18

Houlihan, B and Malcolm, D (Eds.) 2016. Sport and Society, 3rd Edition. Sage.

London. 438-460

Sports Fandom

KEVIN DIXON

OVERVIEW

Trends in Fandom Research

The Practice and Development of Fandom

Gender and Fandom

Evolution of Sports Fandom and New Media

Sports fans infiltrate our inner social networks. It is likely that of our relatives, friends

and work colleagues, many will be fans of sport. But whilst we use the term with

abandon, what do we really know about sports fans and the role that they play in

social and cultural processes that maintain this phenomenon? How can we explain

variations of practice and the motivations, dispositions and principles that bind fans

together for the duration of sport performances and even beyond? What do we

understand about the lived experience, the genesis, maintenance and evolution of

fandom cultures and those systems of power that can produce difference, exclusion

and marginalisation within fan groups? This chapter seeks to investigate such

questions by appraising sociological accounts of the sports fandom phenomenon as

it has been explained across time and space in relation to continuity and change.
Thus, covering the genealogy of scholarly research, this chapter is divided into four

main sections. First, it examines the early conceptual dichotomies and typologies of

fandom types before advancing to cover more recent post-modern approaches to

sports fandom. This is followed by an exploration of empirical investigations into the

origins and maintenance of fandom cultures. The penultimate topic draws attention

to the marginalisation experiences of female sports fans as they exist within

masculine dominated sports. Finally, the work evaluates the fluid nature of fandom

practice with particular reference to the integration of technology and the subtle

evolution of ‘tradition’.

THE GENEALOGY OF FANDOM RESEARCH: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

Research into sports fandom has been dominated by what Crawford (2004: 34) has

described as ‘the relentless quest to uncover authentic and inauthentic practice’.

This has been influenced in part, by shifting social trends across time and space in

relation to, for example, advancing consumer culture and the ensuing struggle to

make sense of this as it is subsumed within sport (Dixon, 2013a; Horne, 2006;

Sandvoss, 2003). As a consequence, it is useful to examine the genealogy of

research on sports fandom in relation to continuity and change in order to appreciate

the fluid nature of ideas as they are carefully considered and then challenged

through scholarly debate. With this in mind, the following section sets out to uncover

this gradual challenge to theoretical ideas via an exploration, in chronological order,

of sports fandom research.

Dichotomies of Sport Fandom

Early approaches to sport fans set out to segregate ‘types’ of fandom into two

distinct categories in order to make the following point. Fans, it was thought, were

affected by the commercial enlightenment that was occurring elsewhere as emerging

neo-liberal political philosophy began to influence and infiltrate sport institutions and

fandom cultures in the 1980s. Consequently scholars were keen to examine the

effect of commercialisation on what was perceived to be the inevitable

marginalisation of a particular category of sports fans that were often described as

‘authentic’, ‘traditional’ or ‘loyal’. For instance, using a dualistic framework Clarke

(1978) made a conceptual distinction between ‘genuine fans’ (for example, those

who identify heavily with a sense of community and tradition) and ‘other types’ of

supporter (for example, those primarily interested in sport as entertainment).

Furthermore, this simple dichotomy has been repackaged by a number of academics

since. For example, Boyle and Haynes (2000) distinguish between ‘traditional’ and

‘modern’ fans; Nash (2000) between ‘core’ and ‘corporate’ and Quick (2000)

between ‘irrational’ and ‘rational’ fans. Although the terminology used differs between

authors, the overriding message is similar. New fans and traditional fans are often

perceived as distinct from one another in terms of the means, motives and

underlying philosophies that they hold. As Mehus (2010: 897) writes, ‘good

supporters are often contrasted with bad consumers’.

‘New fans’ (that is, consumers) are commonly conceived of as ‘flakey’ in the

sense that they are attracted towards teams based on: success, rather than as a

consequence of personal heritage; celebrity, as opposed to character; and progress

rather than the maintenance of tradition (Dixon 2012). More specifically, Rein et al.

(2006) imply that sports fans have come to be ‘elusive’ in the sense that they have

become a part of the extended consumer market. Because they buy fandom
experiences within an aggressively marketed sports arena, it is thought that

conventional loyalty can no longer be assumed. Contrary to this position, ‘traditional

fans’ are described as those with strong emotional connections, bonded together by

group loyalties. As a consequence, they are portrayed as irrational and yet

predictable beings in the sense that they blindly follow group conventions and, as

such, it is thought that they have the potential to be manipulated by corporate

bodies.

When taken together these views assume a dichotomy between two distinct

fractions of proposed fandom types and yet, such accounts are in danger of

presuming rigid distinctions (for example, between those perceived groups noted

above) which mask the reality subsumed within the lived experience. Crawford

(2004) for one concurs with this when he points out that much contemporary work

seeks to establish the belief that – through rampant commercialisation - sport is

losing its inherently traditional qualities that were characteristic of a so-called past

‘golden age’. He notes however, that observations relating to ‘the golden age’ are

anecdotal at best, and at worst fabricated on a wave of nostalgia.

Typologies of Sport Fandom

Typologies of the sport fan phenomena serve to draw attention to the multiple ways

in which fandom is practiced and consequently they extend powers of explanation

beyond the dichotomous form. Consider the work of social psychologists Wann et al.

(2001) as a typical example. The authors provide a narrative of authenticity based on

the familiar idea of perceived ‘traditional’ type behaviours and those perceived to be

associated with ‘sports consumers’. They then extend this argument (creating a

typology) by sub-dividing sports consumers into two groups: ‘Direct,’ where sports
consumption involves personal attendance at a sporting event; and ‘Indirect’ where

consumption involves watching sport through the mass media or consuming sport

via the Internet. The authors consider fans as either ‘Highly’ or ‘Lowly’ identified with

their object of fandom due to the ‘types’ of consumption activities that they engage

with or perform. Some, such as attending sports events in person, wearing team

colours and actively yelling (to support), were viewed by the researchers as more

authentic, and thus those activities were thought to signify a greater affiliation with

sports teams or clubs than other activities or performances might (Gibbons and

Dixon, 2010). Yet again (like those dichotomies of fandom, noted in the previous

section), perceived authenticity is attributed to a romanticised vision of ‘traditional’

which is reportedly under attack from processes of globalisation, post-modernity and

consumer culture more generally.

Anthony King (1997; 1998) was perhaps the first scholar to actively seek

empirical evidence for such assumptions when he paid specific attention to a group

of fans (considered to be ‘traditional’) and monitored their thoughts and behaviours in

light of the transformations of football in England epitomised by the rise of the FA

Premier League. King was ultimately interested in the discovery of how traditional

fans position themselves in relation to both

1. the commodification of football, and

2. in light of what he conceives to be an emerging affluent or consumer

audience.

Using a Gramsci-inspired theoretical framework, he argues that intervention from

above (that is, the neo-liberal endorsement of privatisation espoused by the 1980s

Conservative Government) had impacted severely on traditional aspects of fandom

culture, causing some elements of practice to change indefinitely. The results of

King’s ethnographic research uncovered a partial form of resistance by traditional

fans (to the commodification of football) in the sense that they were shown to display

discontent with changes to the game and yet they simultaneously displayed

elements of acceptance. For example, the studied group was unhappy with changes

to ticket pricing and yet they were willing to pay these escalating fees.

Concomitantly, while they were vocal about the demise of standing spaces which

were central to their solidarity, they were proud of their modernised stadium. In

conclusion King noted that the behaviours, conflicts, thoughts and aspirations of

those within his sample could not be explained using a one dimensional argument of

resistance to the bourgeoisification of football and he therefore challenged scholars

to develop alternative theoretical positions.

Two of the most cited explanations of sports fandom include Redhead’s (1993)

view of fans as either ‘Participatory’ or ‘Passive’ and Giulianotti’s (2002) ideal-type

taxonomy of sports fans. Both approaches focus attention on football fans as a

predominant example, though wider implications are inferred. First, Redhead

highlights the conflicting nature of ‘participatory’ and ‘passive’ forms of fandom. He

suggests that one outcome derived from the rise of the service sector in England

(and the expansion of white collar workers) was the emergence of a new type of

‘active’ supporter. The active supporter (for Redhead) is typified by, and can be

evidenced through, the development and popularity of fanzines and supporter

organisations. Conversely, and perceived as an adversary to the active fan,

Redhead argues that ‘passive’ supporters have also been growing in stature over the

same period (1980–1990s). This, he notes, has occurred in response to the

increasing number of consumer products (including television coverage) relating to

sport and the allure of consumption for consumption sake. Thus, whilst scholars (for
example Cleland, 2010) are right to point out that Redhead does not categorise fans

within a simplistic dichotomy as such, the work remains focused on the segmentation

of perceived groups of fans.

Offering what seems like a more comprehensive conceptual model, Giulianotti’s

(2002) taxonomy of spectator identities in football attempts to categorise various

types of fans into distinct areas depending on the manner via which fandom is

performed and consumed. He claims that certain characteristics of fan types can be

identified along a horizontal axis between the ‘Traditional’ to the ‘Consumer’. He then

adds to this familiar dichotomy by placing a vertical axis mid-way between these

points, running between Hot to Cool forms of fandom. He therefore proposes four

quadrants into which spectators may be classified from more to less authentic: 1.

supporter; 2. fan; 3. follower; 4. flaneur. Those quadrants are based on the

relationships with and proximity to, football spaces (e.g. club stadia and the local

community); the means of consuming football (e.g. ‘in person’ versus ‘via the

media’); interactions with other fans (e.g. ‘face-to-face’ versus using ‘new media

communications’); and other aspects that are thought to depict levels of solidarity

and identity around a football club.

Box 18.1 about here

This typology is insightful enough to point out the vast and varied means via

which fans can engage with practice, but ranking authenticity via the perceived

importance of consumption type can cause practical problems for transference into

real situations. For instance, Giulianotti (2002: 38) makes a general assumption
about the ways in which sports fans use the Internet. Through classifying this mode

of consumption with less interactive forms of media, like television, Giulianotti

suggests that the Internet is merely a virtual and passive form of communication that

inauthentic flâneurs use to experience sport in a detached manner - instead of

engaging in more ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ forms of fandom (e.g. attending matches in

person and interacting face-to-face with other fans). Indeed, Giulianotti (2002: 39)

argues that: ‘the cool/consumer seeks relatively thin forms of social solidarity with

other fellow fans’, thus ignoring the vast amount of what might be considered

authentic sports fans - who as well as attending games in person, also contribute to

online discussion forums, blogs, email loops and message boards and use the

Internet as just one form of communication. Crawford (2004: 33) makes similar

criticisms towards current theories of fandom when he writes,

While it is possible to identify different levels of commitment and dedication to

a sport and different patterns of behaviour of fans, it is important that we do

not celebrate the activities of certain supporters and ignore (or even

downgrade) the activities and interests of others … Rather than privileging the

activities of certain fans over others, it is important, if we are to understand the

contemporary nature of fan cultures, that we consider the full range of

patterns of behaviour of all fans, including those who do not conform to

‘traditional’ patterns or images of fan activities.

To summarise, whilst many dichotomies and typologies of fandom have

sought to explain fan behaviour in an all-encompassing manner, they spend too

much time attempting to segregate and compartmentalise fandom types into

idealistic but ultimately unrealistic components. Many models romanticise what are
considered to be traditional forms of fandom and dismiss, downplay, or diminish the

importance of evolving fandom activities. This has led current academic writings to

explore post-modern explanations of contemporary fandom practice.

Fandom and Post-modernity

In a growing segment of the current literature discussions of the ‘post-fan’ (a term

first used by Redhead, 1997) have begun to appear in opposition to typologies of

fandom. For instance, Crabbe (2008) contends that scholars must take into account

the changing nature of social life – with the blurring of traditional forms of

stratification, advancements of communications technology, new levels of

consumption and ever more possibilities for individual choice. Rather than

acknowledging disparate fractions of fandom types, Crabbe describes the

emergence of post-modern fan communities which differ radically from the traditional

form that has so often featured at the center of theoretical models. He asserts that

fan communities in the post-modern mould are less likely to be bound by colloquial

closeness and are more likely to form what Blackshaw (2008) terms ‘deterritorised

groupings’ in the sense that they are: short term; temporary and less intimate;

organised by intense emotional involvement; gather infrequently; and disperse

rapidly. Concomitantly, from this perspective sport fans are said to ‘perform’ as

opposed to ‘live’ group connections. Thus, individualism resides at the heart of such

commentaries with fandom perceived as the performance of a self-gratifying

function. Crabbe, in particularly, captures the professed sense of individuality in his

anecdotal description of football fandom beyond the final whistle when he writes:

‘individuals make their way home like disturbed rats scuttling for cover, eager to be

ahead, separate from the crowd in a rush to get home’ (Crabbe, 2008: 435). In a
similar manner, Blackshaw (2008) uses Bauman’s (2000; 2001; 2005) concept of

‘liquid-modern’ to suggest that solid structures of modernity have lost shape

somewhat and have become ‘liquefied’ and engulfed within consumer society. Thus,

both Blackshaw and Bauman make clear the contemporary importance of

consumption as an individualistic pursuit. For instance, Bauman writes:

No lasting bonds emerge in the activity of consumption. Those bonds that

manage to be tied in the act of consumption may, but may not, outlast the act;

they may hold swarms together for the duration of their flight but they are

admittedly occasion bound. (Bauman, 2007: 78)

Proponents of Bauman’s work within sport sociology use similar analogies to

suggest that swarms of sports fans gather in a multitude of places and spaces to

consume sport via the increasing proliferation of technological mediums. Kraszewski

(2008) is one such scholar who refers to the liquid-modern conditions of relocation

and displacement in association with sports fandom. He argues that the increasingly

mobile US population use sport, and in particular American sports bars, to collect

temporarily and connect with other fans who also find themselves displaced from

their place of origin (that is, place of birth). Moreover, he asserts that through the

consumption of sport, people turn to the idea of culture and community for a sense of

comfort and self-gratifying assurance. In this case, commercial American sports bars

are thought to fulfill an important role by providing places where displaced fans can

meet for comfort, watch television, interact, offer temporary reassurance; in other

words, consume the false notion of community before returning to an individual

existence. Blackshaw (2008: 334) concurs with this use of the term ‘community’ in

the sense that agents use it sparingly to suit individual circumstances. He writes:

‘The modern fan only wants community the way that they want community, and that
is individually wrapped and ready for consumption’. He contends that while liquid-

moderns may like the sentiment of traditional community, they would be unwilling to

make the sacrifices to personal freedom that would see them give up their

individuality for the cause. Moreover and adding support for such speculation, Boyle

and Haynes (2004) suggest that new sport communities are now mediated by

accelerated commodification which has sought to personalise fandom experiences.

They assert that blogs, pod-casts and other social networking tools are growing in

popularity and thus choice and consumerism are key ingredients of contemporary

sport fandom.

New Directions

More recently, academics have begun to question previous research in an attempt to

rethink sports fandom in the context of continuity and change. John Williams (2007)

for example is critical of much of the literature in this domain. He criticises macro

theories and simplistic dichotomies/typologies of fandom for romanticizing the

‘traditional’ and failing to position fans in the new social contexts of contemporary

life. Authors have, of course, addressed the latter using post-modern social critiques

(Blackshaw, 2008; Crabbe, 2008; Sandvoss, 2003), however, they have been

criticised by Williams for exaggerating the decline of traditional ties. Williams (2007:

142) suggests that there is ‘a tendency for authors to oversimplify fandom’ at either

end of this theoretical continuum, based on normative speculation regarding new

media-driven consumption patterns. He asserts that post-modern claims to practice

may hold some validity but he is also mindful that they require a combination of

theory and rigorous empirical research to substantiate this position. Further, he

argues that the search for explanations of rapid change often negate and
underestimate the importance of continuity, place and community in sport fandom.

Perhaps then, as Dixon (2013a) suggests, theoretical approaches that share a

desire to understand how individual action is organised at the level of practice, whilst

simultaneously recognising that structural features are reproduced through individual

action, have much to offer the study of sport fandom. Examples of such approaches

can be observed through studies relating to the origins of fandom and the

development of fandom careers.

ORIGINS OF PRACTICE AND THE DEVELOPMEN OF FANDOM CAREERS

Drawing on research with British based ice hockey fans, Crawford (2003; 2004) sets

out to discuss the routes that individuals can take through various stages of sports

fandom. Reflecting on the work of Glaser and Strauss (1971), and borrowing from

Goffman (1968) and Becker (1963), he argues that the concept of ‘career’ may lend

itself to explaining pathways of practice within fandom cultures. Thus, where

Goffman investigates the career of the mental patient and Becker examines careers

of marijuana users, Crawford uses a similar process to follow the development of

sports fandom through progressive life stages. In doing so, he is careful to express

the effects of both structure and agency to the potential fluid and temporal

dimensions of sport fan careers.

The term ‘career’ (as used by Crawford) differs from previous sub-cultural

applications in the sporting setting (for example, Marsh’s (1978) analysis of the

career of British football hooligans) that caricature patterns of behaviour and force

individuals into often ill-defined and rigid ‘types’ of supporters. Instead, Crawford

allows for a more flexible understanding of the potential negotiation and

renegotiation of structured pathways to explain how individual position and

involvement can change and develop. In this fluid system of career development

Crawford acknowledges that time and space can alter the type and intensity of

fandom through stages that may or may not be negotiated through the life span of a

fan. For example, he suggests that fans have the potential to move through the

following loosely defined stages: ‘general public’ – ‘interested’ - ‘enthusiastic

supporters’ (fairly dedicated) - ‘devoted supporters’ (with a strong background

knowledge of history, rules and key events) – and ‘professional supporters’ (well-

educated and are likely to make at least a partial amount of their income from their

involvement in sport fandom).Yet despite the potential fluidity of career paths

(identified within this model) at the beginning, Crawford (2004: 46) insists that fans

are likely to replicate ‘the norms of a particular habitus’.

Here Crawford uses terminology derived from the work of Pierre Bourdieu

(1977; 1984; 1990) to explain the potential derivatives of fan behaviour. As Bourdieu

uses the term, ‘habitus’ explains how seemingly spontaneous individual actions

actually meet wider social expectations (Wacquant 2008). Consequently habitus can

express the ways in which agents become ‘themselves’ by developing attitudes and

dispositions that are influenced by history, traditions and cultures operating within

and between specific fields (Bourdieu 1990:54). Thus, habitus is dependent on a

slow process of cultural diffusion relating to the transmission of durable dispositions,

without in any way being the product of the organizing action of a conductor

(Bourdieu 1977: 72). This is not to suggest that habitus will determine fixed

responses in practice but, rather, that it limits the options that individuals have by

providing cultural norms and historical precedents which in turn determine strategies

of action.
 Indirect evidence to support the presence of habitus in the lives of sports fans

is apparent in the work of Holt (1995: 12) when he explains how, in the realm of US

baseball, competent spectators act as mentors for those deemed to be less so. Of

course, the role of mentors (for example, teaching the values and dispositions of any

given field) can take many forms, though as Wheeler and Green (2012) suggest, the

most significant instigating factor for participation in sport cultures are ‘family’

mentors. Thus, mentors of all descriptions uncover the recursive nature of practice

where students inevitably become teachers, the mentored become mentors and

consequently tradition is continued across time and space. Indeed, when discussing

the myths and realities of Millwall FC fandom (an English football team), Robson

(2000: 169) uses this argument (derived from Bourdieu) to explain that practical

mastery (e.g. of fandom sub-cultures) becomes embedded in the perceptions and

dispositions of fans (via teachings) to such an extent that actions are simply known

in practice as ‘the way things are done’.

Whilst Dixon (2012) agrees that there is evidence to support the contention

that the unconscious acquisition of childhood fandom can be later ‘consciously’ or

‘semi-consciously’ passed to future generations in an active and reciprocal manner

(providing evidence for the cultural continuation of habitus), he acknowledges that

late-modern society offers no guarantees that coercion of this type will gain the

desired effect or that ‘tradition’ will roll over to the next generation in such a

predictable manner. Here Dixon acknowledges the point that whilst agents are

certainly influenced by habitus, they are not imprisoned by it. Agents can opt in or

out of practice despite the acquisition of childhood habitus (See Box 18.2)

Box 18.2 about here

 Thus, during the course of everyday life, agents are presented with various

options to reproduce social action, or else to change behaviour. And whilst they are

influenced by core knowledge gathered through childhood habitus they are also

capable of consuming new knowledge of distant or estranged practices via

interaction with others. Perhaps then, it is reasonable to suggest that where

Bourdieu’s habitus depends on relatively stable social conditions or a simpler,

organised form of modernity; contemporary fandom exists outside of these

parameters. Advancing this point, Craib (1992) insists that changes to the

contemporary environment have summoned conditions via which a ‘reflexive habitus’

has become increasingly common. Sweetman (2003) and Adkins (2003) concur with

this sentiment and further suggest that uncertainty and change are paradoxically

becoming a familiar occurrence in most fields with agents possessing a greater

tolerance of and taste for diversity. Thus, according to this logic, contemporary

agents have been described as ‘cultural omnivores’ in the sense that they are

tolerant of and have a taste for many different leisure activities that are not bound by

strict conceptions of habitus in the sense that Bourdieu uses this term (Peterson,

2005). Yet despite the potential for reflexivity in contemporary lifestyles, and

acknowledging the importance of this for understanding fan cultures, it seems that

some ‘traditional’ barriers to inclusion remain.

FEMALE SPORTS FANS

Regardless of an increasing capacity for reflexivity within the practice of sport

fandom (acknowledged above), Giddens (1991) reminds us that contemporary life

and its evolving constitution continues to produce difference, exclusion and

marginalisation in various forms. In support of this, Crawford (2001) has revealed

that despite the presence of a high proportion of female audience members at live

ice hockey matches, women are often excluded from the highest echelons of this fan

community with assertions of inauthenticity cast upon them. Similar findings have

been expressed by Collins (2009) and Caudwell (2011) in relation to rugby and

football respectively and yet despite an acceptance that inequalities exist in sport fan

communities, there have been few research programmes dedicated to its study. In

fact, Pope (2013: 4) writes that as well as being marginalised in fandom

communities, female sports fans have largely been marginalised in academic

research.

She explains that even when female fans are cited in scholarly research, they

are often compared unfavourably against the image of dominant, uncontrollable

masculine passion that is unleashed in response to sports victory or defeat. Females

by contrast, are depicted as sobbing, screaming, individuals motivated by the chance

to see or touch a male idol. This position is supported by the tendency for academics

to focus on female sports fans as synthetic, media dependent, consumer fans. In

King’s (1998) research on football fandom, for instance, he contrasts ‘new fans’ (e.g.

placing emphasis on the growing number of female fans as part of this process) as

consumers, against ‘traditional fans’, or, as he labels them for the purposes of his

study, ‘the lads’. In keeping with this, much of the literature has driven cumbersomely

over the life experiences of female fans and thus, rather than investigating what

fandom means to this under-represented group, studies have been content to

explain away the presence of female fans as a side-effect of the ‘bourgeoisification’

of contemporary sport (Jones and Lawrence, 2000). Yet, by stigmatising minority

groups of fans (in this instance, women) as inauthentic or less important, sports
fandom research arguably maintains a ‘malestream’ approach, leaving the

exploration and understanding of female sports fandom underdeveloped (Scratton

and Flintoff, 2002).

In relation to the perception of female fans in the sport of ice hockey,

Crawford and Gosling (2004) reveal the presence of oppressive ideologies that are

deeply embedded within the culture of fandom itself. They were able to delve further

into gendered discussions of fandom by unveiling a derogatory concept that has

been used to describe female fans, ‘puck-bunnies’. The term has been coined to

generalise and trivialise the status of female fans whose alleged primary interest is in

the sexual attractiveness of male athletes. One male participant explained:

A puck-bunny is someone who hangs around the players, always on the

lookout to get that chance autograph, photograph, quick pint, quick knee

trembler around the back of the arena from the player … heck, let’s face it

even the water carrier is in with a chance here (cited in Crawford and Gosling,

2004: 468).

Whilst interviews revealed that men too were equally keen to collect autographs,

chat to players and emphasise an appreciation of the closeness between fans and

players (similar to those characteristics associated with puck-bunnies), this was not

negatively perceived (by participants in this study) as a sign of inauthentic practice.

Further, Crawford and Gosling concluded that findings do not support the

assumption that females are less dedicated in practice, nor is there any evidence to

suggest that female fans are less knowledgeable than their male counterparts.

Instead, the authors imply that it is simply the overt visible differences from the
dominant male membership (i.e. belonging to a gender group) that may see certain

individuals excluded from full participation and acceptance.

On this point Dixon (2014) agrees and makes subsequent reference to the

mode via which perceptions of authenticity (e.g. in relation to group inclusion and

exclusion criteria) are formed and applied in practice. As well as detailing the

historical location of gender inequality within associated institutions more generally,

Dixon suggests that power relations are maintained in practice via mechanisms of

lateral participatory surveillance, otherwise understood as peer-to-peer monitoring

(Andrejevic, 2004). It is through surveillance of this type, he suggests, that fans

begin to monitor the behaviour of significant others and consequently replicate or

reject forms of observed practice as authentic or inauthentic. Consequently female

fans may experience what Muggleton (2000: 153) describes as the effects of core

membership, inevitably invoking a masculine criterion that privileges men over

women. It is worth noting however, that whilst female fans show solidarity in voicing

concerns about the trivialisation of female fans, coherence is short lived. As an

example, Dixon (2014: 434) reveals that female fans are fragmented too with some

surveilling and casting blame on others for negative stereotypes associated with

female fans:

Rachel: I do think that some female fans do us no favours. Some of

them tend to go in groups to ogle at the blokes and others stand

there in sexy clothes with their tits out. That’s how we get a bad

press. [Sunderland AFC fan aged 28]

For fans like Rachel (above) such behaviour was condemned as inauthentic via

processes of lateral participatory surveillance. Actions of the type described above,

she explains, will fail to gain the acceptance of the male core membership and

consequently she too perpetuates negative beliefs about this form of female fandom.

THE EVOLUTION OF SPORT FANDOM CULTURES

Whilst some scholars emphasise the importance of ‘tradition’ for explaining the

generality of social conduct within fandom cultures (e.g. in relation to upholding

habitus or conceptions of authenticity and consequent exclusion), others propose

that tradition is not, in any sense, a tangible reality. After all, it has different meanings

for successive generations and there are even discrepancies as to its form within

some generations of fans. To explain, Nash (2000) and Stone (2007) argue that

sport cultures do not stagnate long enough for tradition to have ever really existed in

the manner perceived by some. As a supportive example of this, Dixon (2011) draws

on the theoretical work of Giddens (1984) to explain that structures and

consequently notions of tradition are negotiated and renegotiated through social

interaction across generations of fans. It is proposed, therefore, that traditions and

the routines on which ‘ideas of tradition’ are formed tend to be used by agents as a

‘symbolic’ form of security in an ever-changing environment. As Giddens (1984: 60)

writes:

An examination of routinisation … provides us with a master key to explicating

the characteristic forms of relations between the basic security system on the

one hand, and the reflexively constituted processes inherent in the episodic

character encounters on the other.

From this position, ‘tradition’ can only ever offer a façade of continuity given that over

time agents will interact with diverse groups of people across institutions that are

also involved in organic processes of change. As a specific example of this process

Dixon (2013b) draws attention to the enduring relationship between fandom and the

pub. He demonstrates how (on the surface, at least) ‘tradition’ lives on in the minds

of sports fans; and yet the relationship between pub and fan endures, not solely due

to tradition, but because of the response of the institution (the pub) to the evolving

needs of its customers (sports fans).

Others have made this point too. Holt (1990: 63), for instance, explains that

‘the staying power of the alehouse’ (in terms of longevity and institutional success)

ought to be attributed to its chameleon-like ability to adapt to ever changing social

attitudes and consumer demands, a contention that has particular relevance for the

pub attaining status as the cultural home of the sport fan (Holt, 1990; Weed, 2007).

Furthermore, according to Huggins (2004), once spectator sport had gained in

popularity throughout the nineteenth century, sports clubs and supporters often

aligned themselves with the local ale house as a stable space to discuss the result of

the latest match or the prospect of the next. And as Colins and Vamplew (2002: 70-

73) suggest, much of the pre-industrial idea (detailing the sporting event as an

occasion for drinking) was carried over into modern sport, with the consumption of

beer and sandwiches and the meeting of friends an essential part of the match-day

experience.

In contemporary sport, those ‘traditions’ (noted above) have altered shape

somewhat to meet the demands of the discerning consumer and, consequently, the

historical holy trinity of: 1. male company, 2. beer, and 3. sport (as acknowledged by

Weed, 2006) has transformed to include females, families, coffee, food, quiz and
gambling activities, and television. On the latter point, Weed (2007) suggests that the

demand to watch live sport in the pub (or its themed equivalent, the ‘sports bar’) can

be partially explained as a consequence of the bourgeoisification of professional

sport, the rise in match attendance fees and a desire to experience the live

performance in the company of close group peers. David and Millward (2012: 361)

add to this point when they emphasise that weakened forms of social control in pubs

are an attractive alternative to the somewhat controlled, corporate nature of

contemporary live match attending experiences.

Consequently, the pub, as a routine historical space linked with sport culture,

has combined with technological and commercial opportunities to showcase live

sport and satisfy demand for control-free communal viewing. Weed (2007; 2008)

explains that the pub has evolved into a desirable site for sports fans to view live

sport and then later recall the experience of spectating in a particular venue as a

meaningful occasion, guided by a compulsion for proximity. The compulsion for

proximity that Weed discusses is not proximity to the event, but rather to others

sharing the experiences of watching the event (Jones, Brown, and Richards 2012).

Thus, examples like those above highlight the slow processes of cultural change as

institutions and agents interact to transform practice. It is worth noting however, that

there are occasional moments in history when circumstances arise to radically alter

forms of practice. The digital revolution is one such moment that has had a

significant impact on fandom cultures (Pearson, 2010).

Sports Fandom and New Media

Perhaps the most obvious signs of change within sport fandom cultures have

occurred in relation to the embrace of new media and the digital revolution. Leonard

(2009: 2) writes:

Each day fans visit various sports websites, participate in fantasy sports,

celebrate and criticise teams, players and sporting cultures on blogs, on

discussion groups, and on list serves and gain joyful pleasure from playing

sport video games. Each of these media, to varying degrees, embody what

has become known as new media, a catch all phrase that includes everything

from the internet and ecommerce to the blogosphere, video games, virtual

reality and other examples in which the media technologies are defined by

increasing accessibility, fluidity and interactivity.

The literature relating to sport and new media is in its infancy as scholars seek to

understand its implications. The research covers various manifestations such as the

social significance of:

 sport computer gaming (Conway, 2009; Crawford, 2006; Crawford and

Gosling, 2005; Plymire, 2009);

 fandom blogs towards advancing feminist perspectives on sport (Hardin,

2011);

 online interactions used to highlight debates on anti-Englishness (Johnes,

2007);

 the use of message boards to highlight the emergence of European identity in

relation to football fans (Levermore and Millward, 2007); and

 discussions of social micro blogging site ‘twitter’ in the context of the shifting
sports media landscape (Coche, 2013; Highfield et al., 2013; Hutchins, 2010;
Norman, 2012; Sanderson and Kassing, 2011; Smith, 2011).
 Whatever the context, it is clear that new media (accessed in various guises

with each ‘new mode’ more accessible and convenient than the last) has changed

sites of knowledge transfer or processes of information acquisition and dissemination

for many sports fans. For much of their history fans have been passive acceptors of

information, happy to receive any scraps that were fed down by official institutions.

But by embracing technological advancements in communication, fans now have the

capacity to be more active than they have ever been (Cleland, 2010; Dart, 2009;

Millward, 2010). They are the producers of information as well as consumers of it.

And whilst the extent to which new media can offer a mode for genuine resistance to

hegemonic dominance remains unproven, it is safe to say that new media have

revolutionised previously static forms of information generation to embrace the views

of fans in the moment, via online polls, and social network communications such as

‘twitter’, ‘facebook’ and possibly a number of alternatives by the time this book is in

print. Newspapers too have added online versions in order to modernise in line with

consumers. The relationship is mutually beneficial. Sports fans can search for sport

related stories at the click of a button, and those stories, in turn, are legitimised by

fan communities - as journalists ask readers to comment on the issue under

discussion.

It seems then, that the internet (and other forms of new media) is particularly

suited to a contemporary world that bypasses time and space, providing the context

for fans of sport to support athletes and teams from the far flung corners of the earth

with consummate ease (Willis, 2000). Where the internet was once thought of as a

fad not worth exploring in fandom cultures, scholars now recognise its revolutionary

impact. For example, Gibbons and Dixon (2010) have called for researchers to take

online interactions between fans more seriously. They observe that sports blogs
often retain most of their common offline discourse but in an online format and

furthermore they have brought into question the apparent disjunction between online

and offline practice. For instance, when Rheingold (1993: 3) states that ‘people in

virtual communities do everything that people do in real life, but leave their body

behind’, Gibbons and Dixon (2010) insist that virtual and real life practice have

become almost indistinguishable from one another.

Text Box 18.3 about here

The extent of internet technology use for fans is, of course, influenced by

previous experiences – with younger generations more open to newer forms of

communication. Dixon (2013a) points out that whilst conceptions of ‘tradition’ are

important to fan practice (in the sense that it ensures that all remember history and

previous cultural landmarks), ‘evolution’ is essential to the success and continuation

of any given culture or sub-culture. In order for this to happen, the resistance

inevitably felt towards the inclusion of new technological forms (often by aging

generations within sub-cultures), calls for the action of role reversal in the teachings

of new practice. Whilst it is true that the ‘knowledgability’ required for cultures to

flourish is passed from one generation to the next, Dixon explains that this process is

not always uni-directional. New forms of technology driven practice are often

embraced (at first) by a larger proportion of youths that are still forming fandom

routines. It follows then, that younger members too have a role to play by inevitably

teaching older generations how to cope with and embrace change. Take the

following as an example:
 Jimmy: I have only really started to use it but have found it really useful. My

son got it in for me [installed the internet at home] and showed me the best

sites for football. I use it every day but it still takes me a while to click on the

right things … It’s definitely a part of fandom, but not a part that I could have

imagined thirty years ago. [Newcastle United FC Fan, aged 55] (cited in Dixon

2013: 122)

Whilst technological change has the potential to disrupt feelings of practice security

for fans like Jimmy, gentle introductions to new technologies derived through

interactions with others can soften the blow. Concomitantly, new routines are formed

on the back of new knowledge, and so the practice gradually evolves.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has outlined the genealogy of sports fandom research as scholars

attempt to explain fandom practice in relation to continuity and change. Much of the

work operates at extreme ends of a theoretical dichotomy where fans are situated as

either the product of macro level structures (for example, in the form of tradition) or

micro level self-determining agents of post-modernity (for example, motivated by

individual desire). As a challenge to the former perspectives, a new wave of fandom

studies has begun to investigate the theoretical space between those accounts (at

the meso level) by sharing a desire to understand how individual action is organised

at the level of practice whilst simultaneously recognising that structural features are

reproduced through individual action. In doing so, they have been able to

demonstrate the fluidity of fandom cultures and the subtle evolution of tradition.
 CHAPTER SUMMARY

 Conceptual dichotomies and typologies of sports fandom have been used to

categorise fan ‘types’ into idealistic, but ultimately unrealistic components.

 Solid ideas of ‘traditional’ versus ‘new’ have been challenged by post-modern

approaches to sports fandom in the quest to explain the fluidity of practice.

 Post-modern writers have been criticised too for underestimating the

importance of continuity, place and community in contemporary sport in

relation, amongst other things, to gender relations.

 New theoretical approaches that acknowledge the importance of both

continuity and change provide a useful alternative for explaining the

contemporary position of sports fandom.

FURTHER READING

Millward (2011) explores the transnational networks and social movements for

football fans in the new media age. In addition, Gibbons (2014) uses an online

ethnographic approach to draw attention to the issue of English national identity

though football fandom communications and Dixon (2013a) examines the social,

emotional, economic and technological implications of consumption on late-modern

fandom. Beyond football, Crawford (2004) researches ice hockey fans to theorise

more widely in relation to the career of sport fans. Outside of the realm of sport

fandom, Hills (2002) outlines the way that fans have been conceptualised in cultural

theory and challenges established paradigms. Duffett (2013) extends those

arguments by drawing on a range of debates from media studies, cultural studies

and psychology. For an appreciation of how fans use new media technology, see

Booth (2010).

REFERENCES

Adkins, L. (2002) Revisions: Gender and Sexuality in Late Modernity. Buckingham:

Open University Press.
Andrejevic, M. (2004) ‘The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, Risk
and Governance’, Surveillance and Society, 2 (4): 479-497.
Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2001) The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2005) Liquid Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2007) Consuming Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Becker, H.S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in Sociology of Deviance. London: Free
Press.
Blackshaw, T. (2002) ‘The sociology of sport reassessed in light of the phenomenon
of Zygmunt Bauman’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37 (2):
199-217.
Blackshaw, T. (2008) ‘Politics, theory and practice: Contemporary theory and
football’, Soccer & Society, 9 (3): 325-45.
Booth, P. (2010) Digital Fandom: New Media Studies. New York. Peter Lang
Publishing INC.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boyle, R. and Haynes, R. (2000) Sport, the Media, and Popular Culture. Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Boyle, R. and Haynes, R. (2004) Football in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Caudwell, J. (2011) ‘Reviewing UK football cultures: continuing with gender
analyses’, Soccer & Society, 12 (3): 3323-329.
Clarke, J. (1978) ‘Football and working class fans: Tradition and change’, in R.
Ingham (ed.) Football Hooliganism: The Wider Context. London: Inter-Action,
37-60.
Cleland, J. (2010) ‘From passive to active: The changing relationship between
supporters and football clubs’, Soccer & Society, 11 (5): 537-52.
Coche, R. (2013) ‘What women’s soccer fans want: A Twitter study’, Soccer &
Society. iFirst. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2012.753542
Collins, T. (2009) A Social History of English Rugby Union. Oxon: Routledge.
Collins T. and Vamplew W. (2002) Mud, Sweat and Beers: A Cultural History of
Sport and Alcohol. Oxford: Berg.

Conway, S.C. (2009) ‘Starting at “start”: An exploration of the nondiegetic in soccer

video games’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 26 (1): 67-88.
Crabbe. T. (2008) ‘Postmodern community and future directions: Fishing for
community: England fans at the 2006 FIFA World Cup’, Soccer & Society, 9 (3):
428-38.
Craib, I. (1992) Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.
Crawford, G. and Gosling, V. (2004) ‘The myth of the “Puck Bunny”: Female fans
and mens ice-hockey’, Sociology, 38 (3): 477-93.
Crawford, G. and Gosling, V. (2005) ‘Toys for boys? Women’s marginalisation and
participation as digital gamers’, Sociological Review Online. Available at
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/1/crawford.html. Accessed February 2012.
Crawford, G. (2001) ‘Characteristics of a British ice hockey audience: Major findings
of the 1998 and 1999 Manchester Storm Ice Hockey Club supporter surveys’,.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36 (1): 78-81.
Crawford, G. (2003) ‘The career of the sport supporter: The case of the Manchester
Storm’, Sociology, 37 (2): 219-37.
Crawford, G. (2004) Consuming Sport: Fans, Sport and Culture. London: Routledge.
Crawford, G. (2006) ‘The cult of Champ Man: The culture and the pleasure of
Championship Manager Gamers’, Information, Communication and Society, 9
(4): 496-514.
Dart, J. (2009) ‘Blogging the 2006 Fifa World Cup Finals’, Sociology of Sport Journal,
26 (1): 107-26.
David M. and Millward, P. (2012) ‘Football’s coming home?: Digital
reterritorialization, contradictions in the transnational coverage of sport and the
sociology of alternative football broadcasts’, The British Journal of Sociology,
63 (2): 349-369.
Dixon, K. (2011) ‘A third way for football fandom research: Anthony Giddens and
Structuration Theory’, Soccer & Society, 12 (2): 279-98.
Dixon, K. (2012) ‘Learning the game: Football fandom culture and the origins of
practice’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48 (3): 334-348.
Dixon, K. (2013a) Consuming Football in Late Modern Life. Surrey: Ashgate.
Dixon, K. (2013b) ‘The football fan and the pub: An enduring relationship’,
International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Online First. DOI:
10.1177/1012690213501500. Access
available:http://irs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/07/1012690213501500.f
ull.pdf+html

Dixon, K. (2014) ‘The role of lateral surveillance in the construction of authentic

football fandom practice’, Surveillance and Society. 11 (4): 424-438.
Duffett, M. (2013) Understanding Fandom: An Introduction to the Study of Media
Fan Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academics.
Gibbons, T. (2014) English National Identity and Football Fan Culture: Who are ya?
Surrey: Ashgate.
Gibbons, T. and Dixon, K. (2010) ‘“Surfs up!”: A call to take English soccer fan
interactions on the internet more seriously’, Soccer & Society, 11 (5): 599-613.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern
Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giulianotti, R. (2002) ‘Supporters, followers, fans, and flaneurs: A taxonomy of
spectator identities in football’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26 (1): 25-
46.
Glaser, B.G. (1968) ‘Towards a theory of organizational careers’, in B.G. Glaser (ed.)
Organisational Careers. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A. (1971) Status Passage. London: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1968) Asylums. London: Penguin.
Gray, J., Sandvoss, C., and Harrington, L. (2007) ‘Why study fans?’ in J. Gray., C.
Sandvoss, and L. Harrington (eds) Fandom Identities and Communities in a
Mediated World. New York: New York University Press, 1-16

Hardin, M. (2011) ‘The power of a fragmented collective: Radical purist feminism and
technologies of the self in the sports blogosphere’, in A.C. Billings (ed.) Sports
Media: Transformation, Integration, Consumption. New York: Routledge, 40-60.

Harris, C. (1998) ‘Introduction: Theorizing fandom: Fans, subculture and identity’, in

C. Harris (ed.) Theorising Fandom, Subculture and Identity. New York:
Hampton Press Inc, 3-8.

Highfield, T., Harrington, S., and Bruns, A. (2013) ‘Twitter as a technology for
audiencing and fandom’, Information, Communication & Society, 16 (3):
DOI:10.1080/13691188X.2012.756053

Hills, M. (2002) Fan Cultures. London and New York: Routledge.

Holt, R. (1990) Sport and the British: A Modern History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Holt, D. (1995) ‘How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices’,.
Journal of Consumer Research. 22 (1): 1-16.
Horne, J. (2006) Sport in Consumer Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Huggins M (2004) The Victorians and Sport. Hambledon and London: London and
New York.

Hutchins, B. (2010) ‘The acceleration of media sport culture’, Information

Communication and Society, 14 (2): 237-257.

Johnes, M. (2007) ‘We hate England! We hate England? National identity and anti-
Englishness in Welsh soccer fan culture’, Unpublished paper available at:
www.swan.ac.uk/history/staff/johnes/We%20Hate%20England.pdf.
Jones, I. and Lawrence, L. (2000) ‘Identity and gender in sport and media fandom:
An exploratory comparison of fans attending football matches and Star Trek
conventions’, in S. Scraton and B. Watson (eds) Sport, Leisure Identities and
Gendered Spaces. Brighton: LSA.
Jones, I., Brown, L., and Richard, S. (2012) ‘Watching the FIFA World Cup in 2010 in
England: The sojourner perspective’, Leisure Studies, iFirst article, 1-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2012.727457
King, A. (1997) ‘The Lads: Masculinity and the new consumption of football’,
Sociology, 31 (2): 329-46.
King, A. (1998) The End of Terraces: The Transformation of English Football in the
1990s. London: Leicester University Press.
Kraszewski, J. (2008) ‘Pittsburgh in Fort Worth: Football bars, sports television, sport
fandom and the management of home’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 32
(2): 139-157.
Leonard, D. J. (2009) ‘New media and global sporting cultures: Moving beyond the
clichés and binaries’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 26 (1): 1-16.
Levermore, R. and Millward, P. (2007) ‘Official policies and informal transversal
networks: Creating “pan-European identifications” through sport?’ The
Sociological Review, 55 (1): 144-64.
Marsh, P. (1978) ‘Life and careers on the football terraces’, in R. Ingham (ed.)
Hooliganism: The Wider Context. London: Inter-Action Inprint.
Mehus, I. (2010) ‘The diffused audience of football’, Continuum: Journal of Media &
Cultural Studies, 24 (6): 897-903.
Millward, P. (2010) The Global Football League: Transnational Networks, Social
Movements and Sport in the New Media Age. London. Palgrave Macmillan.
Muggleton, D. (2000) Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style. Oxford:
Berg.
Nash, R. (2000) ‘The sociology of English football in the 1990’s: Fandom, business
and future research’, Football Studies, 3 (1): 49-62.
Norman, M. (2012) ‘Saturday night’s alright for tweeting: Cultural citizenships,
collective discussion, and the new media consumption/production of hokey day
in Canada’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 29 (3): 306-324.
Palmer, C. and Thompson, K. (2007) ‘The paradoxes of football spectatorship: on-
field and online expressions of social capital among the “Grog Squad”’,
Sociology of Sport Journal, 24 (3): 187-205.
Pearson, R. (2010) ‘Fandom in the digital era’, Popular Communication, 8: 84-95.
Peterson, R. (2005) ‘Problems in comparative research: the example of
omnivorousness’, Poetics, 3 (5): 257-82.
Pope, S. (2013) ‘There are some daft people out there!: exploring female sport and
media fandoms’, Sport in Society, ifirst:
http:dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437.2013.828708
Plymire, D.C. (2009) Remediating football for the posthuman future: Embodiment
and subjectivity in sport video games,’ Sociology of Sport Journal, 26 (1): 17-
30.
Quick, S. (2000) ‘Contemporary sport consumers: Some implications of linking fan
typology with key spectator variables’, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9 (3): 149-56.
Redhead, S. (1993) The Passion and the Fashion: Football Fandom in New Europe.
Aldershot: Avebury.
Redhead, S. (1997) Post-Fandom and the Millennial Blues: The Transformation of
Soccer Culture. London: Routledge.
Rein, I., Kotler, P., and Shields, B. (2006) The Elusive Fan. USA: McGraw Hill.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electric Frontier.
Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Robson, G. (2000) No One Likes Us, We Don’t Care: The Myth and Reality of
Millwall. Oxford: Berg.
Sanderson, J. and Kassing, J.W. (2011) ‘Tweets and blogs: Transformative,
adversarial, and integrative developments’, in A.C. Billings (ed.) Sport Media:
Transformation, Integration, Consumption. New York: Routledge, 114-128.
Sandvoss, C. (2003) A Game of Two Halves: Football, Television and Globalization.
London: Routledge.
Sandvoss, C. (2005) ‘Technological evolution or revolution? Sport online live internet
commentary as postmodern cultural form’, Convergence, 10 (3): 39-54.
Scratton, S. and Flintoff, A. (2002) ‘Sport feminism: The contribution of feminist
thought to our understanding of gender and sport’, in S. Scratton and A. Flintoff
(eds) Gender and Sport: A Reader. London: Routledge.
Smith, L.R. (2011) 'The less you say: An initial study of gender coverage in sports on
Twitter’, in A.C. Billings (ed.) Sport media: Transformation, integration,
consumption. New York: Routledge, 146-161.
Stone, C. (2007) ‘The role of football in everyday life’, Soccer & Society, 8 (2/3): 169-
184.
Sweetman, P. (2003) ‘Twenty-first century dis-ease? Habitual reflexivity or the
reflexive habitus’, Sociological Review, 51 (4): 528-49.
Wann, D.L. Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., and Pease, D.G. (2001) Sports Fans: The
Psychology and Social Impact of Spectators. New York: Routledge.
Weed, M. (2006) ‘The story of an ethnography: The experience of watching the 2002
World Cup in the Pub’, Soccer & Society, 7 (1): 76-95.
Weed, M. (2007) ‘The pub as a virtual football fandom venue: An alternative to
“being there”?’ Soccer & Society, 8 (2/3): 399-414.
Weed, M. (2008) ‘Exploring the sport spectator experience: virtual football
spectatorship in the pub’, Soccer & Society, 9 (2): 189-97.
Wheeler, S. and Green, K. (2012) ‘Parenting in relation to children’s sports
participation: generational changes and potential implications’, Leisure Studies,
IFirst article, 1-18.
Williams, J. (2007) ‘Rethinking sports fandom: The case of European soccer. Leisure
Studies, 26 (2): 127-46.
Willis, P. (2000) The Ethnographic Imagination. Oxford: Polity.
Box 18.1 Giulianotti’s (2002) taxonomy of spectator identities

Giulionotti (2002: 33-40) classifies four ideal types of spectators relative to the

identification that each exhibits towards any given sport club. The characteristics of

these are described below:

 The Supporter: Harvests a strong sense of ‘hot traditional’ identification. This

is underpinned by a topophilic relationship towards the clubs core space.

Staple values are cultivated via direct induction from previous generation

‘supporters’ and this is thought to enhance ‘thick solidarity’ with likeminded

peers. Attending home fixtures is a routine that structures the supporter’s free

time.

 The Fan: Develops affection for the club or its specific players, but

experiences the club via a market centred set of relationships. Consuming

merchandise, sport television subscription, buying shares and contributing to

fundraising initiatives are activities associated with fans. Solidarity is often

expressed through visual displays of consumption.

 The Follower: Keeps abreast of the fortunes of clubs (plural) and of ‘sport

people’ in which he/she has an interest. Interest is often derived via logical

and historical links to geographical locations, traditions, and the heritage of

the associated spectators. Followers distinguish themselves from fans in a

deliberate attempt to denounce consumer principles.

 The Flaneur: is associated with a postmodern spectator identity and a

depersonalised set of market dominated virtual relationships, particularly

interactions with the cool media of television and the internet. They are

depicted as inauthentic because they lack solidarity.

Box 18.2 Habitus and Sports Fandom

While many people are socialised into fandom by member of their family or other

significant others, we should not assume that this is the only route into fandom. As

expressed in the following fandom accounts, individuals can become sports fans

despite a childhood habitus that is indifferent to sports (Carol), or rebel against a

‘traditional’ family of sports enthusiasts (Dave):

Interviewer: How did you get into football?

Carol: My ex hubby was a big football fan so it was always on in the house. I

used to hate the game but learned to love it. Once I knew the rules,

appreciated the skills and tactics and experienced the atmosphere, I was

hooked. [Hartlepool FC fan, aged 43] (cited in Dixon 2012: 343)

Interviewer: Is your son a football fan?

Dave: I’ve tried, I’ve tried! Maybe it’s for the best after all of the torture it’s

brought me over the years. No, he’s got other interests. He goes paintballing,

does things like climbing…, but he couldn’t care less about Newcastle.

[Newcastle FC fan, aged 40] (cited in Dixon 2012: 339)

Text Box 18.3 The Grog Squad

Palmer and Thompson’s (2007) ethnographic study of a group of Australian Rules

Football fans, named ‘the Grog Squad’, provides an explicit example of the fluidity

between the virtual and the physical worlds and the mutual importance of internet

communications and real life interactions for this fan base. The researchers

explained that for ‘the groggies’ the internet provided a crucial mechanism through

which fans maintained their particular cultural identity and, moreover, it was noted as

a site for the organisation of real time, physical meetings. Consequently, the authors

add support to the contention that the hypothesised and stereotypical portrayal of

internet users as inauthentic fans (i.e. chat room nerds that are lacking the capacity

for meaningful, social interactions in the real world) is false. Rather, evidence

suggests that ‘the fact that the groggies also have on-going, real time contact sits in

opposition to other studies of fans in which the internet is the principle form of

communication’ (Palmer and Thompson (2007: 197).