Expectations had become so abysmally low in the run-up to Friday’s match [versus Argentina] that it would have been almost 23


impossible not to surpass them. Hooligan hysteria took many forms. A local councillor in one town warned that given ‘the exceptional mood of the event’, Japan faced ‘the possibility of unwanted babies conceived by foreigners who rape our women’. Inn-keepers refused to take bookings from foreigners at the time of sensitive matches. And nowhere was the fear greater than in Sapporo on the island of Hokkaido. It was the Hokkaido police who prepared for the arrival of football fans not only with new riot shields, but with special web guns firing entangling nets. Fears about a lack of detention cells led them to charter a passenger ferry that they planned to use as an improvised prison ship. Everything movable and throwable was removed from the streets of Sapporo. And on Friday night they mounted what seems to have been the largest football policing operation of all time (Lloyd-Parry, 2002: 3). Yet such fears failed to manifest themselves to the surprise of most journalists and commentators. With England about to successfully secure their way out of their qualifying group, The Times grudgingly reported: With the tournament already 12 days old, only 12 of the estimated 8,000 English fans in the country have been arrested and only one of those was for an act of violence. The others are all alleged thieves, fraudsters or ticket touts. The country’s police and sporting officials say that they are delighted by the impeccable behaviour of the visiting English, who, at least so far, have remained largely sober and well-mannered (Cobain & Whymant, 2002: 14). This total of 12 arrests was still correct over a week later. Clare Allbless, press attache to the British Embassy in Japan, was quoted in The Guardian (20 June 2002: 20, sports supplement) that this was ‘hardly different from an ordinary months’ and how they had received ‘letters and people calling in to praise the behaviour of English supporters’. According to the Daily Mirror (22 June 2002: 2) the final number for England fans arrested during the contest was 14, with only one for violent conduct. Accusations, Speculation and Explanations There were numerous articles speculating on the reasons for the absence of any of the expected trouble involving England fans. A writer for the Independent on Sunday offered the following reflections on ‘How Our Fans Went on a Rampage of Politeness and Conquered Japan’. He wrote: 24

Football Studies. vol. 6 no. 1 2003

Yesterday was the pivot on which the reputation of England football supporters in Japan turned – from amok berserkers intent only on destruction to the unexpected heroes of the 2002 World Cup. ‘There were so many reports in the newspapers about the English hooligans and what they were going to be like’, said a 64 year old man named Mitsuharu Sakaki. ‘The image we had was of violent attacks, and that kind of thing. And yet when they came here, they were quite gentlemanly’. All over the city, people were feeling the same way (Lloyd-Parry, 2002: 3). Asking, ‘Why have the visitors behaved so impeccably? And why did Japan get them so wrong?‘, the reporter suggested that part of the reason for the ‘atmosphere of apprehension’ had originated within the Japanese police. He cited Ron Hogg, Assistant Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary, who had been consulting for months with his Japanese counterparts. Mr Hogg explained, ‘There’s been disbelief in what we’ve been telling them. As it’s unfolded and seen to be true there’s been massive relief. They found it difficult to believe there was anything other than English hooligans’ (Independent on Sunday, 9 June 2002: 3). As another reporter observed observed: ‘What were the Japanese presented with when the England supporters stepped off the plane? Not a terrifying gang of shaven-headed Millwall fans, chanting ‘No one likes us -we don’t care’, but a lot of fair minded, humorous people in bowler hats and Richard the Lionheart costumes’ (Mount, 2002: 24). Other journalists sought for answers to explain how ‘the England team escaped the curse of hooliganism and sociopathic behaviour’, as Paul Hayward (2002: 1), Chief Sportswriter for the Daily Telegraph, put it. Previously, it has been rare for the media to offer any plausible, let alone deeper explanations or informed analysis on the actual causes of football-related disorder (Hall, 1978; Poulton, 2002) preferring instead to indulge themselves in vitriol, roundly condemning the behaviour without much thought for contributing factors behind it. The apparent source of the hooligans’ anti-social, problematic behaviour is commonly viewed by the press to be the hooligans themselves and their ‘natural’ mindlessness and savagery (Hall, 1978; Whannel, 1979). Blame the ‘lunatic’, ‘moronic’, ‘sub-human’ football hooligan and the deeper social roots and more enduring causal factors behind the phenomenon can be overlooked (Poulton, 2001, 2002). But at this World Cup, with the lack of trouble, writers appeared to at least try to give their take on the reasons for its absence. The Daily Telegraph’s Paul Hayward (2002: 1) suggested that: ‘Exclusion orders, the high cost of travel and accommodation and the civilising effect of Japanese hospitality all staunched the malevolence that turned Marseilles into a battle ground 4 years ago’. His counterpart in the Daily Mail, Jeff Powell (2002: 92), proposed: 25


The culture of change is being accelerated by the location of this World Cup. The time difference between Japan and England has shifted much of the focus back home from the boozer at night to the coffee shop in the morning. The long and costly journey to such an expensive venue has made this predominantly a migration of Middle England and the nouveau riche. Perhaps the very foreign land in which they find themselves has wrought no more than a temporary adjustment to English mob mentality. Maybe apprehension as to how severely they might be treated by so puritan a regime is restraining violent impulses just for the moment. While some of these factors may well be true, one other important consideration is that news values appear to be shifting. World Cup 2002 witnessed a sea change in the media’s agenda-setting, from one that is looking to castigate all English fans for the trouble caused by some of their number, to one that is willing to embrace the other side of the story. Instead of the customary stories about ‘drunken, violent, moronic yobs’ (Morgan, 2000: 6) terrorising town centres, there were reports on how England fans were ‘sightseeing and taking in the local culture’ (Chaudhary, 2000: 9). Instead of the zoom lenses desperately seeking out flare-ups, the photographers settled for snapping England fans carrying local children on their shoulders or doing the conga with Brazilian fans, even after defeat. Many other commentators offered further reflections on the tournament after England’s elimination as they tried to look to the future. Some of these were more positive about the reasons for England fans’ good behaviour, without some the scepticism that characterised the views of Hayward in the Daily Telegraph and Powell in the Daily Mail, presented above. Elsewhere in Hayward’s Daily Telegraph, Mark Palmer (2002: 2) mused: It may well be a coincidence that the England supporters have behaved themselves so well. Perhaps the travel bans and liaison with the Japanese police really did the trick. Perhaps the lack of ticket sales on the black market kept the trouble miles away. But that doesn’t quite explain why at every England match, the Japanese rallied behind our team and why the English rooted for Japan with equal vigour. It is as if the Japanese found something of themselves in the English and vice-versa. These sentiments were shared by the singer Billy Bragg (2002: 45) in the Observer’s Sport Monthly. He reflected:

26


The best thing about this World Cup has been the exemplary behaviour of England’s supporters. Images of Japanese fans, their faces painted with the St. George’s Cross, arm in arm with Englishmen dressed in Kimonos had a salutary effect back home, taking much of the belligerence out of the England flag and making it accessible to everyone. Bragg’s point about the national flag was echoed in a Daily Telegraph piece headlined: ‘English Rediscover Pride in the Flag of St. George’, with writer Colin Randall (2002: 3) arguing, ‘After years of association with football hooligans and the racist Far Right, the simple red cross of England’s patron saint has been recaptured by ordinary Englishmen and women’. Articles like this were almost as common as the flag itself. Flying the Flag for a New England? On the day of England’s match with Nigeria the front page of The Times (12 June 2002) was dominated by a photo of a giant St. George’s Cross painted across a pair of semi-detached houses in Brighton. The newspaper reported how, ‘The 30 million flags sold so far are an g-fold increase on the last World Cup and European Championships two years ago and the twelve flag companies that existed at the time of the 1966 World Cup have swelled to 551 businesses with an expected turnover of £l00 million this year’. The day of England’s second-round match with Denmark, The Guardian (15 June 2002) also featured a front page montage of photos, with the caption: ‘Discerning Drivers Flying the Flag with the Latest Must-Have Accessory’. Newspapers also provided flags within their pages for readers to display. The Sun (20 June 2002) on the eve of England’s quarter-final, for example, used its front and back pages as a pull-out poster of the Cross of St. George with the message ‘You Can Do It Lads!’ Such stunts were not confined to the tabloids. With a detectable hint of irony, the front page of The Guardian’s G2 supplement (20 June 2002) featured a full page ‘cut-out-and-keep new improved flag of St. George with no ugly connotations’. The newspaper’s Jonathan Glancey discussed the rehabilitation of the flag, noting: Every country has its crosses to bear and England’s is St. George’s. Never in the field of English history, or at least not since the Crusades or Agincourt, have so many red-crossed flags been waved by so many for so many. The revival of the English Cross of St. George might have something to do with devolution, the English taking a leaf from the book of patriotism as practised by an increasingly proud and defiant Celtic fringe. It might simply be a striking and memorable pattern or logo that, unlike the union flag, even an idiot can paint across their face. . . . This red-cross 27


flag of In-ger-land has, by happy accident, been saved from being tarred with a blunt nationalist brush this summer because, almost unimaginably, it has become an emblem that embraces fans of every class, creed and colour (Glancey, 2002: 2-3). Glancey’s conclusion raises another common theme found in the coverage of the tournament: the apparent development of a new, perhaps softer and more inclusive Englishness. He summed up by suggesting ‘that there might – might – just be a little chivalry behind the effing, blinding, beery bravado after all’. The editor of the Sunday Telegraph offered similar thoughts on English identity following England’s defeat of Argentina: George Orwell’s famous observation that serious sport is ‘war minus the shooting’ may be an exaggeration, but the passions which have been spawned by the England team’s triumph over the old enemy show that he was not far from the truth. Indeed, the last week has provided an extraordinarily colourful, vital snapshot of national identity in this country. From the moment that the crowds started gathering in the gardens of Buckingham Place for the Golden Jubilee Prom eight days ago, to the blowing of the final whistle at the Sapporo Dome, we have seen a nation not only at ease with itself, but pleasantly taken aback by its reserves of pride, creativity and self-respect (Lawson, 2002: 26). Martin Phillips (2002: 8) in The Sun went as far as contemplating the ‘Re-birth of England’ as he looked back on the tournament. Trying to cheer up disheartened readers, Phillips offered these consoling words: If it feels like the end of the world, that’s because it is – the end of the world as we knew it. We may have lost a football match yesterday, but this was the World Cup which saw us grow up as a nation. Where before there has been jingoism and contempt for all opposition, the new mature England only sent its heroes off with hope they would do their best. The Japanese saw a different England too. They had been warned to expect drunken hooligans – previously our best soccer export. Instead they saw England fans at their best – full of fun and a passion for football. Before we had been universally loathed and detested. Now we are marvelled from afar as the Japanese took us to their hearts and England became the most popular team among neutrals. The flags which have fluttered from homes, offices and cars should not be lowered to half mast or removed just because the adventure is over. They should be raised even higher – with pride. 28


It is widely recognised that sport is one of few arenas in contemporary society in which national identity can be displayed and asserted. Football, in particular, is a rich source of collective identification and an important site for affirmation and expression of identity, at both a local and national level (see for example, Duke & Crolley, 1996; Crolley & Hand 2002; Maguire & Poulton, 1999; Sugden & Tomlinson, 1994). Media-sport texts are instrumental in the construction and representation of national identity. They help to make the nation more real through rhetoric and images about ‘us’, with an emphasis on unity and cohesion, so playing a ‘key mythologising role in the symbolic process of nation-making through sport’ (Rowe, McKay & Miller, 1998: 120). A central part of the process of constructing one’s own national identity is to do so in contrast to the representation of the opposition. The portrayal of opposing nations, their teams, players, supporters, homelands and cultures, is central to the championing of our own national team and, by implication, England and Englishness. The emphasis is put on ‘them’ being different, and perhaps in some way inferior, to ‘us’. This sense of ‘them’ against ‘us’ is commonly achieved through the use of personal pronouns and the perpetuation of stereotypes that are usually complimentary about ‘us’, but disparaging about ‘them’, reinforcing myths of national character (Crolley & Hand, 2002; Maguire & Poulton, 1999). Sometimes these literary devices, coupled with the deployment of militaristic images and war terminology, can, however, invoke overtly negative images of opponents that are xenophobic, racist and offensive (Crolley & Hand, 2002; Poulton, 1999) as illustrated below. New England, Old Enemies? While some lessons appear to have been learnt from Euro 96, when the tabloid press received widespread criticism for their coverage of the tournament (Garland & Rowe, 1999; Maguire & Poulton, 1999; Poulton, 1999), such discourse was in evidence on occasions during the 2002 World Cup. This was most notable when England played Argentina, dubbed by The Sun (7 June 2002) among others, the ‘old foe’. This kind of coverage has an impact externally as well as internally. The Sunday Telegraph’s Julian Coman (2002: 5) reported how there was ‘anti-English feeling on the streets of Buenos Aires’ after England’s victory, but that this was ‘mainly reserved for the British tabloid newspapers, which were accused of tastelessly alluding to the Falkland’s War’. The article told how the Argentine newspaper Olé had reproduced the front page of the Daily Star (8 June 2002), which used the notorious Sun headline ‘Gotcha’ beneath a triumphant David Beckham, as well as The Sun’s (8 June 2002) headline ‘Up Yours Señors!’ The Olé article had complained: ‘It was sad to see the English press bring up the Malvinas conflict of 1982 and compare Friday’s match to the sinking of the General Belgrano’ (Sunday Telegraph, 9 June 2002: 5). 29


Reflecting on the anti-Argentine sentiments in the English press, Argentine journalist, Marcela Morayaraujo (2002: 23) noted: Argentina has spent much of the week at the receiving end of the worst kind of xenophobic abuse the English media are capable of. This has ranged from the better known Sunday tabloids who have set the standard for this kind of journalism right down to BBC 2’s midweek drama slot. The Falkland’s Play, so staunchly proThatcher that it was originally pulled, was found a slot on the airwaves two days before England and Argentina were to meet for this much-hyped football encounter. Argentinean players who had gone out of their way to say, ‘This has nothing to do with the Falklands were consistently misquoted as saying, ‘This is all about the Falklands’. The words ‘cheat’ and ‘dirty’ crept up over and over again. Argentines living in London have been telephoning each other at the sight of a new headline saying: ‘They’re really having a go at us’. The game was framed as ‘Payback Time’ (The Sun, 7 June 2002: l), with tabloids and broadsheets alike mixing the 1966, 1986 and 1998 World Cup games with the 1982 Falkland’s War. Sometimes the quest for vengeance was clearly for controversial incidents during previous footballing encounters. For example, The Sun (7 June 2002: 1) crowed: ‘Diego Maradona cheated us with his “Hand of God” goal in 1986 and Diego Simeone’s dive got Becks sent off in ‘98’. Indeed, the labelling of Argentine players as ‘cheats’ or ‘dirty’ was particularly prevalent, as Morayaraujo highlighted (see above). On the day of what the Daily Mirror (7 June 2002: 4-5) dubbed ‘Showdown at High Noon’, the newspaper asked, ‘How Foul Can They Get?‘, providing readers with a ‘Filthy Form Guide’ and an ‘Argy-Bargy Sweepstake’, claiming, ‘It’s a question of when rather than if an Argentinian player commits the first foul’. When Argentina was later knocked-out, The Sun (13 June 2002: 7), inspired by the musical Evita, jeered: ‘Don’t Cry for Them Argentinians! The truth is they are cocky cheats, especially Batistuta’. There were, however, also implicit references to the Falklands in evidence, The Sun (13 June 2002: 7) carried an article describing how ‘How Our Boys go Wild as Old Foe Crashes Out’, featuring interviews with British Marines posted in Afghanistan. Among those quoted was a Commando, who said, ‘It’s great given the history between us. It’s especially good in the week of the twentieth anniversary of the end of the Falklands War’. This theme was not confined to the tabloids. For example, a cartoon in the broadsheet Independent on Sunday (9 June 2002: 2, sports supplement) depicted penguins on the Falklands celebrating as they watched England’s defeat of Argentina. 30


Complaints of English xenophobia did not only come from Argentina. A letter to the Independent articulated the feelings of a German woman living in Britain about ‘England supporters’ hostility to their opponents’: When someone in England last week told me with a nasty side look: ‘I hope the Germans are going to be kicked out as soon as possible!’ I said, ‘Yes, so do I’, because I don’t want to suffer the verbal abuse (again) if it happens that England has to play Germany at some stage. Now, seeing England lose, I have to say I am trunly sorry and disappointed for the team itself and for those fans who are sportsmen enough to see it ‘just’ as a football match and not as a war that ended almost 60 years ago (Sebera, 2002: 19). Ironically, on the same day that her letter was published, anti-German sentiments were prevalent in the press with numerous jibes at the expense of Germany, some light-hearted, others perhaps more noxious. The Daily Telegraph (22 June 2002: 4), in rather tabloidesque style, tried to provide solace for readers following England’s exit by providing them with ‘15 Reasons for Us to be Cheerful’, including: ‘At least we didn’t go out to Germany’ and ‘We did beat Argentina!’, however, this seemed to be of little comfort to the Daily Mirror (22 June 2002: 11), which moaned: ‘How can the team we beat 5-1 be in the semi-finals?’ and then answered its own question: ‘Because the Germans are bloody lucky and they cheat, that’s why!’ The lament in The Sun (22 June 2002: 72) was more sardonic, signing off its backpage the day after Brazil’s victory over England with the message: ‘It’s Over. We’re out and the Germans are through to the semi-finals. Have a good weekend’. The ‘inclusivist, softer, new England’, it seems, only extends so far. Re-valuing News Values? Although newspaper editors have been much more cautious since the watershed of Euro 96, sometimes the reporting of particular ‘grudge matches’ still appears to be misjudged. The press has often been guilty in the past of flagrant xenophobia and jingoism in their gung-ho, nationalistic rhetoric prior to games (Crolley & Hand, 2002; Garland & Rowe, 1999; Maguire & Poulton, 1999; Poulton, 1999) and this still sometimes surfaces. Similarly, the lampooning of the customs, traits and symbols of opposing nations can on occasion also go well beyond what might be tolerated as acceptable sporting banter. Instead it can be read as insensitive and offensive. While the English media’s news values appear to be shifting, they have not yet fully replaced the traditional criteria employed by many journalists when selecting newsworthy stories. Future coverage should aim to play down ideas about avenging the opposition and settling scores from on, and especially off, the pitch. 31


Some of this was achieved during World Cup 2002, with the media generally being much more realistic about England’s chances, rather than hyping up excessively high levels of expectation. Consequently, the press were more tempered in their reporting, at least before the tournament and during England’s group stage games. But a greater consistency of more considered, more measured, and, at times, more sensitive reporting, would be preferable. This involves the respectful treatment both of opposing nations, their players, and their fans, as well, of course, English fans. The most significant shift in reporting of this World Cup was the widespread and positive profile of ordinary England supporters. The fact that they were not all ‘hooligans’ seemed to surprise many correspondents, but at least gave a more accurate insight into English fan culture. Newspapers embraced storylines about these supporters, which in truth have been there before at Euro 2000, France 98 and long before that too; they have just not been recognised by the journalists and photographers given the preference to focus on trouble. As a result, the media provided a much more comprehensive range of representations of what it means to be an England fan during their coverage of World Cup 2002. The Daily Mirror editor suggested that ‘our supporters showed that the violent mindless thugs who abuse international soccer are not the true face of English fans’ (Morgan, 2002: 10). Maybe, then, the 2002 World Cup has seen the non-violent majority, supported this time, rather than implicated, by the media, begin to reverse their image that has been tarnished for so many years by the hooligan elements of the national team’s support base. Conclusion – A Far Eastern Honeymoon? As the press lamented England’s exit from World Cup 2002, the assessment of the fans seemed to remained positive. David Aaronovitch (2002: 4) of The Independent commented: ‘For once, English participation in a major football tournament has not been a matter of fear, disappointment and recrimination, but of fun, hope and realism’. The Sun (22 June 2002: 16, sports supplement) was even more upbeat as its by-line cheered, ‘Goodbye Japan, Roll on Portugal!’ Yet despite this optimism, there is still a school of thought that believes England fans, and therefore the image of England and the English national identity, have done no more than enjoy a Far Eastern honeymoon. Some think that these days of a trouble-free football competition will be short-lived. Miranda Sawyer (2002: 37), for example, discussing the ‘absence of hooliganism’ this time around, commented, ‘This, of course, may well change in 2006, when Germany will be World Cup hosts: the proximity and the history mean that thugs from all over Europe will do their utmost to get there for some trouble’. These remarks are amongst the first of what is likely to be a series of alarmist forecasts about the return of hooliganism at Euro 2004 and the 2006 World Cup. Such provocative and scare-mongering coverage of football-related disorder can escalate the issue, and the expectant atmosphere, before a ball has 32


been kicked, let alone something actually ‘kicks off, as it may, or may not, do at forthcoming tournaments. If disorder does occur, the media’s predictions are then ‘proven’ to be true and consequently become self-fulfilling prophesies, with incidents often reported in a ‘told-you-so’ tone (Poulton, 2001; 2002). The media clearly has a responsibility to inform the public about newsworthy events when they occur. As such, football-related disorder is likely to be featured should it break out. Once again, however, there is the nagging issue of a need for a balanced approach to the media’s treatment of football supporters, rather than framing them all as ‘hooligans’. This is not to disregard or cosmetically disguise the indisputable fact that a hooligan element follows England, especially away, and that there are outbreaks of football-related disorder. But until the 2002 World Cup, readerships and audiences have been exposed to a rather jaundiced picture of England fans through the media lens. Consequently, that one-sided perception has consequently been used in the past to form judgements of all English football fans, both at home and also abroad. This is evidently due to prevailing new values that reflect the media’s specific agenda to inform, but also entertain (Whannel, 1992). Indeed the media plays a vital role in providing this information and entertainment service. As such, selective editorial processes constantly seek out the dramatic story. This ensures that the spectacle of trouble will always dominate. It makes for much better copy to concentrate on a drunken exchange between rival fans, than a group of sightseers taking in the local scenery and cuisine. Given these prevailing news values, the media typically excite the issue of ‘football hooliganism’ by fanning public and political indignation through graphic headlines, exaggerated reports and vivid images implicating all football supporters (Armstrong, 1998; 1999; Poulton, 2001; 2002). While the public has a right to be informed about incidents of disorder, this needs to be done in a considered and reflective manner, which does not amplify the situation or ignore the good behaviour of the vast majority. Otherwise a media-generated frenzy can develop whereby the impact of a relatively minor incident is framed in such a way to appear much more than it actually was. The coverage of the ‘riots’ in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000 is an example of this (see Poulton, 2001; 2002; Weed, 2001). A degree of reflexivity and circumspection would therefore be useful in future representations of England fans. The hooligan element should not be allowed to dominate the media coverage of England supporters in the way they frequently have in the past, so over-shadowing the non-violent majority. Great progress has been made during the 2002 World Cup, with the championing of the ordinary fans, many patriotic standard-bearers who follow England, at great expense, across the globe, without any inclination towards belligerence, bigotry or bloodshed. This must continue. As and when football-related disorder occurs again involving English fans, there should not be a regression back to the onedimensional portrayal of all supporters cast as villains. The causes and extent of 33


the disorder should be considered and placed in their proper context, as should the number of those involved vis-a-vis those not involved. All sections of England’s support demand attention, not just the hooligan element who are in the minority, yet whose ‘tales of terror’ are usually allowed to dominate the front pages and opening television news items by editors and producers. The next few years will reveal whether the 2002 World Cup will mark a further watershed in both the media coverage of football and the behaviour of English fans. England’s Euro 2004 qualifiers include games against Turkey, considered by many to be one of England’s new ‘foes’ due to recent club-level hostilities. In 2006, England’s ‘old enemy’, Germany, hosts the next World Cup. The real test then lies ahead, for the media and supporters alike, in terms of truly negating the enduring mediated stereotype of the ‘Neanderthal fan’.

REFERENCES

Aaronovitch, D. (2002, 22 June). Stoics to the end: a nation looks for the small comforts. Independent, p. 4. Adams, R. (1978). Soccer hooliganism and the mass media: fictions and reality. Youth and Society, 30, 13-16. Armstrong, G. (1998). Football hooligans: knowing the score. Oxford: Berg. Armstrong, G. (1999). Kicking off with the wannabe warriors. In M. Perryman (Ed.), The Ingerland factor: home truths from football (pp. 45-58). Edinburgh: Mainstream. Armstrong, G. & Giulianotti, R. (2001). Fear and loathing in world football. Oxford: Berg. Armstrong, J. (2002, 7 June). Ex-yob is arrested. Daily Mirror, pp. 2-3. Bragg, B. (2002, July, No. 28). My favourite world cup moment. Observer Sport Monthly, p. 45. Chaudhary, V. (2000, 7 June). 7,000 officers prepare to police sell-out game. The Guardian, p. 9. Chaudhary, V. & Arlidge, J. (2000, 18 June). ‘It was multi-national mayhem on the streets’ – police chief. The Observer, p. 3. Chittenden, M. (2002, 9 June). What a week! Sunday Times, p. 92. Crolley, L. & Hand, D. (2002). Football, Europe and the press. London: Frank Cass. Cobain, I. & Whymant, R. (2002, 12 June). Japan fears rise of domestic hooligans as Britons behave. Times, p. 14. Coman, J. (2002, 9 June). Proud fans rush to join England’s rollercoaster ride. Sunday Telegraph, p. 5. Dennis, M. (2002, 13 June). Sayonara to the Neanderthal fan. Daily Mirror, p. 59. Duke, V. & Crolley, L. (1996). Football, nationality and the state. New York Longman Publishing Company Ltd. 34


Dunning, E. (1999). Sport matters: sociological studies of sport, violence and civilization. London: Routledge. Garland, J. & Rowe, M. (1999). War minus the shooting? Jingoism, the English press and Euro 96. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23(1), 80-95. Glancey, J. (2002, 20 June). New improved flag of St. George: no ugly connotations. Guardian, pp. 2-3. Hall, S. (1978). The treatment of football hooliganism in the press. In R. Ingham (Ed.), Football hooliganism: the wider context (pp. 15-36). London: Inter-Action Imprint. Harker, J. (2002, 20 June). Why I’ll be supporting Brazil. Guardian, p. 18. Hayward, P. (2002, 22 June). Seaman says sorry to England. Daily Telegraph, p. 1. Lawson, D. (2002, 9 June). The nation has spoken. Sunday Telegraph, p. 26. Letts, Q. (2000, 18 June). Why do we breed the worst thugs in Europe? Sunday Mirror, p. 6. Lloyd-Parry, R. (2002, 19 June). How our fans went on a rampage of politeness and conquered Japan. Independent on Sunday, p. 3. Maguire, J. & Poulton, E. (1999). European identity politics in Euro 96: Invented traditions and national habitus codes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34 (1), 17-29. Miles, K. (2000). An English fan abroad: Euro 2000 and beyond. Edinburgh: Rebel Inc. Morayaraujo, M. (2002, 9 June). Your Owen is one of us. Sunday Telegraph, p. 23. Morgan, P. (2000, 20 June). Mere words won’t stop the violence. Daily Mirror, p. 6. Morgan, P. (2002, 22 June). Look ahead now to the glory days. Daily Mirror, p. 10. Mount, H, (2002, 21 June). Win or lose, we have still got plenty to feel proud about. Daily Telegraph, p. 24. Murphy, P., Dunning, E. & Williams, J. (1988). Soccer crowd disorder and the press: Processes of amplification and de-amplification in historical perspective. Theory, Culture and Society, 5, 645-93. Palmer, M. (2002, 22 June). Goodwill helps take away the pain of defeat. Daily Telegraph, p. 2. Phillips, M. (2002, 22 June). Has this World Cup seen the re-birth of England? The Sun, p. 8. Poulton, E. (1999). Fighting talk from the press corps. In M. Perryman (Ed.), The Ingerland factor: home truths from football (pp. 119-35). Edinburgh: Mainstream. Poulton, E. (2001). Tears, tantrums and tattoos: framing the hooligans. In M. Perryman (Ed.), Hooligan wars: causes and effects of football violence (pp. 122-38). Edinburgh: Mainstream. 35


Poulton, E. (2002) ‘On the Press Pack Stereotype Hunt’. In M. Perryman (Ed.), Going oriental: football after World Cup 2002 (pp. 102-23). Edinburgh: Mainstream. Powell, J. (2002, 21 June). Riot of colour from these fans who have made me pinch myself in disbelief. Daily Mail, p. 92. Randall, C. (2002, 21 June). English rediscover pride in the flag of St. George. Daily Telegraph, p. 3. Randall, D. (2002, 9 June). There’s only one Manchester constabulary. Independent on Sunday, p. 3. Rowe, D., McKay, J. & Miller, T. (1998). Come together: sport, nationalism, and the media image. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media sport (pp. 119-33). London: Routledge. Sawyer, M. (2002, July, No. 28). The men play, but its been the women’s World Cup. Observer Sport Monthly, p. 37. Sebera, A. (2002, 22 June). Letter to the editor. Independent, p. 19. Sugden, J. & Tomlinson, A. (Eds) (1994). Hosts and champions: soccer cultures, national identities and the USA World Cup. Aldershot: Arena. Waters, M. (1998, 16 June). Where Anglais is a byword for hooliganism. Daily Mirror, p. 40. Weed, M. (2001). Ing-ger-land at Euro 2000: how ‘handbags at 20 paces’ was portrayed as a full-scale riot. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(4), 407-24. Whannel, G. (1992). Fields in vision: television sport and cultural transformation. London: Routledge. Whannel, G. (1979). Football crowd behaviour and the press. Media, Culture and Society, 1(2), 327-42.

36