Football? Why?

THE STENHOUSEMUIR POSITION

"Wot team d'ya support?"

How many times was I asked that question during my childhood? And beyond. Small boys (hardly ever girls) and a certain type of adult seemed to regard this as the most important fact to ascertain on meeting anyone new. Not even the religious were so keen to determine if you share their views.

This being Scotland in the sixties and seventies the 'team' in question would be playing football - the one with the round ball. The interrogator had no doubt in his mind that you would understand this implicitly, for what other kind of teams existed? I don't doubt the experience was similar across Britain (except, perhaps, in South Wales?) and that it continues today. There is no sign that the arrogance of the association football supporter has diminished.

People whose main sporting interests lie with the other forms of games which tend to get excessive media coverage - cricket, rugby and horse racing - do not, as far as I'm aware, automatically assume that a stranger is bound to share their passion. Other sports might hardly exist at all for most of the year, with exceptions being made for Wimbledon, the Open Golf and the Olympic or Commonwealth Games. Despite which a myriad of competitive activities, professional and amateur, take place every week, largely unremarked upon. Sports which are major events in other countries receive negligible coverage here, even though the domestic incarnations may regularly produce far better live entertainment that dreary football matches. Even a multi-billion pound global business like motor racing merits few column inches unless there is a chance that a British driver might become world champion. How many people are aware that one of the most successful British sportsmen of the last decade is a three-time winner of the biggest single-day spectator event in the world, and has won the US championship four times?

Is there any other field of life in which this kind of attitude occurs? Those who purport to be our ruling class may still automatically check which school another went to, but if this still occurs it is restricted to a minor section of society. There are probably some similar assumptions made within professions, but that would not seem unreasonable. Only in connection with football do you seem to find some people who think that everyone else must share their passion. Why?

This attitude even permeates into the wider news arena. A year or so ago I heard on the radio that Gary Speed, 'Manager of Wales', had died. Very sad for his family and friends no doubt, but who exactly was he? His name meant nothing to me. 'Manager of Wales'? What - the whole country? If he was manager of a national sports team then surely the most obvious assumption, given the culture of the country, would be rugby union? But no, it was soccer, but no clue to this was given in the announcement. Even the BBC thinks I should know this. Why?

To return to my opening question - that childish grilling technique to establish if you held the same beliefs as your inquisitor or those of the heretic - I always replied that I wasn't interested in football. It just didn't do anything for me so I had no 'team'. In most cases this was regarded as 'not good enough', an inadequate response which only demonstrated that I hadn't fully understood what was being asked of me. It was, apparently, my fault for not taking an interest, for not following the one true faith.

Tired of this reaction I decided to modify my response. I stuck a pin the in the middle of the Scottish Second Division table to find a name. I can't remember which one I hit, but it wasn't memorable. However the name immediately adjacent struck a chord, the sonorous multi-syllabic appealing to my lexophile nature. From then on I would answer 'that' question with a single word - Stenhousemuir. This proved to be the perfect tactic. I had responded to question in exactly the manner prescribed by the rules, but with a choice that mystified and confused. There was rarely a follow-up.

I find most football dull as a spectacle and banal as a subject. The idea of devotion to a single team, however it evolves over time, has never appealed to me. Spectator sport should be about entertainment, not faith. Perhaps I lack the necessary tribal gene or whatever it is that makes people behave that way.

My attitude can be demonstrated best by a story I told as part of the eulogy at my father's funeral. When I was in my teens he and I often went to watch seven a side rugby tournaments, the best of these being in the Borders towns of Hawick, Galashiels, Selkirk etc. There would be sixteen teams, usually including four or five from Edinburgh, and we would generally shout for them when they played. There would also be a guest side, usually from England, who most of the crowd would automatically side against! (I should also mention that the only prejudice I was openly exposed to at home was against 'The English'....)

At one of these the final was between the home side, Gala, and the guest team, Orrell from England (at that time I hadn't the faintest idea where Orrell was, but it was English and that was all I needed to know). Orrell's main weapon was a blisteringly fast winger called Barry Fishwick. Early in the match the Gala captain put in a thumping late tackle on the English fast man, obviously hoping to do enough damage to slow him down for the rest of the game. Which was enough to make us switch our allegiance and we cheered loudly as Fishwick recovered swiftly and ran in a couple of tries to seal the result.

Now that's what sport should be about.