qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty

uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
Christopher Cashen – 55455863
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
Managing and Marketing Sports
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
MG 557

opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
23 April 2010

wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
A look at the establishment of FC United of Manchester with regards to differing patterns to that of
Manchester United through the concepts of cultural capital and established outsider-relations including
the process of stigmatisation.

In June 2005 FC United of Manchester (FCUM) was established as a consequence of the disputed
takeover of Manchester United (MUFC) by Malcolm Glazer. 300 volunteers have set up a “community
programme”, run as a cooperative where each member of FCUM (2,300 members) has a say and have a
vote into how the club is run. Any revenue generated by the club through replica shirts and merchandise is
put back into the club. FCUM believes that it is part of a wider movement to claim back the game for the
community. However there is a certain level of enmity that exists between supporters of the breakaway
FCUM and supporters of MUFC who once stood under the same red banner. Interpretations and
observations of two theoretical perspectives (Cultural capital & Established-outsider relations) are made
through three fanzines “United We Stand”, “Red Issue” and “Red News” over a three year period (2007-
2010), accompanied by online sources such as web forums, blogs and YouTube videos supported by a
recent Ken Loach film “Looking for Eric” which was released in 2009.

Bourdieu (1986) brought forward the notion of cultural capital existing in three forms; The
embodied form (where it cannot be separated from the bearer, and investment of time to the learning and
training of such a ‘competence’ is a prerequisite), the objectified form (where consumption of the
competence brings a form of cultural capital, given the time devoted to understand the consumption) and
the institutionalised form of cultural capital (the issuing of credentials, which embody an objective value of
cultural capital). The Manchester United fans possess a form of “embodied” & “objectified” cultural
capital. This is as a consequence of the history of Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) which is traced
to the 19th century and FC United of Manchester (FCUM) was established in June 2005. Therefore there has
been more opportunity for MUFC fans to invest increased time. “The one thing people are ignoring is you
can’t just transfer your support to a ‘brand new’ club. All these FC f***wits need to realise that all of us
United fans have lived through the clubs thick and thins and we’re still here. We know everything about
what it means to be Manchester United, we embody it. They will never be able to equal that,” (Hush, A.
2008). This can also be seen, through more intelligible language through Ganley (2008) when reminiscing
on the takeover of the club in 2005, and the “levels of pessimism and regret that defined being a serious
Manchester United fan.” These quotes present an essence of embodied and objectified cultural capital.
Withstanding that there is no clear definition of what it is to be a MUFC fan except for persevering with the
club. Yet Hush (2008) and Ganley (2008) are alluding to an investment of time (objectified cultural capital)
and a learning process that it is to be a MUFC fan, through hardship, that cannot be equalled.

Detecting forms of cultural capital among FCUM fans is a more complex process. That considered,
FCUM supporters hold the belief that they have a form of credibility or credential given they were
“prepared to give up the glamour of the Premiership for life in football’s basement,” (Shaw, A. 2007).
While this is an indefinite form of institutionalised cultural capital, a holding of an objective value, given
that they may have stayed with the club through its new ownership and experienced the glory the club
has, but they have rejected it. A film directed by Ken Loach “Looking for Eric,” (2009) displays a FCUM fan
who exclaims; “The club left me with Glazer and at least our chairman won’t sell us for twenty pieces of
silver..... You’re lining the pockets of Edwards and Murdoch,” (Loach, 2009).

This theory of established- outsider relations is based on the premise of power relations and social
dynamics of status distinctions between dominant (MUFC) and subordinate (FCUM) groups. Established
and outsider groups can be defined on the basis of longstanding unequal power ratios between them
(Liston, 2005). While the definition of longstanding cannot be adopted on the basis of time (2005 – date),
we can assume the differential aspects in power relations can be done on the basis of the entire time of
existence of FCUM. The established groups, in this case MUFC, are characterised by greater social cohesion
and integrated social networks, considerably more power, stricter control over flows of communication
and a stock of memories, attachments and dislikes, and a particular ideological construction of the relative
status and worth of each group. If we apply this to MUFC over FCUM; MUFC have 30 million fans
worldwide compared to the “community based” FCUM, who get an average attendance of around 2,000 –
3,000 and virtually no fans outside of Manchester. MUFC have thousands of supporter groups and
communities worldwide, who have displayed excellent social cohesion in their adoption of the “Green &
Gold” campaign, which is aimed at unifying fans in their protest at the club’s running under the current
Glazer ownership. It was formed by the Manchester United Supporters Trust, which has now gained over
153,000+ supporters as of April 2010, See Appendix C. FCUM are in essence (given the membership
scheme) the only supporter group, but again displayed strong social cohesion in their decision to break
from the club as a group. MUFC earn revenues of £257.1m (Deliotte, 2009), while FCUM figures are
unpublished they are estimated to be below half way of their £500k target raising ,see Appendix A. Despite
this, they reportedly raise £45k each month from standing orders donated from supporters (FC United of
Manchester, 2010). Therefore there is a huge financial power imbalance, MUFC have control on the level
of communication with its various stakeholders, and in contrast FCUM at the other end are fighting to get
any manner of communication out in a public domain (including their own radio and video podcast). MUFC
can boast one of the richest histories in world football with honours that (at worst) equal any team
domestically whereas FCUM can only boast three promotions over a four year period. It could also be
argued the greatest stock of memory that FCUM have is the bitter takeover of MUFC. Both set of supports
share the similar dislike of Manchester City and the ownership of the club. As heard on the terraces of Gigg
Lane in Bury (FCUM home ground) “Won't pay Glazer, or work for Sky, still sing ‘City's gonna die’, Two
United’s, but the soul is one, As the Busby Babes carry on,” (FCUM Passion, 2006).
 The process of stigmatisation, comes as part of the established-outsider relations outlined by Liston
(2005), and becomes almost automatic particularly when the balance of power (between MUFC and
FCUM) is very unequal and the dominant position of established groups is not contested. It refers to the
“vilifications setting in motion the socially inferior group’s own sense of shame of guilt feelings with regard
to some inferior symbols, some signs of the worthlessness attributed to them and the paralysis of their
power to strike back which goes hand in hand with it, thus form part of the social apparatus with which
socially dominant and superior groups maintain their dominion and their superiority over socially inferior
groups,” (Elias & Scotson, 1994). As displayed the sense of superiority and deploying a sense of
worthlessness can be seen by MUFC fans through web based chat rooms “We’ll last longer than you
tossers, we didn’t run away & take our ball home when we got a new owner & I notice we managed to win
the league & European cup after you lot f***ed off!!!” (Taylor, 2008). This can also be seen through the
aforementioned scene in “Looking for Eric,” where the superiority is clearly expressed in the argument that
“you ran off and left us,” vs. “They left me,” debate (Loach, 2009). “Who left you? United? the famous
team in history, the club with 300 million fans, they left you?...I’ve told you this before right, a bloke once
said, you can change your wife, change your politics, change your religion, never ever, ever, can you
change your favourite football team,” Again stigmatisation is employed by referring to inferior symbols,
shame of guilt feelings and signs of worthlessness (Loach, 2009).

However when seen from the FCUM point of view with regards to stigmatisation, they believe that
MUFC fans are “walking adverts with the sponsors and names on your chest,” (Loach, 2009) - a clear
reference to the inferior symbols of the club sponsors AIG and Nike. Furthermore there is a strong citation
to stigmatisation in their chants sang by fans on the stands in which they criticise not just the sponsors, but
the crest as well. The crest of MUFC was changed in 1998 for global marketing purposes and not
encompassing the area the club resides in (Pride of Manchester, 2009). This again is made reference to as
“inferior symbols,” outlined by Elias and Scotson (1994). “This badge is your badge, This badge is my badge,
Three stripes and three sails, Oh what a fine badge, They tried to break it, but we've replaced it, on the
shirt of United FC,” (FCUM Passion, 2007). In addition, there is a well held belief that MUFC supporters are
being exploited in their consumption of match days, in which all fixtures are subject to change to
accommodate broadcasting. In 2003, Of “United's 22 home fixtures in the Premiership and FA Cup, only
five were played on a Saturday with a traditional 3pm kick-off,” (Stone, 2003) which is incorporated in a
chant with the lyrics of “When FC United go out to play it's 3 o'clock on a Saturday, We don't work for Sky
Sports anymore,” (FCUM Passion, 2008). This again refers to the sign of “worthlessness” as outlined
through stigmatization (Elias and Scotson,1994). A stigma that is often attributed to MUFC fans from FCUM
fans is “You’re the F**kers that lined Edwards’s pockets with 50/60 million quid, filling Murdoch’s f***ing
pockets..,” (Loach, 2009), which is attempting to bring about the “shame of guilt” aspect of stigmatization.
A further example of shame of guilt stigmatisation is the branding of “new supporters intent to sit back and
watch rather than partake in the occasion,” in what are described as a “soulless all-seater stadia,” (FCUM,
2005). This can be seen through the fanzine movement as one contributor speaks of bringing his child to an
FCUM match instead of MUFC, given the “daft kick off times and shi*e atmosphere,” experienced at Old
Trafford (Woods, 2007).

As we can see above there are lucid examples of stigmatisation, however according to Liston’s
(2005) presentation of the process of stigmatisation as core of the established-outsider relations
suggesting that the balance between the We-I in outsider (FCUM) groups has gradually shifted to a greater
extent in the direction of individualisation, self-control and a personal rather than a group identity. This
concept of the shift towards individualism, in my opinion, is fragile at best with regards to FCUM. While the
expression of free choice and abandoning the conventional affiliation patterns can be regarded as the
essence of individualism, they are doing so to “bring football back to the community.” Apart from the
sharing properties that a community possesses there is a level of disdain for the “soulless stadium” and a
clear intention to “partake” in the occasion of a football match. They also have carefully chosen the ship
and three sails of Manchester, which embodies their group identity and the savage protests (including
marches, vandalism and violence) seen during the Glazer takeover. This would suggest that greater self
control cannot be proved, particularly the inability to distinguish if the fans protesting comprises of the
main cohort that established FCUM (Alleyopus, 2007).

In conclusion, we can see that cultural capital can be applied to the subunits of MUFC supporters
and FCUM supporters particularly that of “embodied cultural capital” and to a lesser extent objectified and
institutionalised cultural capital. However far greater, in-depth, analysis of the relationship between the
two sets of fans would need to be conducted in order to prove and clarify this existence. This is given the
sometimes unreliability of online sources and partiality of unofficial publications (such as Fanzines),
accompanied by the fictional representation in Ken Loach’s “Looking for Eric” (2009). There is a clear
presence of the established-outsider relations, despite the absence of longstanding unequal power ratios
(given it is merely five years old). Both sets of supporters attempt all manners of stigmatisation including
shame of guilt feelings, some inferior symbols and signs of the worthlessness, but again the limitations are,
as with cultural capital, the unreliability of these sources. The only element of established outsider
relations that can be disproved through this paper is the outsider (FCUM) groups has gradually shifted to a
greater extent in the direction of individualisation, self-control and a personal rather than a group identity.
This is given the “community” nature and aspirations of FCUM, the contempt held for “new” fans who
don’t partake in the football occasion in what they deem a traditional fashion, the unsettling protests held
during MUFC’s takeover in 2005 and the adoption of the ship and three sails of Manchester as part of their
group identity “This badge is your badge, this badge is my badge,” (FCUM Passion, 2007).
Appendix A – FCUM Overall financial progress
 Appendix B Example of Social Cohesion

Manchester United Vs. AC Milan (10th March 2010)

Appendix C MUST Sign up (Social Cohesion)
 References
Alleyopus. (2007). “The Fight against the Glazer takeover,” [Online]. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD1B03Slk4g [Accessed 23 April 2010]

Bourdieu, P. (1984). “The Forms of Capital,” Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education. Greenwood Press, New York, pp. 241-258.

Cronin, D. (2009). “Looking for Eric, but finding yourself,” [Online] Soundtracks for them. Available from:
http://soundtracksforthem.com/blog/?p=897 (accessed 24 March 2010)

Deloitte (2009). “FOOTBALL’S RICH LIST: Manchester United pipped to top spot by Real as Spurs close in on
England’s big four” *Online+. Available from: http://www.footballfevr.com/2009/02/footballs-rich-list-
manchester-united-pipped-to-top-spot-by-real-as-spurs-close-in-on-englands-big-four/ [Accessed 18 April
2010]

Elias, N. and J. Scotson (1994). “The Established and the Outsiders,” London. Sage Publications Pp. 226 –
252.

FC United of Manchester (2005). “The Fans United,” FC United Voucher, FC United. Fans and Football
United.

FC United of Manchester (2010). “Donate: Paying into the development fund,” [Online]. Available from:
http://fc-utd.co.uk/devfund/?cat=11 [Accessed 19 April 2010]

FCUM Passion. (2006). “Two United’s but the soul is one,” [Online]. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy3lYXz8rY [ Accessed 21 April 2010]

FCUM Passion. (2007). “This badge is your badge, this badge is my page,” [Online]. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WdfxGnDkQ&feature=related [Accessed 19 April 2010].

FCUM Passion. (2008). “When FC United go out to play,” [Online]. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU-6EOIpxJc&feature=related [Accessed 19 April 2010]

Ganley, J. (2008). “We Live in the shadows,” United We Stand an Independent voice of Manchester United.
Issue 178, December 2008 pp. 25-28.

Hush, A. (2008). “On and on and on.....” United We Stand an Independent voice of Manchester United. Issue
178, December 2008 pp. 18-21.

Liston, K. (2005). “Established-outsider relations between males and females in the field of sports in
Ireland.” The Irish Journal of Sociology, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp.61-82.
Man United Talk (2010). “Green and Gold,” [Online]. Available from:
http://www.manutdtalk.com/forums/man-utd-chat/30428-green-gold-make-statement-
36.html&usg=__P9dpvwhIOoeF1z8YRDcbBRLbdTc=&h=1764&w=2998&sz=1871&hl=en&start=52&sig2=pe
wPyjL1o7RIlLLhU8QKQw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eBNYx2ud0HKaOM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=150&prev=/images%
3Fq%3Dmanchester%2Bunited%2Bv%2Bac%2Bmilan%2Bgreen%2Band%2Bgold%26start%3D42%26um%3
D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D21%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=7S3QS9zPCtCYONbAnIQP [Accessed 22
April 2010]

Manchester United Supporters Trust. (2010). “Join MUST,” [Online]. Available from:
http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/content/splash [Accessed 22 April 2010]

Pride of Manchester (2009) “Man United Shirts” [Online]. Available from:

http://www.prideofmanchester.com/sport/mufc-kits.htm [Accessed 19 April 2010]

Shaw, A. (2007). “Disunited we Stand” [Online]. When Saturday Comes. Issue 241, March 2007. Available
from: http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/533/29/ (Accessed 23 March 2010)

Stone, S. (2003). “United Fans plan protest over kick-off times,” [Online]. Available from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/united-fans-plan-protest-over-kickoff-
times-591795.html [Accessed 19 April 2010]

Taylor, C. (2008) “Dominic Offman,” *Online+ It’ll be off, the Unofficial FC United of Manchester Blog,
Posted October 30 2008. Available from: http://itllbeoff.wordpress.com/page/2/ (Accessed 5 April 2010)

Woods, T. (2007). “The future sound of what?.” United We Stand, an Independent voice of Manchester
United. Issue 166, November 2007. Pp. 29-30.