Football fandom

Ship of Theseus innit.

Giraffoto wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

Football fans support the institution that is the club with the stadium being like a temple. You could change every single person on the books and they would return to the same stadium to watch the next game. Whilst individuals within a club are no doubt seen as important and respected based roughly on their past achievements it is the institution not the individuals that they follow.

So what defines the institution, given that plenty of the teams move stadium from time to time? And on a philosophical level, how would it be different if I claimed only to like films that were made by Vivid?

FTFY

fast as fupp wrote:

Giraffoto wrote:

It said on the news that David Moyes had managed Everton for about ten years. If someone claimed in 2005 to be an Everton fan, and they still were last year, then they'd mainly have been a fan of Mr. Moyes - there can't be much else that stays the same in a football team for that long. So what is it that a lifelong football supporter supports? Is it just some tribal sense of belonging, like being a goth or a mod?

if you have to ask that question, youll never understand.

Exactly, faf.

Ai_1 wrote:

But hey, I'm just weird that way!

Agreed

I think it's fascinating that the club culture is so deeply ingrained that despite it being primarily a business empire, fans accept sub-standard competition for the sake of allegiance to their 'club'.

The US franchise model ensures high levels of competition until much later in the season. Can't remember exact figures but in the NFL this year, something like 60% of the teams could still possibly win the Superbowl with only 3 weeks of the regular season remaining.
As a competitive spectacle, it's far superior to the traditional club system.

I would rather that people express their tribal rivalries by supporting sports teams than in armed warfare. Many people feel they have to be identified as part of a tribe rather than purely on their own merit.
I am not a fanatic and have not been to association, union or league game in more years than I care to mention but will occasionally check the sports pages to see how 'my' team did. My choices of team are based on where I grew up.

The brain is hard wired for tribalism as an evolutionary advantage. According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, primate brain size is determined by social group size.

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Ship of Theseus innit.

I love that and Im going to pretend I came up with it.

the playing mantis wrote:

....i think anyone who has no historical support of a club or no talent for the game (you can be good at it but not interested in it just) is deeply suspicious. picked last at school, bullied by the pe teacher, etc.

unless of course you play or like gods own game.

It's suspicious when someone doesn't follow the herd? What are your suspicions? That they have a bit of independence and are self confident enough to say "not for me thanks"? You may be right but I think these are positive traits.
However, I don't get how you can be deeply suspicious of someone who has no talent for football. What does this mean? Poor athleticism and coordination with respect to a specific sport makes you suspicious of what exactly? That they are not born athletes? This makes no sense!
Do you typically discriminate against everyone who's not athletic and sporty?

I was always fairly athletic as a kid and was well able to play. It was a bit of fun but I never loved it. While it can be enjoyable to play, I've always thought it was an appallingly poor spectator sport. True it might be slightly more interesting if I knew more about it but why would I waste the time. People's interest in soccer is primarily fuelled by the tribalism just as interest in horse racing is primarily fuelled by the gambling. Neither is primarily about the sporting activity itself IMO.

southdownswolf wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

my choice of team is QPR because that was the only one i could recognise on the final scores before i learned to read...

Didn't fancy WBA?

Does anyone?
COYW

The closest team to me when I grew up was WBA, luckily for me I was not inbred, so my Dad took me to the Golden Palace and I became a Wolves supporter.

How does it feel to win a Division 3 Championship?

Ai_1 wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

....i think anyone who has no historical support of a club or no talent for the game (you can be good at it but not interested in it just) is deeply suspicious. picked last at school, bullied by the pe teacher, etc.

unless of course you play or like gods own game.

It's suspicious when someone doesn't follow the herd? What are your suspicions? That they have a bit of independence and are self confident enough to say "not for me thanks"? You may be right but I think these are positive traits.
However, I don't get how you can be deeply suspicious of someone who has no talent for football. What does this mean? Poor athleticism and coordination with respect to a specific sport makes you suspicious of what exactly? That they are not born athletes? This makes no sense!
Do you typically discriminate against everyone who's not athletic and sporty?

I was always fairly athletic as a kid and was well able to play. It was a bit of fun but I never loved it. While it can be enjoyable to play, I've always thought it was an appallingly poor spectator sport. True it might be slightly more interesting if I knew more about it but why would I waste the time. People's interest in soccer is primarily fuelled by the tribalism just as interest in horse racing is primarily fuelled by the gambling. Neither is primarily about the sporting activity itself IMO.

yep im prejudiced against most things/people. men who dont like or at leats pretend to like and have a knowledge of, or play proper sports football/cricket/maybe even egg chasing if your a bit posh, then theres something not quie right.

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

my choice of team is QPR because that was the only one i could recognise on the final scores before i learned to read...

Didn't fancy WBA?

Does anyone?
COYW

The closest team to me when I grew up was WBA, luckily for me I was not inbred, so my Dad took me to the Golden Palace and I became a Wolves supporter.

How does it feel to win a Division 3 Championship?

I think a lot of Wolves fans will agree, it beats any of the years we have had in the Premiership.
Going to some of the away matches and actually chatting to "home" fans in the bar at the ground, without the police/stewards treating you like cattle has been fantastic.

bobbydazzla wrote:

You should have an irrefutable reason for supporting a team, based primarily on ties to the local area. For instance you grew up in the area, or you support the team of your father and he grew up in the area of his team.

There is no justification for anyone to become a supporter of a team based purely on their track record of success in recent years e.g. first generation Manchester United fans in Herts.

Doing so shows a lack of character and ethics. The type of person who chooses this path in life is also someone who'd take pride in securing a Strava KOM by utilising DigitalEPO.

So you reckon hokum is acceptable but poppycock is poor form