Proper Fans

What is a ‘proper’ football fan? There’s no true definition, and the meaning that I attribute to the expression has changed over the years.

At one time I would have said that to be a proper fan, someone had to go to as many games as possible. Few reasons could legitimately excuse the devoted fan from missing a home game – births, deaths, and marriages might be acceptable reasons, but few others – and they should see as many away games as humanly possible.

The Anfield Kop, some time in the 1960s

It isn’t necessary to buy memorabilia and match programmes to be a proper fan (in fact, sometimes it’s the fan of the more fair-weather variety that indulges in mass buying of replica kits and the like), but the real supporter should emotionally invest themselves completely in their team. Not for them the shrug of the shoulders after a defeat. Losses must be accompanied by an all-encompassing depression; victories must be celebrated euphorically.

The days when such people were in the majority on the terraces at football grounds up and down the country are gone. They exist in smaller numbers – especially outside the top levels of the game – but for most, their relationship with the game has changed.

How today's football fans are seen, especially by advertisers 

Before 1992, when the Premier League came into being and Sky changed the face of football broadcasting forever, most football supporters would see their team play only rarely if they relied on watching them on TV, hence the belief I held then that a proper fan was one who went to the majority of their team’s matches.

Clive Allen (left), and Richard Keys, debuting on Sky's Premier League coverage in 1992

When BBC’s Match of The Day and ITV’s regional football shows broadcast highlights of just a few games each week, even fans of clubs like Arsenal, Manchester United, and Liverpool might see their teams briefly a couple of times a month. Live football broadcasts were confined to the FA Cup Final and an international or two; it was difficult to be an armchair supporter.

At the same time, going to games rarely involved getting a ticket in advance. By and large, it was turn up on a Saturday afternoon, pay cash at the turnstile, and watch the game.

And games universally kicked off at the same time, on the same day, each week: 3pm on Saturdays, 7.30pm in midweek. While it’s true that fans were not really nurtured by clubs, they weren’t disrespected either. With little income other than match day revenue – no big broadcasting deals pre-Sky, no shirt sponsorship before the mid-1970s – clubs really needed the fans through the gates in numbers.

Coronavirus restrictions requiring games to be played behind closed doors has demonstrated that from the perspective of the atmosphere at games, fans are much missed; but financially, do clubs need them?

Liverpool in action behind closed doors at Anfield

A BBC study showed that during the 2016-17 season, half of the clubs in the Premier League would have turned a profit without any fans at their games. In 2017-18, Manchester City's revenue grew to £500.5 million. Of that, £56.7 million was generated by matchday income, £232.3 million was commercial income, and £211.5 million came from broadcasters.

So, are supporters in stadiums becoming less important? Manchester City have recently announced that 1,100 seats are being removed at The Etihad to make way for more advertising boards, a decision that speaks volumes on that score.

The degree to which Premier League clubs value their supporters may be gauged by their reaction to fans being allowed back into stadiums as the season draws to a close. Burnley were not charging fans for their game against Liverpool, but at the other end of the spectrum, Spurs fans had to stump up £60 to watch their team play Aston Villa.

Fans in grounds have seemingly become less and less important since 1992. Match days and kick-off times changed to accommodate TV viewers rather than fans who actually go to games. There have been plenty of complaints over the years from travelling fans who either have to leave home in the middle of the night for a lunchtime kick-off, or find that getting home is nigh on impossible after a long-distance evening game. Now that the Premier League has the taste for even more eccentric scheduling to accommodate TV coverage of behind closed doors games, will we ever see a return to the more orthodox football calendar? I wouldn’t bet on it.

When a European Super League was proposed in April, Uefa must have been delighted on two fronts. Firstly, it detracted from their almost simultaneous announcement of changes to the Champions League format, changes which many were opposed to, but which got lost in the furore about the Super League. Secondly, it allowed Uefa – along with the broadcasters - to occupy the moral high ground over the rights of fans, ground they have subsequently lost with a couple of asinine moves.

With Istanbul ruled out as the venue of the Champions League final because of coronavirus for the second season running, the logical venue for a match between two English clubs – Chelsea and Manchester City – would have been a ground in England. But, no, the game has been moved to Portugal, and although coronavirus limits the attendance to 20,000 (just under 50% of the stadium’s capacity), up to 12,000 fans of the finalists will travel from England to Portugal. Surely this is unwise under the circumstances, even if Portugal is currently a ‘green list’ country.

On top of that, Uefa have reduced the capacity at many stadiums hosting games in Euro2020, thus limiting the ability of real fans - who are losing their seats in ballots -  to attend those games, while continuing to sell hideously expensive hospitality packages to their corporate customers.

In England, the broadcasters’ solidarity with fans evaporated even more quickly, with the announcement that teams that play in Champions League matches scheduled for Wednesday evenings will have their weekend Premier League matches moved to 7.45pm on Saturday nights.

The ill-fated Super League announcement introduced a new expression - legacy fans. These are traditional supporters, the locals who turn up week in, week out, through thick and thin, putting their hard-earned cash into buying tickets and merchandise, and their heart and soul into supporting their teams. These fans are not now regarded by some clubs behind the Super League concept as their core fanbase.

The fans that these clubs are more interested in don’t go to the games – they are not necessarily located in the same country as the team they support – but they support the club by consuming the product through electronic devices and that doesn’t even necessarily mean watching full-length games, but highlights, clips, and other material on their phones and tablets.

No wonder that Real Madrid president Florentino Perez has insisted that football has to "change and adapt" claiming that that 40 per cent of young people between the ages of 16 to 24 are not interested in football, and that one reason is that 90-minute matches are "too long."

Real Madrid president Florentino Perez

Although the European Super League idea is now off the table, the reprieve is only temporary. The term ‘legacy fan’ is unflattering and insulting, and the disdain shown for the fans who have been the lifeblood and backbone of football clubs for decades is appalling. But, sooner or later the traditional football supporter will find themselves confronted with even more inconvenient kick-off times, for games in even more inconvenient locations – that 39^th game idea the Premier League had a few years back will inevitably resurface one day – with tickets more expensive and harder to come by.

The idea that “Football without the fans is nothing” rings pretty hollow these days.