1726486 MC3103 1920 - dissertation PDF

Preview

Summary

dissertation...

Description

JOMEC School of Journalism, Media and Culture

'Impactful or not? An analysis for assessing whether the impact of the media has contributed to the failures of England at major international football tournaments post 1966'. by OMAR BAIG-GARRICK

This dissertation is submitted to the School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Journalism and Communications May 2020

DECLARATION I declare that this dissertation is the result of my own efforts. The various sources to which I am indebted are clearly indicated in the references in the text and in the bibliography. I further declare that this work has never been accepted in the substance of any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any other degree. I hereby give consent for my dissertation to be available for photocopying and for interlibrary loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.

Candidate’s name: Omar Baig-Garrick Supervisor’s name: Dr Kerry Moore

3

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 8 Sport as an important arena ..................................................................................................... 8 Why is national identity important? .......................................................................................... 9 National Identity with England football .................................................................................. 10 Why is football so culturally important in England? ............................................................... 10 (Eprints.lse.ac.uk, 2014)......................................................................................................... 11 Sanna Inthorn, Senior Lecturer at the University of East Anglia ............................................. 12 Peter Millward, Lecturer at John Moore’s University.............................................................. 12 Daniel Burdsey, Principal Lecturer, University of Brighton .................................................... 12 Mark Groves, Senior Lecturer in Sports Studies at the University of Wolverhampton ............... 13 The importance of national figures and how they are represented in the media........................ 14

Methodology ..................................................................................................................16 Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................................. 17 Focus Group Guide ............................................................................................................... 19 Ethics .................................................................................................................................... 20

Discourse Analysis ..........................................................................................................21 Sir Bobby Robson .................................................................................................................. 21 Glenn Hoddle ........................................................................................................................ 24 Sven Goran-Eriksson ............................................................................................................. 28

Focus Group Thematic Analysis .......................................................................................32 Pressure ................................................................................................................................ 32 Criticism ................................................................................................................................ 34 Negative Emotion .................................................................................................................. 35 Media Influence .................................................................................................................... 36

Reflections and findings ..................................................................................................39 Limitations............................................................................................................................. 41 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 41

References ......................................................................................................................42 Appendices .....................................................................................................................50 Appendix 1: Approval Letter ................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 2: Consent Form ...................................................................................................... 52 Appendix 3: Focus Group Information Sheet............................................................................ 55 Appendix 4: Participant Information Sheet ............................................................................. 57

4

Appendix 5: Robson article no.1 ............................................................................................. 62 Appendix 6: Robson article no.2 ............................................................................................. 63 Appendix 7: Robson Article no.3 ............................................................................................. 64 Appendix 8: Robson article no.4 ............................................................................................. 66 Appendix 9: Robson article no.5 ............................................................................................. 67 Appendix 10: Hoddle article no.1 ............................................................................................ 69 Appendix 11: Hoddle article no.2 ............................................................................................ 70 Appendix 12: Hoddle article no.3 ............................................................................................ 71 Appendix 13: Hoddle article no.4 ............................................................................................ 72 Appendix 14: Hoddle article no.5 ............................................................................................ 73 Appendix 15: Hoddle article no.6 ............................................................................................ 74 Appendix 16: Eriksson article no.1 .......................................................................................... 75 Appendix 17: Eriksson article no.2 .......................................................................................... 76 Appendix 18: Eriksson article no.3 .......................................................................................... 78 Appendix 19: Eriksson article no.4 .......................................................................................... 81 Appendix 20: Eriksson article no.5 .......................................................................................... 83 Appendix 21: Transcript ......................................................................................................... 85 Appendix 22: Table of overall thematic analysis of all codes from the focus group ................... 92

5

Introduction England haven’t won a football tournament since 1966 (BBC ON THIS DAY, 2005). Some say it’s just ‘bad luck’. Others may relate it to poor management, which is plausible. Statistically, the squads have underachieved and failed in winning any of these competitions, leading many to conclude the team is destined to fail (Islam, 2011)

Warming of the task he had, Fabio Capello insisted that 1966 is “a returning ghost” (Wallace, 2018) Arguably, the pressures of the 1966 victory has weighed heavily on the squads who have tried and failed. Historically, England consider themselves as the rule makers of football, which is why as a nation, they expect teams to perform. But repeatedly, failure is seen.

Whilst fans of England may feel the managers and players haven’t performed well in the past, you have to ask yourself where these opinions have stemmed from. This is where it’s important to consider the role of the media. Contextually, our media is our only source of communication between those in office and society (Loveless, 2007). Studying this, the role of the media can go unnoticed in shaping opinions and beliefs, especially around national figures.

This research will be investigating the role of the media into the contribution of England failing at major international football competitions since 1966. After the popular documentary ‘Managing England: The Impossible Job’ (2018), I felt an appetite existed to assess the medias role in shaping opinion on England managers, ultimately contributing to squads failing at these competitions. Therefore, it is necessary to build on the foundations laid in the documentary and analytically assess the impact of the media in contributing to the failures made by England in past international tournaments. Themes touched upon include the importance of nationalism and the creation of pressure and distraction, caused by the media.

Qualitative methods have been used to investigate this issue. These approaches include the utilisation of discourse analysis and a focus group. The discourse analysis was used to analyse newspaper articles around 3 specific England managers. A focus group was identified as a suitable process to discuss the issues around the topic. Both have been constructed under a thematic analysis, with the focus group concentrating on codes identified throughout the discourse analysis. This would provide further authentication for a conclusive argument to

6

suggest that the media have been influential in England failing at major international football tournaments since 1966.

7

Literature Review Sport as an important arena Sport is considered an important arena because it allows people to celebrate their national identities. Although Kella asserts the theory that, “the most popular form of nationalist behaviour in many countries is in sport” (Kellas, 1991 cited in Bairner, 2005), it’s further noted that the perceived idea of an ‘imagined community’ becomes real in sporting events (Bairner, 2005). An ‘imagined community’ is a concept developed by Benedict Anderson, for an analysis into nationalism. Anderson portrays a nation as a socially constructed community, imagined by the people who recognise themselves as part of that society (Anderson, 2016). In relation to sport, this theory is a catalyst for displays of positive patriotism to take place at events. Sport often provides a uniquely effective medium of inculcating national feelings, whilst asserting the persistence of multiple national identities within the same political formation (Bairner, 2005). This provides evidence that sport positively offers individuals the opportunity to display nationalism, educating other countries about different cultures and ways of thinking.

With football, we can see how individual and global processes form to interact with other national identities. Examples include the type of football played by different countries (Seippel, 2017). Icelandic well-organized collective efforts, Brazilian “juego bonito,” Spanish “tikitaka,” Dutch “total football,” German “machine football,” English “kick and run” (Foer 2004; Goldblatt 2007; Wilson, 2008). This is emblematic, representing a nation through a particular elegance of play. Furthermore, it depicts a nationalistic discourse, with the aim of being independent from other states (Parekh, 1995) through their own versions of how to play the game. Countries adopting individual styles of football suggests that displaying nationalism in football doesn’t necessarily have to always be from the terraces. Rather, developing a format of playing matches and associating it with your country would be successfully representative if it proves to be prosperous.

8

Why is national identity important? National identity remains an important aspect of everyone’s culture. It’s an embodiment of exhibiting a nations tradition, which is exposed at an event. Commonly, it is “the maintenance and continuous reproduction of the pattern of values, memories, myths and traditions that compose the distinctive heritage of nations (Smith, 2000). However, some argue that the boundaries of ‘who belongs’ are reproduced and policed culturally in certain countries. In England, a study by NatCen claimed 95% of people think being able to speak English is essential for being ‘truly British’. (NatCen, 2013). Arguably, some may consider that levels of nationalism are created to distinguish between those who belong to a nation and those who don’t. This may help into comprehending why forms of nationalism are displayed increasingly at sporting events, particularly England football matches.

Another theory why national identity is considered as important in everyday life is because we see a lack of it. Stressed from the July 7th bombings, these events depicted problems created by the absence of British identity. A dominant discourse was that these attacks were perpetrated by UK nationals. In turn, this almost represents a lack of ‘cohesive’ national identity. Loyalty was undermined by cultural and religious differences (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock, 2008) and this in part facilitated the ideology driving the attacks. However, this assumption is hugely problematic as it tends to position minority ethnic communities (and especially Muslims in Britain) as objects of suspicion, due to religious and cultural differences (e.g. Islamophobia). According to Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock, a strong national identity is prerequisite to a stable and functioning multicultural society (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock, 2008). Therefore, it can be argued that a desire to portray national identity is fundamental because it reiterates the standard values of British society to other multicultural communities.

Under the perspective of England, the crown, Parliament, The NHS and the armed forces are all British, not English. The language is the most commonly used speech across the globe. The Church of England was available, but the multifaith character of religious England and the indifference of the secular majority made it a poor candidate. But there’s one more arena where ‘Englishness’ could perhaps construct a contemporary form of civic rather than ethnic nationalism; Football (Goldblatt, 2014)

9

National Identity with England football For years, the national football team has offered one of the few civic institutions where ‘Englishness’ was displayed; it’s an environment where the ensemble of team, fans and media offer a focus for the construction of England’s ‘imagined community’ (Goldblatt, 2014). However, through nationalism being presented at England football matches, some tried to conflate ‘Englishness’ with the aggressive behaviour of hooligans and the far right. Arguably, the English team had adopted a style of play (rough, honest, manly) (Kilpatrick,2018) that was a product of deeper national characteristics. Jack Straw, while Labour home secretary, argued that English nationalism was “potentially very aggressive”. William Hague considered it “the most dangerous of all nationalisms” (Goldblatt, 2014). During the 1980s, hooliganism was apparent throughout the majority of England away games, matches seen as a recruitment system to promote right-wing fascism (Maguire et al., 2002). Since the emergence of black football players however, hooliganism declined. Progressive movements in politics meant that England matches turned from brawling, xenophobic mobs into fun and adventurous events. This was achieved through the introduction of ‘Kick it Out’ in 1993, providing written codes of conduct to be introduced at stadiums, indicating the threat of prosecution for supporters guilty of committing racist acts (Holland, 2010). However, other factors suggest that we haven’t progressively ‘gentrified’ football, noted through the rise in ticket prices, increasing almost three times per year (Sheen, 2014). This behaviour puts off fans, who consider football as a ‘working-class’ sport (Sheen, 2014) Thus, national identity is culturally important to England football fans because it’s meant to be representative of a nation. England matches are one of the rare social gatherings where forms of nationalism can be produced. For this reason, it’s understandable why pain and anger are expressed when England fail in international competitions. It means more than just eleven players kicking a ball. These people are representing their country. Should they fail, it’s viewed as an embarrassment. This is why national identity is so important, providing insights into the pressures put on England football managers during major international tournaments.

Why is football so culturally important in England?

Contextually, the cultural importance of football goes back to the 14th century. Nicholas Farndon, the lord mayor of London, banned football because it caused ‘certain tumults’, and

10

in 1365, Edward III declared a ban on football because it distracted people from archery practices (Collins, 2018). This subverted the game, which may also explain why it’s now so important in our culture. But how? football was seen as everybody’s sport; it was played across varied social divisions but was overlooked by newspapers because it lacked the funding resources other sports received (Perry, 2011). Throughout these times, football was restricted by the ‘aristocratic patronage’ who provided the financial backing to other sports such as Cricket and Bowling (Perry, 2011). This didn’t allow the sport to develop. Often, if matches were played during the industrial revolution, there were no organised competitions or nationally agreed rules other than what had been decided on the day. As Alex Perry has noted, the laws of the game would have read something like this: “rule one - there are no rules. There were no referees to offer protection” (Perry, 2011). Though, due to its rise in popularity, football allowed Cambridge University and Shrewsbury school to develop The Cambridge rules in 1848, introducing laws that allowed forward passes, throw-ins and goal kicks (Cambridge University, 2006). Some of these guidelines were equipped within ‘The Sheffield Rules’. Established in 1857 by newly formed Sheffield United, these were a set of similar regulations to ‘The Cambridge Rules’, except it excluded the offside rule. The code was responsible for many innovations that later spread to association football. These included free kicks, corner kicks, handball, and the crossbar (Murphy, 2007).

Although it may seem this doesn’t have a direct link to England performance levels at major international tournaments, it’s an important feature that contributes to the reactionary reports and negative coverage when England fail on the national stage. The English obsession with football has an added bonus because they invented the rules and still control the game (Martinez and Mukharji, 2013.). This is useful as a valuable intuition into why the English national team suffers scrutiny from the media if they fail nationally deliver. Due to theories presenting the English as the ‘father figures’ of the game, should they be unsuccessful, it makes the country look weak and embarrassing. However, this also relates back to ‘Englishness’ and nationalism, in that they’re more c...