The British Empire and the popularity of Football

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 2:21pm

Reekwind wrote: »

..... Nor does it explain why rugby dominated in some countries yet was ignored in other.

Just a note but varsity rugby in the US is huge. It's every bit as vibrant and active as the club and university scene is here and in the UK.

Maybe the likes of rugby and soccer (and to a lesser extent the GAA sports) don't get the coverage they deserve in the US or the coverage that reflects participation levels because they are not TV-friendly enough - i.e. longish periods without breaks into which the ubiquitous commercials can slot.

tac foley · 01-07-2014 2:36pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Cuba

Sports spread for different reasons - I don't think there was sporting imperialism going on.

Thank you - I said as much.

In the case of rugby for example, the French (and to a lesser extent the Italians) adopted that sport in their militaries first as part of officer education.

Rugby was an English invention, as I'm certain you aready know.

I reckon some people probably just saw the Brits playing cricket, rugby, soccer or tennis and thought "Christ but they're sh1te - I reckon we could play that game a lot better than they can".......

.......and by and large they were right - except for rowing, because the British win the Boat Race every year.

Only the British actually run the Boat Race, albeit with oftimes participation of non-British rowers who are students at either of the two British universities. However, I have not noticed o'ermuch participation of anybody from Ireland in either cricket or tennis - or rowing, for that matter. The Ireland rugby team, on the other hand, is a bunch of gentleman players to be proud of.

tac

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 2:58pm

Only the British actually run the Boat Race, albeit with oftimes participation of non-British rowers who are students at either of the two British universities. However, I have not noticed o'ermuch participation of anybody from Ireland in either cricket or tennis - or rowing, for that matter. The Ireland rugby team, on the other hand, is a bunch of gentleman players to be proud of.

Whoa, hold on there! I know it's Canada Day and all that but don't be taking liberties:D

Ireland's cricket team (organised on an all-island basis) is ranked 12th in the ODI rankings and 9th in the 20:20 rankings (one behind England)

We let Enlgand borrow Ed Joyce (to sub in for one K. Pietersen) and Eoin Morgan and Boyd Rankin are currently doing a nice job 'over there.'

we may not be test material (yet) but we're doing ok.

Agree with you on the rugby and interestingly cricket and rugby are, unlike soccer, organised on an all-island basis.

riffmongous · 01-07-2014 3:18pm

Field hockey is also organised on an all-island basis, and I think would also be interesting to look at because of where it's played, Pakistan, India, Australia and the Netherlands spring to mind

Reekwind · 01-07-2014 4:01pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Sports spread for different reasons - I don't think there was sporting imperialism going on.

I think we have to be careful in our terminology here. For example, imperialism has certainly played a role in the spread of sports, in some form or other. On a base level it is unquestionably true that cricket would not be the national sport of India if it weren't for empire. Ditto with baseball in the Philippines. And certainly, football was co-opted by fin de sicile imperialists in Britain. So there is definitely a connection of sorts between sports and imperialism.

But this doesn't necessarily amount to 'sporting imperialism'. In the first place, no one (outside of PE) has ever been forced to play a sport. But then there's never been a need for that. The Victorians had such an impact on sport because they were the first to systematically organise it. Native past-times existed when the British landed in a country but they weren't organised into leagues, with codified laws. Pre-existing games (the GAA being a prime example) had to follow suit just to stay competitive.

Today, when the global sports market is so saturated, what governs a sport's popularity is very different.

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 5:06pm

What I was driving at was an imperial power arriving and forcing an indigenous population to give up it's sporting activities (or suppressing them) in favour of the imperial power's preferred activities - that's what I meant when I spoke about 'sporting imperialism.'

If anything, I think it might work the other way - imperial power arrives, sees the natives playing a game / sport (typically the military are the 'audience' because they're usually first in!) and thinks "that looks like fun" and before you know it they've started playing and codified the game in question- polo, badminton and lacrosse are probably good examples.

Sports going the other way may have been picked up by a form of 'cultural osmosis' where the locals decided to play because the game was fun or novel - or because it became fashionable through association with a local person of importance - or because they were trying to imitate the 'sahibs.'

tac foley · 01-07-2014 6:11pm

Anyone in Ireland play REAL hockey, y'know, on ice?

Not the girly game on that nice soft green stuff you have so much of over there.

tac

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 6:38pm

tac foley wrote: »

Anyone in Ireland play REAL hockey, y'know, on ice?

Not the girly game on that nice soft green stuff you have so much of over there.

tac

www.belfastgiants.com/

To be honest, once you've seen a decent game of hurling, other sports (even ice hockey) can seem a bit slow and small scale.

I mean, going to a game and seeing maybe only half-a-dozen scores? That's a bit pedestrian :pac:

normal.png?1360829911

as they say in parts hereabout "other sports are for people not good enough to play hurling......"

pedroeibar1 · 01-07-2014 11:11pm

It’s a pity really to attempt to gain a political point on the role of imperialism in sport. There is a connection, but other than in Ireland it is not one that features in most countries.

Cricket was very popular throughout Ireland until the foundation of the GAA, JK Bracken & others were keen players. All ‘Foreign games’ were killed by what was perceived as ‘Nationalism’. The GAA was imbued with Nationalism from the outset – the attempted (and successful until overturned by the Church) takeover by the IRB in 1887, the influence of the old Fenians in the subsequent management hierarchy, the aspirations of the ‘old brigade’ all had an impact and led to the ‘Ban’.

Pelota spread throughout the Spanish colonies/spheres of influence and while it once nearly died out (except for the Basques) it was revived in the late 19th c because people liked it.

The English left India more than 60 years ago yet cricket there has gone from strength to strength, because people like it.

‘True’ imperialist sports do have a military flavour because they are a means of training – shooting, riding, polo, pig-sticking, fencing, etc. They are ‘sports’ – the rest are just ‘games’.

Jawgap wrote: »

In the case of rugby for example, the French (and to a lesser extent the Italians) adopted that sport in their militaries first as part of officer education.

Rugby – I disagree with the comment on France – I know nothing about the Italians. In France rugby was a late arrival, and primarily at school (Lycee) level. Lycee Condorcet in Paris was I think the first c 1900. I never heard of it having a military tradition, and when I was a business student there a fellow student, a naval officer, always was amused by the fact that rugby was a ‘snob’ sport in Ireland when it was the opposite in France.

Harry Palmr · 01-07-2014 11:27pm

Manach wrote: »

Empires can be delimited by their actual and their influence limits. In the latter's case this can exceed the territorial boundaries. Case in point, South America for about 50 years was within the British Empire's economic realm. Given the influx of capital and workers into that area, then it would not come as a surprise that football followed trade.

In South America there are clubs who's history and influence is clear - in Argentina alone you have Newell's Old Boys (just won the Argentine title), Arsenal, Banfield, Douglas Haig. Uruguay has a Liverpool (fancy that!) Peru had several though I don't think any still operate.

Jawgap · 02-07-2014 5:49am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

.....
Rugby – I disagree with the comment on France – I know nothing about the Italians. In France rugby was a late arrival, and primarily at school (Lycee) level. Lycee Condorcet in Paris was I think the first c 1900. I never heard of it having a military tradition, and when I was a business student there a fellow student, a naval officer, always was amused by the fact that rugby was a ‘snob’ sport in Ireland when it was the opposite in France.

The first recognisably rugby club in France was L'Havre founded in 1872. By 1888 there were three clubs in Paris. The game was well established by 1900 because the popularity of the game in the SW of the country is traced back to Stade Bordelais winning of the national championship - to where it was spread by English and Scottish wine merchants. Which is why they talk about rugby appearing from the wine cellars.

From there it's popularity spread through the SW and like New Zealand it became the game of farmers (and vineyard workers). It was also a way to protest against the Catholic Church who made it a sin at one point to play the game. The SW was regarded as quite secular. The reason it didn't spread in places like Brittany was because it was perceived as a Parisian sport and because the people were more loyal to the church.

In the wake of France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) the military adopted the game as one way of helping to 'stiffen the backs' of prospective officers.

By the time WW2 rolled around, however, rugby union was on the wane. The national team had, at one point, been bounced from the then Five Nations for thuggery and was suffering from the arrival of League.

When the Germans arrived and the Vichy regime was established, some of the sport's senior administrators took advantage of their close relationship with the pro-Nazi, collaborationists to have League outlawed as a 'corrupter' of French youth.

Funds, stadiums and even kit belonging to League clubs were handed over to Union clubs. In 2002 the French government eventually recognised officially the damage that had been done to Rugby League.

pedroeibar1 · 02-07-2014 12:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

...........The game was well established by 1900 because the popularity of the game in the SW of the country is traced back to Stade Bordelais winning of the national championship - to where it was spread by English and Scottish wine merchants. Which is why they talk about rugby appearing from the wine cellars.

In the wake of France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) the military adopted the game as one way of helping to 'stiffen the backs' of prospective officers.

Thanks Jawgap, but I’m finding it hard to believe that. Other than the article here I cannot find any source that supports that claim. The links I post below tend to disagree with much of what has been written in that article. The St. Cyr site has rugby news but is bereft of its history at that institution. The vast majority of rugby clubs before 1900 were in schools (lycees) or colleges. The Union des Sociétés Françaises des Sports Athlétiques (USFSA), founded in 1889, admitted rugby the following year and 1906 saw the first French international match. There is no doubt that there was French military rugby before 1900, but if it had been promoted as you contend by and for the officer class surely there would have been more than 6 clubs 20 years after the F-P War?

Contrary to what you say about being ‘well established’ there were only 13 clubs in 1900 (almost double that added in the following 5 years.)

Nor am I so sure about the importance of the ‘wine trade’ connection – why then did the game not become popular in Portugal where British links with the wine/port/madeira trade are just as strong (or arguably stronger due to relative size/influence?) I’d suggest that the primary means of dispersal was by students returning to their home towns. Look at the background to the Toulouse club.

Any references to early French military rugby tend to be heavily influenced by the New Zealanders who fought in WWI - first mention of an inter-army match is - 19 April 1919 – France / Nouvelle-Zélande Match entre l’équipe de l’armée néo-zélandaise (qui compte 13 All Blacks) et l’équipe de France militaire. Victoire néo-zélandaise (20-3).

Interesting bit of multi-cultural colonialism, the French Army introduced rugby to Madagascar in +/- 1900

Good board/site with photos on Rugby internationals (players) in WW1 and here

Jawgap · 02-07-2014 2:00pm

French Rugby Football: A Cultural History by Philip Dine gives a well rounded explanation of how the game developed through France in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune.....and how it spread through the clubs (and the schools).......

Like the industrial and agrarian revolutions, modern sports came late to France, and it is only with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 that the era of the new games can be said to have begun. Yet it will be argued that French rugby football draws for its vitality on much deeper roots, and particularly on the traditional social structures of the south and west.

A lot of the clubs were founded by old boys of the lycees, it's true so I'd imagine that when you finished your education you gravitated towards playing for your old boys' club rather than setting one up from new.

As early as 1892 English teams were crossing to tour in France and in 1893 French teams were heading the other way.

I don't think I said it was promoted by the military, I think I said it was spread by them. Plus, while it was a significant factor, it wasn't the only one. Dine also has an interesting discussion on the role railways played in spreading the game.

In respect of the wine trade he has this to say...

The presence in Bordeaux, the centre of France’s wine trade, of a large British colony was a major factor in the game’s rapid expansion, with new clubs being set up on a regular basis.

eire4 · 02-07-2014 3:35pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Im not so sure, if you were to exclude Africa there really aren't plenty of exceptions.
The whole weather reasoning with cricket etc doesnt add up as theres far too many exceptions in other countries. I still think there must have been some sort of social ladder climbing involved in the popularity of certain sports with soccer perhaps viewed as a poor mans game.

But you cannot exclude Africa especially given how many countries in Africa were at one point victims of British imperialism. Then there is India another massive country.

tac foley · 02-07-2014 3:52pm

eire4 wrote: »

But you cannot exclude Africa especially given how many countries in Africa were at one point victims of British imperialism. Then there is India another massive country.

Yadder, yadder. Them bl**dy British imperialists again. :rolleyes:

You seem to have overlooked the French, Germans, Portuguese and the Belgians in Africa in your antipathy toward things British. Nearly forgot those nice Dutch folks, too, down at the bottom. AND the Arabs, of course, who until very recently plundered Africa for its people. Swahili is not a naturally-occurring language, y'know - it is the language invented by the Arabs to carry out the slave trade all over Africa.

Just be grateful that YOU weren't occupied by the Romans - by now you would have all killed each in gladiatorial games like we all have.

Hold on a minute, we actually haven't.....

You have already had your answer about India - AND Pakistan - AND Bangladesh.

Cricket thrives in all three countries.

Enough with bashing those 'British imperialists', eh? This thread is turning into yet another 'bloody Brits to blame' again diatribe of totally unnecessary antipathy.

tac

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 4:41am

Jawgap wrote: »

In the States, soccer does not enjoy the same profile as American Football, baseball and basketball,

I believe Football or soccer (MLS) has now beaten Basketball (NBA) in attendance numbers which is great. Also beating the NHL which used to occupy fourth place.

We've had matches here in Seattle with a little over 60,000. Home matches usually sell out around 35,000.

So the MLS (Major league soccer) is growing Fast.

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 5:47am

Jawgap wrote: »

Well one of their teams seems to win the "World" Series every year, so it's only natural to make a big deal of something where you beat every other team in the world.......every year

A little crazy. Considering Baseball is really popular in Japan and they dont participate in the "world" series.

But there's nothing new about that. America is isolationist. They dont like competing in any international competitions. In anything.

You should hear the right wingers ranting about the Olympics. You'd think its some kind of communist plot.

Jawgap · 04-07-2014 5:56am

InTheTrees wrote: »

A little crazy. Considering Baseball is really popular in Japan and they dont participate in the "world" series.

But there's nothing new about that. America is isolationist. They dont like competing in any international competitions. In anything.

You should hear the right wingers ranting about the Olympics. You'd think its some kind of communist plot.

I've in laws who are American (and are great people) but the their 'worldview' is indeed very narrow.

In fairness, some Canadian teams do play in the World Series.

It'll be interesting to see how much of a sustained lift MLS gets in the wake of the World Cup.

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 6:05am

riffmongous wrote: »

Well I was never at a proper baseball game yet, but watching it on tv has the opposite effect on me Although in fairness I wouldnt bother watching a really one sided or boring game of cricket either (or any sport for that matter), but in most games there seems to me to be a lot more tactical and skill depth to cricket. Possibly a bias due to having played a good bit more of cricket, but the Times I tried baseball it felt like going from playing chess to checkers in what you could do as a batter.

I played a lot of cricket as a kid. Its fun to play.

I've also got into Baseball and been to many many games.

Baseball can be very very boring. A match can go on for 4 hours with little scoring. And when little happens in Baseball its not like little happening in Football.

The 20/20 and Baseball similarity is pretty accurate, its relaxed kind of affair that builds in excitement.

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 6:21am

Jawgap wrote: »

I've in laws who are American (and are great people) but the their 'worldview' is indeed very narrow.

In fairness, some Canadian teams do play in the World Series.

It'll be interesting to see how much of a sustained lift MLS gets in the wake of the World Cup.

I'm not american so no need to be delicate!

Yes, there's the Toronto BlueJays And Montreal Expos. There's also the World Baseball Classic every four years which is like a world cup for Baseball so the US gets to compete against south american and japanese teams. The Dutch and Australians are always surprisingly good. Very little hype for it in the US though, the whole comcept of a "national" team is very alien to americans.

I read that ratings for this years world cup in the US are up 68% which is remarkable. It helps that its in the same time zone so the games are at reasonable times.

And the MLS is now beating basketball and hockey in attendance numbers so the tend is certainly up and this world cup will certainly help.

Fratton Fred · 04-07-2014 10:59am

Is the World Series not named after its original sponsor, the World Newspaper, rather than actually being a world cup type event?

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 5:17pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is the World Series not named after its original sponsor, the World Newspaper, rather than actually being a world cup type event?

Wow. Interesting idea. Never heard it before though so I went to the wiki and found this as the only mention:

"In his book Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883, Simon Winchester mentions in passing that the World Series was named for the New York World newspaper,[16] but this view is disputed.[17]"

I'll try and find out more.

Gallowglass · 05-07-2014 3:00pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then the GAA managed to persuade the masses that not playing Gaelic sports was unpatriotic and banned everyong from playing foreign games, so cricket went in to massive decline. It's a shame the two couldn't coexist.

The GAA needed to be like that in the past, arguably it would still be useful in some areas where hurling is very weak, in these areas people play Gaelic Football and sometimes soccer or rugby.

If there hadn't have been a ban I doubt the GAA would have been so strong today, the sports would just have ended up like Shinty in Scotland.

If there wasn't a ban people would have played a GAA sport alongside soccer and then that would have left the other GAA sports suffering decline.

Judgement Day · 05-07-2014 8:36pm

It's always puzzled me how cricket came to be invented in England in the first place given the unsuitable climate. When was the last time a Test match was uninterrupted by rain or bad light? The truncated joke of a game that is T20 has some chance of completion but Test cricket...:D

Harry Palmr · 05-07-2014 10:12pm

Guardian article today about the origins of the game in Brazil

h-ttp://w-ww.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/05/how-english-schooled-charles-miller-set-tone-football-brazil-world-cup

Duckworth_Luas · 07-07-2014 10:25am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is the World Series not named after its original sponsor, the World Newspaper, rather than actually being a world cup type event?

That's an urban myth.

In 1901 there were two independent major leagues operating in the USA. One called the American League, the other the National League.

When both leagues agreed to an end of season playoff between their respective champions they had to give it a neutral name.

Obviously the couldn't call it the National Series or the American Series so the compromise was World Series.

Fratton Fred · 07-07-2014 1:31pm

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

That's an urban myth.

In 1901 there were two independent major leagues operating in the USA. One called the American League, the other the National League.

When both leagues agreed to an end of season playoff between their respective champions they had to give it a neutral name.

Obviously the couldn't call it the National Series or the American Series so the compromise was World Series.

I wondered if it was.

Any chance you could explain how the result of a rain affected one day cricket match is settled?

Jawgap · 07-07-2014 2:11pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wondered if it was.

Any chance you could explain how the result of a rain affected one day cricket match is settled?

Yes, by listening to this album......

purplepanda · 07-07-2014 7:52pm

Reading about Irish cricket after 1921, my impression is that the game was still popular in southern countries until at least the 1950's & many villages in the traditional Hurling regions played both games.

The early TV & newsreel broadcasts led to an increase in popularity of Hurling & Football which happened in parallel with the decline in the numbers playing cricket.

Many of Hurlings famous players came from areas where cricket was popular & played by their family & relatives. Read the Billy Rackard autobiography about his childhood with his brothers & his father playing cricket in Wexford.

I'm sure I read recently that the GAA founders considered having cricket as a GAA sport but the proposal was defeated after a close vote? Michael Cusack was a cricket devotee.

On a related note regarding the popularity & spread of organised field sports, some of the oldest Football clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday & Notts Forest were founded by Bandy players (some accounts also mention Shinty players).

Bandy rules go back to the early 1800's & some field sport historians claim that many of the original rules of football adopted by The FA are derived from Bandy.

Bandy is another game that England gave to the world yet is virtually unknown outside Scandinavia, The Baltics & Russia.

A old friend who lives in Helsinki & has two teenagers playing Bandy, describes it as similar to Hurling & Football, but as he's from Cavan I initially thought what does he know? :pac:

But I've been watching YouTube videos & that's a good description! I'd even prefer it to Ice Hockey!

Jawgap · 07-07-2014 8:09pm

I thought Sheff Wednesday was founded by butchers because Wednesday was the traditional half-day for them?

This looks like it might provide some answers

Mike Cronin, Sport and Nationalism in Ireland: Gaelic Games, Soccer and Irish Identity since 1884

Anyone read it?

The British Empire and the popularity of Football

Comments