Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 04 June 2015, At: 10:56


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Soccer & Society


Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsas20

Football and its continuity as a


classless mass phenomenon in
Germany and England: rethinking the
bourgeoisification of football crowds
a

Oliver Frtjes
a

Faculty of Arts, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany


Published online: 26 Nov 2014.

Click for updates


To cite this article: Oliver Frtjes (2014): Football and its continuity as a classless mass
phenomenon in Germany and England: rethinking the bourgeoisification of football crowds, Soccer
& Society, DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2014.980734
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2014.980734

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Soccer & Society, 2014


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2014.980734

Football and its continuity as a classless mass phenomenon in


Germany and England: rethinking the bourgeoisication of
football crowds
Oliver Frtjes*

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Faculty of Arts, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany


Considering footballs popular notion of a working-class sport in England and
Germany at least in the 1950s the shift towards present classless fandom in
football is mainly explained by the genesis of a middle-class fan culture induced
by the process of footballs accumulating (hyper-) commodication. However,
this so-called bourgeoisication thesis cannot be veried on the basis of empirical data neither on the basis of the employment status of people attending
football matches in the stadia of the top league clubs in England and Germany
between 1977 and 2009 nor on the basis of representative data pertaining to the
social-class prole of regular readers of German football magazines carried out
in 1954. It is demonstrated that football has enjoyed continuous popularity
among all social classes. Hence, the bourgeoisication of football fandom can
basically be ascribed to the inter- and intra-generational upward mobility in
postmodern societies induced by socio-structural change.

Introduction
Over the last decades, the societies of Germany and England have undergone a signicant social change from industrial age to postmodernism. Taylorism characterized organization of work and industrial production structures during the industrial
age as being embedded in a so-called society of scarcity.1 In contrast, postmodern
societies can be described as knowledge-, service-, consumer-, leisure- or mediabased societies. The struggle for survival prevalent during industrial age ceased to
be important for the majority of the population. As a consequence of collectively
improved living conditions, an increasing individualistic orientation towards consumerism, leisure and entertainment could be observed in postmodern societies. In
accordance with the ndings of Schulze, this can be described as a subject-related
orientation towards experience.2 As a reaction to this, a large leisure, entertainment
and cultural industry has emerged in market-driven postmodern societies, in which
the demand for experience-orientated pleasures is met in a highly professional and
commercialized way.
Particularly, world footballs structural transformation into a major business
reects this process of social change. Commercialization, mediatization and professionalization can be seen as key ingredients identied in this process of structural
transformation (according to Giulianotti henceforth called commodication).3

*Email: oliver.fuertjes@uni-siegen.de
2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

O. Frtjes

The assumption that not only footballs business environment but also its fandom
have changed signicantly within the process of commodication is a leading tenet
in both German and English research literature. The popular notion of football as a
working-class sport at least in the 1950s and that football today in both countries
cuts across classes after an overwhelming takeover by middle-class football fans lies
at the heart of football-sociological analysis and expresses the social shift of football
audiences from lower to middle and proletarian to bourgeois predominance, respectively. Footballs bourgeoning popularity is, thereby, mainly explained by the legitimation and acceptance of commodied (show-) football in more afuent sections of
society, or in other words, by the genesis of a middle-class fan culture induced by
the process of footballs commodication (henceforth called bourgeoisication thesis).4 With regard to stadium audiences, the term gentrication common in urban
sociology is often used.5 By using this term, the signicance of constructional and
social upgrading of former working-class urban districts is transferred to the
stadium.
This bourgeoisication thesis has a long tradition in research in both those countries and was already under substantial debate in the 1970s and 1980s. The groundwork for this debate was laid by the identied starting point of footballs
commodication in the 1960s/1970s (early approaches). Currently, it has attracted
even more attention in the ongoing discussion about the effects of hyper-commodication on football in the postmodern era since the 1990s (recent approaches).6
In a historical and cross-cultural review, the following chapter highlights that
many communalities are found in the various approaches to the bourgeoisication
thesis, despite signicant historical and cross-cultural differences. These apply not
only to the explanation of footballs bourgeoning popularity but, in particular, to
their lack of empirical evidence.
This paper aims to test the bourgeoisication thesis empirically, rstly on the
basis of the employment status of people attending football matches in the stadia of
the top league clubs in both England (19832008) and Germany (19772009); secondly, on the basis of representative data pertaining to the social-class prole of regular readers of football magazines carried out in the spring of 1954. The latter data
base constitutes the only known source of empirical data on the industrial age and,
more importantly, on the time before the starting point of footballs commodication
in the 1960s. The ndings suggest the need to redene football as a continuous
classless7 mass phenomenon for that period of time when football has been an integrated part of popular culture in England since the last quarter of the nineteenth
century and in Germany since the 1920s. Furthermore, the ndings require the need
to rethink the bourgeoisication thesis. From a sociological perspective, it is argued
that not the process of footballs commodication but rather the inter- and intragenerational upward mobility in postmodern societies induced by socio-structural
change can explain the bourgeoisication of football fandom.
The bourgeoisication thesis in a historical and cross-cultural comparison
The bourgeoisication thesis explains the gentrication of football fan culture as a
consequence of the genesis of middle-class fandom induced by the process of footballs commodication. This chapter analyses the historical and cross-cultural process of commodication in England and Germany and the theoretical concept of this
bourgeoisication thesis. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that there are two periods,

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

in which the bourgeoisication thesis lies at the heart of football-sociologist


analysis.
It is worth noticing that the basic precondition for the bourgeoisication thesis is
the notion of working-class football in the past. From a sociological perspective that
means not only a preference for football among working classes but also a widespread denial by higher bourgeois status groups. Hence, footballs more established
roots in the working class and its underrepresentation in middle classes have to be
claried.
Historically speaking, it is crucial to mention the well-known fact that at the time
of its birth Association Football was indeed a gentlemens sport and a privilege
reserved for the upper class in both England and Germany.8 However, this changed
dramatically when football became a mass phenomenon. This happened as footballs
popularity spread into the working classes, the groundwork for which was laid by
several social developments, the most important being the clear emergence of a leisure culture in England during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and in
Germany during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s.9 This emerging popular culture
and increased leisure time during the industrial age were mainly due to reducing working hours brought about by new laws and improving living conditions for the working
population on the one hand, and infrastructural supply of leisure facilities in response
to extensive private and public demand for leisure time activities on the other.
English and German research literature on the social and cultural history of football focuses on the growing popularity of football among workers in the following
period and tends to assume the almost exclusively working-class nature by the start
of the 1950s.10 Explanations as to why there was a specic working-class preference
for football do not differ to any large degree. Cross-culturally, this preference is
explained principally by the assumption that factory workers wished to escape from
the alienating environment of a harsh daily routine. Another explanation given is the
obvious crossover between the nature of football and the nature of factory work in
the day-to-day experience of the working class, both of which demand typical working-class characteristics of physical power, toughness, robustness, agility, physical
courage and community spirit.11
Essential for the characterization of working-class football is the widespread
refusal of the original bourgeois classes in football. Research literature provides evidence for this in reference to the class-specic proletarian habitus that characterized
the newly formed football culture while masses of working-class supporters began
streaming into the stadia. It is argued that the workers shared a mutual proletarian
background, life style and standard of living as well as their passion for football.
Hence, a strong identication with the local football club emerged as well. Representing the working-class neighbourhood and thereby also the workers proletarian
culture, the local football clubs received their support mainly by sub-cultural fan
communities in an intensive, predominantly noisy and rowdy fashion. This branded
football as a proletarian sport in the eyes of the bourgeoisie who, therefore, nally
rejected the mutated football world.12
Commodication of football during the 1960s and 1970s early approaches to
the bourgeoisication thesis
Early sociologists suggest that the observed homogeneous working-class nature of
football crowds gentried during the 1960s and 1970s. They refer generally to the

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

O. Frtjes

starting point of footballs commodication from the 1960s onward. In fact, the
substantial transformation of the nancial framework of football clubs is a welldocumented and striking feature in both England and Germany.13 This, indeed,
occurred under cultural-specic concomitants.
In Germany, the introduction of the national Bundesliga in 1963 was fundamental in this regard. For the rst time, it was allowed for players to ofcially get paid
as professionals. However, professionalism in terms of playing football as a fulltime
job can rst be noted from 1972 onward due to the abolition of maximum wages
subsequent to the so-called Bundesliga-Skandal.14 The concentration of top clubs
in one national league and the powerful impact of the German Football Association
(DFB) on promoting the new top league can be considered as vital aspects in
German football. Signicant increases of earnings coming from promotion, sponsoring and, for the rst time ever, from television as well, contributed to the nancial
consolidation of the top-level clubs. Although listed as non-prot organizations, they
were allowed to be run for prot due to a special exemption.15 Furthermore, remarkable strides were being made in stadium modernization as well as in the building of
new stadia subsidized through public funds which were occurring at a prolic rate
across the country in the lead up to the 1974 Football World Cup.
In England, football had already established its professional national football league in 1888. Furthermore, English football clubs had been set up as limited companies ever since. However, no club managers were paid a salary and dividends were
restricted. Nonetheless, there was a new dimension in sponsoring and advertising
receipts particularly after the 1966 World Cup in England. These additional sources
of revenue were extraordinary and more necessary than ever to meet increased
expenditures subsequent to the abolition of the transfer and restraint system and
maximum wages in the early 1960s. Moreover, at the same time, stadium attendance
and hence receipts from ticket sales were decreasing.16 Similar to Germany, English
stadia were being modernized and sport events embellished with additional show
aspects such as pre-match displays,17 mainly in order to counteract decreasing
stadium attendance and to attract broader audiences.
Taylor was the rst who focused on this aspect to explain the perceived bourgeoisication of football culture.18 He stated that club managers strategies were targeting afuent middle-class families in order to increase prots. Particularly, their
show- and entertainment-orientated strategies accompanied by the constructional
upgrading of the stadia should be seen as measures to legitimize the formerly exclusive working-class occasion for the middle classes. Consequently, the local workingclass fan community found themselves more and more crowded out by this newly
promoted breed of middle-class spectators. Concomitant to this were the progressing
internationalization of football and the professionalization of its players, who as
celebrities have very little in common with traditional working-class culture.
Furthermore, the resulting gap between working class and commodied football,
especially among younger members of the working class, leads Taylor to add this as
an explanation for the emergence of English hooliganism in the 1960s. This was
criticized extensively and later modied by Taylor himself.
A cultural-based elaboration of Taylors approach is to be found in Critcher.19
Referring to Williams model of the tripartite historical development concerning the
cultural relationship between individuals or social groups towards institutions in
members, costumers and consumers, he theorizes Taylors inherent argument of
an altered relationship between spectator and football. Following up on his

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

theoretical framework, traditional fans who viewed themselves as club members


are being progressively crowded out by football costumers and consumers. The
latter do not have the same perception of the club as a local object of identication
which is typical for traditional working-class supporters. They rather perceive going
to a football match as just one of the many leisure opportunities available to them,
where the game itself is no more than a product either to be consumed or rejected as
a rational choice. Linked to this, the logic of the market demands that providers
attract these new costumers and consumers and seek higher dividends through
exposed market-driven strategies. Consequently, the traditional spectator is replaced
by the consumer.
In Germany, Lindner and Breuer were the rst to ascribe the cultural assimilation
of football from an essential element of proletarian culture into bourgeois society to
the increasing show character of professional and commercialized football.20 Similar
to the English approaches outlined above, they refer to footballs newly gained
image and its promotion by football ofcials as a show sport to explain the growing acceptance of football among the middle classes. Furthermore, they conclude
that football has been deprived of its traditional roots, stating that players who were
once local working-class football heroes have been transformed by the media into
celebrity soccer stars. Similarly, clubs have moved away from what was essentially
a working-class culture and have become an intrinsic part of a new show business.
In summary, these early approaches explaining the bourgeoisication of football
crowds do show considerable theoretical similarities despite cultural-specic peculiarities. Firstly, their focus is on altered structures of footballs environment and
especially on club strategies for attracting a new breed of middle-class consumers.
Secondly, the newly gained interest in football among the middle class is ascribed to
a less passionate, more reserved, consumerist attitude to football resulting from footballs commodication. This attitude reects their bourgeois habitus. Researchers
further classify these new football fans as soccer interested consumers in contrast
to the traditional local club supporters characterized typically by their strong identication with the football club.21 Hence, the genesis of a middle-class fan culture
characterized by consumerism resulting from footballs commodication can be seen
as the theoretical concept of the bourgeoisication thesis.
What these above-mentioned approaches also have in common is their critical and
notably speculative character due to their lack of empirical verication, although when
one applies the bourgeoisication thesis to Germany, it does provide more evidence
regarding the delocalization and alienation of the clubs from traditional fan culture. It is
true to say that German football underwent a much more dramatic transformation
during the 1960s than England. While in England, top-level football and professional
club management had long been established on a national level, in Germany, due to its
organization in several regional amateur leagues, top-level football was geographically
fragmented right up to the introduction of the Bundesliga in 1963.
Finally, recent approaches to the bourgeoisication of football crowds identify
the predominance of traditional proletarian fan culture as carrying on into the late
1980s, thus implying that the alleged class change in the football stadium had been
visible neither in Germany nor in England during the 1960s and 1970s. In other
words, the subsequent underlying gentrication process essential to the bourgeoisication thesis had clearly only started during the period of footballs hyper-commodication since the 1990s. This argument is outlined in more detail in the following
section.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

O. Frtjes

Hyper-commodication of football since the 1990s recent approaches to the


bourgeoisication thesis
As outlined above, recent approaches to the bourgeoisication of football crowds
identify the proletarian predominance as carrying on into the late 1980s. These
approaches refer to several indications, which provide evidence for this continuing
proletarian centricity of football: rstly, the cross-cultural crisis of football at that
time, which manifests itself in record low stadium attendance; secondly, obsolete
stadia; and thirdly, the aggravating hooligan problem in both those countries. It
seems that football was not able to get rid of its proletarian image and apparently
was not sufciently attractive for the middle-class consumers. In this regard, the
early approaches to the bourgeoisication thesis could at best be considered as predictions. From that point of view, it appears plausible to assume that, within the context of a postmodern football era from 1990 onward, hyper-commodication was
the underlying cause for the perceived class change among football audiences as
pointed out in recent approaches to the bourgeoisication thesis (see below).
Besides, the signicant increase in stadium attendance which accompanied this process provides strong evidence for the observed growing popularity of football in the
middle and upper classes in both those countries. Once again, culture-specic concomitants can be discerned.
In Germany, the privatization of broadcasting and the subsequent introduction
of satellite TV and later pay-TV play a key role in footballs development into one
of the major economic sectors within the postmodern entertainment industry. First of
all, this brought about greater and more intense competitiveness over the allocation
of TV rights and as a result, the start of the 1990s saw an exponential increase in
revenues for the top-level clubs. Secondly, media exposure of football on German
television had expanded considerably from the 1990s onward and with it, footballs
marketing value. Concomitant to the privatization of television, the display of football on TV changed signicantly. In addition to traditional match reporting, the
show and entertainment elements of the game became an increasingly important part
of footballs presentation and production on TV.22 This remarkable change applies
to the production and presentation of football matches as events in modern stadia as
well.23 Responsible for this is a new generation of professional football managers
that emerged. In the meantime, football clubs had been widely organized as corporate entities in their own right. Furthermore, German stadia were undergoing comprehensive upgrading including the installation of security and surveillance.24
In England, fundamental structural transformation within the world of football
also occurred during the 1990s.25 Similar to Germany, hyper-commodication has
turned English football into a major business within the postmodern entertainment
industry, the most signicant indications of which were the extraordinary increase in
(trans-) national transfer of funds from TV rights, sponsoring and merchandizing,
the professionalization boost in all aspects of the business of football and the intensied linkage of football to mass media. As in Germany, satellite and pay-TV have
set new standards in the way football is displayed with regard to exposed strategies
of production and presentation.26 However, the Hillsborough disaster in Shefeld,
1989, proved a milestone in the fundamental restructuring of English football.27 The
Taylor Report made recommendations that were passed into law by Parliament, forcing football clubs to implement comprehensive restructuring measures. They had to
install better video surveillance but the most signicant change was the abolition of

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

standing areas for the top two division clubs from 1994 onward. Ticket prices rose
as a result.
The assumption that this restructuring of English football led to a gentrication
of stadium audiences is prevalent in recent research literature.28 Compared to those
early approaches to the bourgeoisication thesis described above, the explanatory
model has not changed signicantly. The marketing strategies introduced by the new
generation of club managers reappear as the focus of attention. Once again it is
argued that these attempts to attract more afuent sections of society by additional
entertainment and show aspects, or by introducing comfort zones like VIP zones
and family areas in the stadia were primarily intended to stimulate middle-class customers.29 A striking feature in recent approaches is once more the commonly held
perception that traditional authentic working-class fans were crowded out by this
new breed of inauthentic consumerists stemming from the middle classes.30 In
addition to those business-oriented marketing strategies of football club managers
accompanied by the constructional upgrading of the stadia, the bourgeoning popularity of football is ascribed to the mediatization strategies of satellite broadcasting.31
As discussed above, the new methods of TV broadcast of football in terms of focusing on entertainment and aestheticization of the game are widely held responsible
for the growing acceptance and acceptability of football among the middle and especially the upper classes. In this respect, the World Cup in Italy, 1990, is regarded as
a turning point. It is argued that the presentation of this Championship as a classless
event due to the general classless nature of Italian football and its proven compatibility with elements of high culture led to an acceptance of football among the upper
class that had not been noticed before.32
In Germanys research literature, the explanations of the perceived bourgeoning
popularity do not differ from the English. On the one hand, it is explained by the
way football was presented on TV, driven by the privatization of German broadcasting and on the other, it is ascribed to the constructional upgrading of stadia and in
particular to the club managers exposed marketing strategies with their focus on targeting afuent middle-class families.33 According to Aschenbeck, all these aspects
will shift football from its proletarian predominance towards a pleasure-driven leisure event exclusively reserved for the middle and upper classes.34 This prediction
is shared by different fan groups in Germany who are committed to tradition.35 The
hyper-commodication of football and its promotion by club and association functionaries alike have been subject to severe criticism and lie at the heart of present
fan protests.
In particular, this critical-reexive perspective on footballs transformation from
traditional into show business characterizes the post-fandescribed by Giulianotti
and Redhead.36 Post-fans can be identied as those who exert a dominating inuence within fan organizations and on the newly emerged fanzines culture. Furthermore, they reect the soccerati, a group of writers who aimed to provide serious
literary expression for their fascination with football and its meanings.37 Typical for
the post-fans is their employment in the highly skilled and knowledge-based service
sector. The emergence of post-fans in postmodern societies thus indicates the
simultaneous social upward mobility of the football spectators in both England and
Germany.
In summary, the recent approaches to the bourgeoisication of football crowds
do show conspicuous theoretical similarities from a comparative perspective, again.
In both countries under review, the bourgeoning popularity of football across the

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

O. Frtjes

class divide is identied as the key ingredient within the process of hyper-commodication during the postmodern era of football. Of particular note is the conformity
of the explanatory model with the early approaches concerning the bourgeoisication of football culture, outlined above, namely, the structural transformation of footballs environment driven primarily by exposed marketing strategies of inuential
circles in football and deriving from that, the transformation of football culture from
a working-class occasion towards middle-class consumerism. In contrast to the early
approaches, it is argued that footballs takeover by middle-class supporters can rst
be noted at the beginning of the 1990s. Hence, the postulated genesis of middleclass fan culture has to be seen with a view to the more intensive dynamics within
the football world, namely footballs hyper-commodication.
However, with respect to the stadium audiences, a more crucial transformation is
to be expected in England due to the abolition of standing areas and the rapid rise
of ticket prices. Higher ticket prices has also been introduced in Germany but at a
signicantly more moderate pace compared to England.
Furthermore, it must be reiterated that no reliable empirical data exists to test the
bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication. This can be illustrated by
means of the Taylor Report, 1990, which could not draw on recent data on the social
composition of football crowds.38 The reason for this surprising lack of empirical
data on football audiences is that European research on football crowds almost
exclusively focused on hooliganism.39 Nevertheless, single fragmentary samples of
football stadium audiences are available in both England and Germany. They allow
for the testing of the bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication
debated in recent approaches to the bourgeoisication of football crowds. In the following section, these samples will be analysed from a comparative perspective.
Testing the bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication from the
1990s onward (recent approaches) an empirical comparision
Recent approaches to the bourgeoisication of football crowds assert that the gentrication process of football audiences had clearly only started during the postmodern
era of football since the 1990s onward. These approaches identify the predominance
of proletarian fan culture in the stadia up to the late 1980s and explain the gentrication of football crowds as a consequence of a middle-class fan culture emerging
from hyper-commodied show football since the 1990s. The aim of this chapter is
to test the bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication, as it is
described in recent approaches, empirically on the basis of the employment status of
people attending football matches in the stadia of the top league clubs in both
England (19832008) and Germany (19772009). These stadium samples constitute
the only known source of empirical data available for testing the bourgeoisication
thesis on the basis of spectators in England and Germany.
Data sources
The empirical data on the employment status of football crowds in England between
1984 and 1997 presented in Table 1 are taken from the publication of Malcolm,
Jones and Waddington.40 The authors mention that, due to the various distribution
methods of their surveys, there were many methodological difculties in gathering
data and considerable problems arose when they tried to compare their collected

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

data. For example, the Carling Survey in 1993/94 refers mainly to match programme
buyers while the Carling Survey in 1996/97 and the later conducted national FA Fan
Surveys refer to season ticket holders. Surveys conducted at Arsenal and Aston Villa
used mixed methodologies: Questionnaires were partly distributed on the day of the
match and partly mailed to season ticket holders. Due to the some peculiarities, the
representativeness of the surveys in Coventry City and Watford is questionable. As
the authors point out, their surveys constitute the only data source for examining
demographic trends in football spectatorship. In order to analyse trends in the social
composition of football crowds after 1997, data from recent FA Fan Surveys have
been added retrospectively.41
The problem of methodological variety and questionable representativeness does
not apply to the German samples presented in Table 1. These samples were collected
during the long-term project Publikumsforschung (audience research) at the German Sport University Cologne and were carried out using a consistent research
design. This consisted of a combined procedure of quota and random sampling on
the ground and provides representative data.42 Nonetheless, account must be taken
of the fact that these are match day samples. For example, the number of spectators
in Cologne 1977 (13.000) was quite low, presumably due to the unimportance of
this match for the outcome of the championship. This match took place on the nal
match day of the Bundesliga season 1976/77. Hence, the data of this survey refers
clearly to a football crowd that consists mainly of the local club supporters with
their very high degree of identication with the club. In comparison, the match in
1985 was the top match of the seventh match day that attracted about 42.000 spectators. One can presume a larger number of the so-called soccer interested consumers and a slightly higher social prole than typical in Germanys stadia at that time.
With respect to the verication of the bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication, however, these different match day constellations have had little
impact due to the universal validity of this thesis. As outlined above, the recent
approaches to the bourgeoisication of football crowds assert the predominance of
working-class audiences in all stadia up to the 1990s. As indicated above, when
comparing stadium samples within the respective countries, one encounters serious
difculties. But this is true of any comparative case study between different countries. With respect to the occupations, there are different systems of classication are
to be dealt with. This makes any attempt at a substantiated comparison even more
complicated. In order to minimize these difculties, a dichotomization into working
class and middle class on a manual/non-manual basis was conducted.43
Results
The empirical data on English football audiences show that the bourgeoisication of
football crowds based on hyper-commodication since the 1990s as described in
recent approaches to the bourgeoisication thesis cannot be veried for the English
football culture. A trend towards an increased number of middle-class consumers as
a consequence of hyper-commodication cannot be determined. Watfords stadium
audiences in 1987 consist of two-thirds proportion of middle-class fandom. The
same is true of the stadium audiences in Arsenal 1992 and in Luton Town 1997.
The national Fan Surveys in 1993/94 and later conrm this result. The highest proportion of working-class fandom can be observed in Coventry 1983 (49%) and
Aston Villa 1992 (48%). This proportion, however, does not mirror football as a

39.7

60.3

29.9

70.1

Working
class
Middle class

Bremen
Cologne

2008
2009

1. Liga
1. Liga

1. Liga
1. Liga
1. Liga
1. Liga
1. Liga
1. Liga

Opponent
Bremen
Bayern
Munich
Bremen
Bochum
Hamburg
Klautern
Cologne
Bayern
Munich
Nrnberg
Bochum

70.2

29.8

1985

Leverkusen

67

33

1992

Arsenal

37,073
50,000

20,000
22,000
21,000
19,941
33,000
47,000

NA
13,000
42,000

72.2

27.8

1997

Leverkusen

52

48

1992

Aston Villa

92.2
78.2

17.8
82.4
69.0
74.3
91.0
80.6

RR (%)
48.0
55.8

64.5

35.5

1997

M
Gladbach

67.3

32.7

1993/1994

Carling
Survey

1089
768

180
719
599
732
883
948

N
476
548

71.1

28.9

1998

Duisburg

66.4

585
497

106
321
383
415
420
581

N (OP)
234
264

71.2

28.8

1998

Stuttgart

64.2

35.8

1997

1996/
1997
33.6

Luton

Carling
Survey

66.6

33.4

2005

Stuttgart

66

34

2001/
2002

FA Fan
Survey

Data sources: Malcolm et al. (2000) and recent FA Fan Surveys; Project Publikumsforschung(German Sport University Cologne)].
Commentary: NA = number of attendance; RR = rate of return; N = number of respondents N (OP) = number of employed respondents.

Leverkusen
Leverkusen
Mgladbach
Duisburg
Stuttgart
Stuttgart

1985
1997
1997
1998
1998
2005

Background information of German samples


Year
Locality
League
1977
Cologne
1. Liga
1985
Cologne
1. Liga

1985

1977

19772009

Cologne

Cologne

67

51

Germany

33

49

Working
class
Middle class

1987

Watford

1983

Coventry
City

19832008

England

Table 1. Employment status of football audiences in stadiums in England and Germany (in %).

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

77.7

22.3

2008

Bremen

72

28

2005/
2006

FA Fan
Survey

82.1

17.9

2009

Cologne

75

25

2007/
2008

FA Fan
Survey

10
O. Frtjes

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

11

working-class phenomenon. According to Gehrmann, there should be a workingclass proportion of at least 70% to identify any signicant proletarian impact.44
Apparently, with reference to English stadium audiences, this never reached during
the 1980s. The empirical data rather provide support for a strong popularity and
wide acceptance of football in middle classes even in the 1980s. Indeed, recent FA
Fan Surveys indicate a very slight increase of middle-class fans, but in view of the
proven reduction of working-class audiences in the past, this certainly does not
justify the use of the term gentrication or bourgeoisication.
The empirical data on German football spectators also refute the bourgeoisication of football crowds based on footballs hyper-commodication from the 1990s
onward. The average proportion of middle classes attending the stadia consists of
6070% in all samples. Even in 1977, the proportion of working-class fandom
accounts for only 30%. This is lower than in 1985 and further contradicts the bourgeoisication thesis. Due to the special match day constellation as described above,
more soccer interested consumers and as the theoretical approaches point out a
higher status prole could have been expected in comparison to the match in 1977.
Another crucial observation is the low working-class proportion even in Duisburg
(1998), a town in the former industrial heartland of Germany, the Ruhrarea, which
was considered to be a stronghold of working-class football in Germany. A comparison of the data from the samples of Leverkusen (1985 and 1997) illustrates that the
employment prole did not change during the 1990s but remained constant, whereas
the Stuttgart samples indicate a slight proletarianisation-process. Similar to
England, the latest drawn samples from Bremen (2008) and Cologne (2009) provide
evidence of tendencies towards moderate gentrication. However, this cannot be
referred to as a gentrication process due to the middle-class predominance as far
back as 1977.
Hence, neither in England nor in Germany, the bourgeoisication thesis based on
hyper-commodication from the 1990s onward can be veried on empirical data
drawn from stadium samples. Contrary to the perception of football as a workingclass occasion, the data provide evidence for a strong popular base and broad
acceptance of football among the middle classes even in the 1980s in both those
countries. Therefore, the explanation of bourgeoning popularity by the genesis of a
middle-class fan culture emerging from footballs hyper-commodication described
in recent approaches to the bourgeoisication thesis is not evident. Comparing the
occupation prole in football stadia in England and Germany, respectively, it can be
concluded that both countries football spectators are relatively similarly in their
class makeup. A comparative study of stadium samples in Western Europe during
the 1990s corroborates this nding of an overall preponderance of middle-class
fandom in football stadia.45
The bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication during the 1990s
is empirically rejected due to evidence of footballs predominance in the middle
classes even in the 1980s, which then leads to the question whether Taylor and
Critcher for England, and Lindner and Breuer for Germany were right after all
with their assumption that the bourgeoisication of football audiences had already
taken place in the 1960s and 1970s as a result of footballs starting process of
commodication.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

12

O. Frtjes

Testing the bourgeoisication thesis based on commodication in the 1960s/


1970s (early approaches) an empirical analysis of footballs social prole in
the time before the starting point of footballs commodication
The bourgeoisication thesis based on hyper-commodication since the 1990s can
be empirically refuted due to the predominance of middle-class fans in the stadia
from 1977 in Germany and 1983 in England onward. This has been veried in the
chapter above. With respect to the early approaches to the bourgeoisication thesis,
this is not inconsistent with the corresponding assumption of a gentried football
culture already in the 1970s. As outlined above, these early approaches ascribe the
bourgeoisication of football crowds to the genesis of middle-class fandom induced
by footballs starting process of commodication in the 1960s and 1970s. They refer
to the predominance of working-class football fans up to the late 1950s, which is
mainly supported by the widespread acceptance in research literature that the 1950s
generally are considered to be the era of working-class football.
So, it is to be expected that during the 1950s, in particular, the bourgeoisie eyed
football as proletarian sport and therefore rejected this game as a class.
However, looking at Germany, the following analysis of empirical data on the
social prole of regular readers of German football magazines in spring 1954
provides strong evidence that football has never been an almost exclusively working-class occasion, not even in the 1950s. On the contrary, it enjoyed continuous
popularity and acceptance among the middle and upper classes (see Table 2).
This data base constitutes the only known source of reliable empirical data on
the social composition of football audiences up to the turning point of football into
commodied show business from the 1960s onward. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that the representative population survey from which the data are drawn was
conducted prior to the World Cup 1954. The obtained statistical results can, therefore, be expected not to be inuenced by the growing interest in football while and
after the World Cup in summer 1954, which the national football team of Germany
won unexpectedly. Referring to Schmer, the importance of this tournament to
Germanys population was relatively low in spring 1954, when the population
survey was conducted.46
Data source
The Leseranalyse 1954 (Readership analysis 1954) a representative population
survey on reading habits conducted by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leseranalyse
(Working group media analysis) in April/May 1954 provides the data. Participants
were asked among others whether they regularly read the special football magazines
Sportmagazin and Kicker.47
Basically, it is noticeable that the regular readers of Kicker as well as the regular
readers of Sportmagazin can be considered as experts in football and, therefore, as
football fans with very strong sense of identication with football in general and
with their favourite football club in particular. It can be concluded that most of those
football experts were also keen on attending live matches at the stadia regularly due
to insufcient media alternatives at that time and due to the well-known application
of sport magazines as a complementary medium.48 Consequently, the regular readership of both football magazines represents a wide subset of football fandom. In
detail, conclusions can be drawn on the basis of 1.13 million football fans.49

Soccer & Society

13

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Furthermore, the data provides a representative cross section of German fans and
offers valid evidence regarding the social composition of football fans in general.
Such an analysis of football magazine readers is particularly well placed to discover
the notion of football as a proletarian sport due to the assumed strong relationship
between working classes and reading football journals. Historically speaking, football magazines can be seen as the driving force behind footballs growing popularity
among workers up to the 1950s.50
Results
Considering the occupation prole of the regular readers of football magazines in
Table 2, it is noticeable that workers and skilled manual workers account for the
highest proportion (47%).51 Hence, football can be seen as a signicant leisure
activity for the working classes. However, this does not warrant classifying football
as a working-class sport. The obviously high proportion of workers among the regular readership only serves to mirror the high proportion of workers in Germanys
industrial society at that time (43.4%). In particular, it becomes apparent that nonmanual middle-class occupational groups show a very similar interest in football.
The proportion of business persons, executive staff and ofcials, non-manual
employees, civil servants, freelancers and university students who were among the
regular readership corresponds to the German employment structures at the time and
partly even shows a higher proportion of middle-class occupational groups
represented.
Even among highbrows, football magazines were highly accepted reading. The
proportion of readers with a university degree was even 0.5 percentage points higher
than their corresponding proportion in Germanys industrial society. This is more
evident when one counts school leavers with A-levels among the educational elite,
whose percentage then amounts to 6.4% of the readership. When dened this way,
the educational elite as a proportion of society as a whole only accounts for 3.9%.
Similarly, the analysis of class structures among the readers as carried out in
1954 is not able to verify the characterization that football has roots more established in the working class. It can rather be stated that almost 80% of the readers
stem from middle and upper classes. This thwarts the labelling of football as a proletarian sport in the past. However, these data should not be overly interpreted due to
a theoretically and methodically questionable classication.52 In comparison with
the German class structures though, the status prole of football-interested readers is
slightly enhanced.
The bourgeoisication of football crowds as a result of social-structural change:
football and its continuity as a classless mass phenomenon
The analysis of regular readers of football magazines in spring 1954 conrms that
football has never been an almost exclusively working-class phenomenon. This
would be a precondition for the bourgeoisication thesis claims that a gentrication
of football occurred during the 1960s and 1970s as stated in the early approaches.
As shown, football was very popular in all classes during the 1950s and hence can
be characterized as being a mass phenomenon that crossed all classes. Any characterization of football as a working-class/proletarian sport can only be ascribed to an
undifferentiated perception of the structure of society during the industrial era which,

14

O. Frtjes

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Table 2. Social prole of regular readers of German football magazines (Kicker &
Sportmagazin) in comparison to Germanys society in 1954 in %.

Berufsprol (occupation prole)


selbstndige Geschftsleute und Grounternehmer
(self-employed business persons and large-scale
manufacturers)
mittlere und kleine Geschftsleute (small and
medium-sized business persons)
leitende Angestellte (executive staff)
brige Angestellte (other employees)
leitende Beamte (senior state employees and
ofcials)
brige Beamte (other state ofcials/civil servants)
Inhaber forstwirtschaftlicher Betriebe (owners of
forestry and agricultural enterprises)
landwirtschaftliche Arbeiter (agricultural workers)
Arbeiter und nicht-selbstndige Handwerker
(workers and employed craftsmen /manual
workers)
freie Berufe (independent professions/freelancers)
Studenten (university students)
k.A. (not specied)
Bildung (highest educational achievement)
Volksschule (school leavers at 14)
mittlere Reife (school leavers with O-Levels/
secondary school leavers)
Abitur (school leavers with A levels/school leavers
with university-entrance diploma)
Universittsabschluss (University graduates)
Soziale Schicht (social class)
obere Schicht (upper class)
mittlere Schicht (middle class)
untere Schicht (lower class)
n = 13.258

Regular readers of
football magazines

Germanys
society in
1954

1.1

0.9

10.1

10.1

3.7
18.3
1.6

3.3
15.2
1.5

9.0
2.9

7.1
11.1

2.4
47.5

3.5
43.4

2.1
1.1
0.3

2.6
0.4
0.9

79.3
14.3

84.9
11.2

4.8

2.8

1.6

1.1

20.7
58.1
21.2

16.6
51.1
32.2

Source: Leseranalyse 1954 (Readership analysis 1954).

by its very nature, consisted mainly of the proletariat as generally dened.


Consequently, football crowds were perceived as proletarian as well. Therefore, the
bourgeoisication of the football audience observed by Lindner and Breuer is
explained by the inter- and intra-generational upward mobility of Germanys population induced by socio-structural changes during the post-war period. Just as German
society has passed through a collective social advancement as a consequence of tertiarization, educational expansion and increased afuence, the general status of football crowds has similarly been socially upwardly enhanced. Frtjes and Hagenah
have been able to prove this statistically, based on data on the regular readership of
the Kicker-Sportmagazin from 1954 to 2005.53 This idea of explaining the bourgeoisication of football crowds is highly supported by the resemblance of the percentage of persons with a university degree in the Cologne stadium samples and the

Soccer & Society

15

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

German population, respectively. The increasing interest of those highbrows in


attending live matches at the stadium in Cologne from 4.3% (1977) to 10.2% (2009)
reects only the German educational expansion from 4.4% (1977) to 10.4%
(2009).54
The evidence provided for Germany demonstrates that football, even in the
1950s, was a mass phenomenon across all classes and therefore the bourgeoisication of football audiences can be ascribed to the bourgeoisication of post-industrial
societies as a whole. The question still remains, whether culturally and socially this
is valid for England as well.
Football and its continuity as a classless mass phenomenon in England?
As in Germany, English society has undergone a similar socio-structural change
from industrial age to postmodernism. In the course of tertiarization, it too was gentried into a knowledge-based service society during the 1970s.55 English researchers do not deny the impact of this development on the social prole of football
audiences, but due to their assumption of footballs almost exclusive working-class
nature in the past, this change is not considered as crucial in the debate of the bourgeoisication of football crowds. However, the question is whether the notion of
football as a working-class sport in the past is actually veriable in England.
Taking a closer look at Englands social and cultural football history, one sees
clear signs that support the characterization of English football as a continuous mass
phenomenon across all classes, just as in German football. Undoubtedly, football
was in great demand in the working-class culture. The emergence of football as a
mass phenomenon in England during the nineteenth century, a period in which
almost 80% of the population consisted of workers, provides strong evidence for
this. However, dening football as a proletarian sport is only correct if football met
with a collective refusal by bourgeois classes as discussed earlier. This hardly
appears plausible in the light of the bourgeois origin of football culture in England.
Perhaps, this may be true for the gentlemen committed to the ethos of amateurism
when football became professionalized. Nevertheless, as analyses of the social prole of club directors in the early stages of football as a mass phenomenon show, a
collective social withdrawal of this status group is out of question. After all, the proportion of gentlemen in the social prole of club directors accounts for 44.7%.56
This is probably a higher proportion than in the social prole of the English society
at that time. What is more, club directors stemmed almost exclusively from the
bourgeoisie. This is also true for ofcials in the Football Association (FA).57 Furthermore, analyses on the class nature of clubs shareholders indicate a deep, ongoing interest in football among the middle classes.58 Similarly, football journalists
and editors from print and broadcasting are mainly from the middle classes,59 as are
referees.60 This is also true of fan clubs established during the 1920s. These are
characterized by a substantial element of middle-class inuence and leadership.61
Due to a lack of alternatives football was not yet an established television event
it seems plausible to assume that those same bourgeois groups were also keen to
attend live matches at the stadium. Different comfort zones and price differentiation
carried out by the club managers are proof of the social heterogeneity in English stadia even in the period leading up to footballs turning point to show business in the
1960s.62 Mellor draws the same conclusion. Based on local newspapers and oral

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

16

O. Frtjes

interviews, he indicates the diversity of football crowds in the North-West of


England in the immediate post-war period with regard to social-class structures.63
Finally, reecting on the explanation of the bourgeoisication thesis resulting
from (hyper-) commodication, particularly when considering English football
culture, it becomes even more relevant to question why the middle classes should
have rst shown an increasing interest in football from the 1960s onward. Unlike in
Germany, English football can already be characterized as commercialprofessional
football in its early stages. Aspects of commodication and commercialization have
decisively branded English football ever since it became professionalized.64 The fact
that not only local club supporters attended football matches in the past can be
illustrated by means of matching differences in the number of stadium attendances
with varying degrees of match appeal. Apparently, in the early days, there were
always some soccer interested consumers who identied less with their club,
attending only top matches for their entertainment value.65 Furthermore, top rewards
for those matches indicate that orientation towards prot was not an invention of the
new generation of football managers.
Even if class-related structures apply in football to the extent that supporters
stem from the working class and consumers from the middle class, there is little evidence to assume that this description has only taken on any validity since the 1960s
or even since the 1990s. Basically, such a class-related dichotomy regarding
attitudes towards football seems inappropriate both for the past and the present.66
Reference should therefore be made, on the one hand, to the protable market of
working-class consumers,67 and on the other, to business leaders, particularly in
the past, whose main motivation for taking on club management stemmed from their
strong identication with the club and local area.68
In short, there is plenty to support the description of English football as a continuous mass phenomenon across all classes, just as in German football. The bourgeoisication of football audiences can conclusively be ascribed basically to the
bourgeoisication of English post-industrial society induced by socio-structural
change. In addition, the similar social composition both in English and German
stadia since the 1980s as shown above- corroborates this thesis.
Conclusion: rethinking the bourgeoisication of football crowds
The empirical data analysed in this paper, further evidence as well as the historical
and sociological framework suggest a redenition of both German and English football as a continuous mass phenomenon across all classes historically speaking
more precisely for that period of time where football has been an integrated part of
popular culture. In England, this applies to the period from the last quarter of the
nineteenth century onward and in Germany from the Weimar Republic in the 1920s
onward. Thus, much evidence supports the suggestion that football has always been
widely popular and by no means met with refusal in the middle and upper classes.
Seen socio-historically, this is plausible due to footballs early embedment in
bourgeois circles in both those countries. As has been shown, there is no evidence
for a collective social withdrawal of bourgeois classes while football spread into the
working classes and changed from bourgeoning exclusivity to mass phenomenon.
The positive feature of football lies in potential for participation, regardless of
class membership. Football could turn into a leisure activity for the working classes
as well. To deduce from proletarian popularity the exclusivity of football in

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

17

working-class culture is a false conclusion emerging from an undifferentiated perception of social structures in the industrial age. This is illustrated by the analysis of
the social prole of regular readers of football magazines in Germany in April/May
1954 and becomes particularly obvious when considering the structure of the audiences in industrial suburbs in Germany. Taking into account that the population in
those suburbs consisted mainly of workers (73% and more), it is therefore not
surprising that the audience structures of football clubs in those areas consisted similarly mainly of workers, characterized as proletarian.69 In mainly middle-class areas,
fans of football clubs are mainly from the middle classes. This indicates the consistently exerted class struggle between clubs from working-class and middle-class
areas.70
Therefore, the bourgeoisication thesis that has been discussed within (historically) different research traditions and that is broadly accepted among football fans
and in the media requires rethinking. As has been demonstrated, the tendencies
towards bourgeoisication in football and especially in football stadia can be
explained basically by socio-structural change towards present postmodern societies.
This manifests itself in the inter- and intra-generational upward mobility in current
post-industrial societies since the post-war period. That means that Giulianottis and
Redheads post-fans of the new middle class who are employed in the postmodern
service sectors gained their football socialization mostly in working-class families.
In addition to those football fans socialized in middle and upper classes, this
explains why there are currently more middle and less working-class fans interested
in football.
Understanding processes of social change is largely neglected by the advocates
of the bourgeoisication thesis due to their one-sided causal focus on (hyper-) commodication as the cause for the bourgeoisication. Event culture in todays stadia
is not to be understood as a result of exposed marketing strategies. On the contrary,
event culture is a demand of people in postmodern societies in the light of general
experience orientation for which the club managers create the suitable services.
Apart from those who cannot afford the ticket price, the increasing number of spectators since the 1990s can be explained by the increasing popularity of stadium
attendance across all classes of society. To those who hold on to the bourgeoisication thesis, it must be asked, how commodication, commercialization and professionalization of football could have emerged in the rst place, given that it was
embedded in the less afuent parts of society before. The explanation of bourgeoisication of football audiences emerging especially from enhanced media presentation by private broadcasting companies and pay-TV during the 1990s also offers the
same highly questionable one-sided causal focus. Media companies did not acquire
TV rights in order to make football socially acceptable in all classes. In fact, they
could expect that football already had a broad acceptance in the wide society.
Therefore, they could count on high viewing gures. Especially pay-TV channels in
England and Germany were certain about the existence of an afuent clientele when
they entered the football market at the beginning of the 1990s. It is only because
football has always been popular among the afuent classes that hyper-commodication and hyper-mediatization of football could have emerged to this extent in the
rst place.
The interpretive importance of social processes for the explanation of footballimmanent developments as it is evident for this papers sociological perspective
challenges the widespread view of football as a working-class sport in the past and

18

O. Frtjes

can illustrate the false causal link of the bourgeoisication thesis. This, however,
does not imply that marketing and mediatization strategies do not have any impact
on targeting new football fans in the middle and upper classes, but this applies to
the same extent to new fans in the lower classes. Above all, football audiences have
not changed signicantly and this is due to footballs consistently classless
popularity as a mass phenomenon.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Notes
1. Schulze, Erlebnisgesellschaft.
2. Ibid.
3. Giulianotti, Supporters, Followers, Fans and Flaneurs; and Giulianotti, Football: A
Sociology of the Global Game. Giulianotti analyses the starting point of footballs commodication in the 1960s. He terms the more intensive dynamics of commodication
from the 1990s onward hyper-commodication. His understanding of commodication
and application of the terms commodication and hyper-commodication are
adopted in this paper.
4. In the following, the term class refers to the original understanding of (occupational)
class theory as well as to the German concept of Schicht. It is worth noticing that the
term class traditionally has been used in English research literature, while the notion
Schicht has been predominantly applied in German research literature. Indeed, these
terms are related to different concepts. For further details, see Burzan, Soziale Ungleichheiten. Nevertheless, noticeable similarities justify a synonymous application of
the two different concepts in this article. However, this mainly refers to the analytical
distinction between the terms working/proletarian class and middle/bourgeois class in
class theory, Arbeiterschicht and brgerliche Schicht in the concept of Schicht respectively, which is considered mainly in this article, and similarly to the analytical trychonomy of working class middle class upper class and Arbeiterschicht Mittelschicht
Oberschicht respectively.
5. E.g. Dubai, Neoliberalization of Football.
6. See Giulianotti, Supporters, Followers, Fans and Flaneurs; and Frtjes, Der Fuball
und seine Kontinuitt als schichtenbergreifendes Massenphnomen, 556.
7. The term classless is used in the meaning of cuts across all classes.
8. E.g. Mason, Association Football; and Eisenberg, Deutschland.
9. See Vamplew, Pay Up and Play the Game; and Luh, Fuball als Massenphnomen.
10. Bausenwein, Geheimnis Fuball; Fishwick, English football and society; Eggers, Fuball in der Weimarer Republik; Gehrmann, Fuball-Vereine-Politik; Hering, Im Land
der 1000 Derbys; Mason, Association Football; Russell, Football and the English;
Schulze-Marmeling, Der gezhmte Fuball; Wagg, The Football World; and Walvin,
The Peoples Game.
11. Gehrmann, Fuball-Vereine-Politik, 41 et seq.; and Fishwick, English football and
society, 66 et seq.
12. Eggers, Fuball in der Weimarer Republik, 48 et seq.; Hering, Im Land der 1000
Derbys, 114 et seq.; and Mason, Association Football, 226 et seq.
13. Eisenberg, Der Weg des Fuballs um die Welt, 567.
14. (Bundesliga scandal); see Merkel, Football Fans and Clubs in Germany, 362.
15. Gemeinntzigkeitsregelung, see Gehrmann, Ein Schritt nach Europa.
16. See e.g. Wagg, The Football World.
17. Giulianotti, Football: A Sociology of the Global Game, 40.
18. Taylor, Football Mad; and Taylor, Soccer Consciousness and Soccer Hooliganism.
19. Critcher, Football Since the War.
20. Lindner and Breuer, Sind doch nicht alles Beckenbauers.
21. See Eisenberg, Der Weg des Fuballs um die Welt, 567.
22. Digel and Burk, Zur Entwicklung des Fernsehsports in Deutschland; Grohans,
Fuball im deutschen Fernsehen; and Leder, Vom Verlust der Distanz.
23. Bleeker-Dohmen et al., Sind wir so unwichtig?, 5067.

Soccer & Society


24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.
30.
31.
32.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

33.

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

19

Merkel, Football Fans and Clubs in Germany.


Giulianotti, Supporters, Followers, Fans and Flaneurs.
Boyle and Haynes, Football in the New Media Age.
Crabbe and Brown, Youre Not Welcome Anymore.
See Taylor, The Association Game, 363; Holt and Mason, Sport in Britain; King, New
Directors, Customers, and Fans; King, The Lads; Dubai, Neoliberalization of Football; Duke, Local Tradition Versus Globalisation; Williams, Der Neue Fuball in
England; and Nash, Contestation in Modern English Professional Football.
E.g. King, The End of the Terraces.
Nash, Contestation in Modern English Professional football; see also Crabbe and
Brown, Youre Not Welcome Anymore, 349; and Giulianotti, Supporters, Followers,
Fans and Flaneurs, 25.
Holt and Mason, Sport in Britain, 4.
Giulianotti, Football: A Sociology of the Global Game, 35; King, End of the Terraces,
103 et seq.; and Taylor, The Association Game, 3634.
Grohans, Fuball im deutschen Fernsehen; Knig, Fankultur; Schulze-Marmeling,
Fuball. Zur Geschichte eines globalen Sports; Aschenbeck, Fuballfans im Abseits;
Bleeker-Dohmen et al., Sind wir so unwichtig?; Lenhard, Vereinsfuball und Identikation in Deutschland; Merkel, Football Fans and Clubs in Germany; and Pfaff,
Erlebniswelt Fuball-Arena.
Aschenbeck, Fuballfans im Abseits, 18.
Gabler, Die Ultras; Merkel, Football Fans and Clubs in Germany.
Giulianotti, Football: A Sociology of the Global Game; and Redhead, Post-Fandom and
the Millennial Blues. Aschenbeck describes this type as kritischen fuballzentrierten
Fan (critical football-centric fan).
Taylor, The Association Game, 364.
Duke, The Sociology of Football.
Malcolm et al., The Peoples Game?; Stollenwerk, Sport-Zuschauer-Medien; and
Waddington et al., The Social Composition of Football Crowds in Western Europe.
Malcolm et al., The Peoples Game?
Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research, The FA Premier League National
Fan Survey 2001; F.A. Premier League, National Fan Survey Report: 2005/06 Season;
and F.A. Premier League, National Fan Survey Summary Report: 2007/08 Season.
Stollenwerk, Sport-Zuschauer-Medien, 73. I wish to thank Dr. Hans Stollenwerk who
provided me the samples from 1997 onward. Earlier samples are published in
Stollenwerk, Sport-Zuschauer-Medien. Further information is available in Table 1.
Working class: skilled manual semi skilled manual and unskilled in the English
samples; Arbeiter and Facharbeiter in the German samples; middle class: Professional, Intermediate and Skilled Non-manual in the English samples; Selbstndige,
Freiberuer, Angestelle and Beamte in the German samples.
Gehrmann, Fuball-Vereine-Politik, 57.
Waddington et al., The Social Composition of Football Crowds in Western Europe.
Schmer, Gott ist rund, 192.
Further information see Hagenah and Meulemann, Sozialer Wandel und
Mediennutzung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Frtjes, Der Fuball und seine Kontinuitt als schichtenbergreifendes Massenphnomen, 65; Frtjes and Hagenah, Der Fuball und seine Entproletarisierung.
This is the result of the range calculation based on the data sample from 1954.
See Frtjes and Hagenah, Der Fuball und seine Entproletarisierung, 296.
The occupation prole covers nearly all respondents. For people other than full-time
employees the job of the householder was registered. For the retired the former employment was registered.
The classication was conducted by the interviewer themselves. The document Der
Zeitschriftenleser 1954 by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leseranalyse provides some more
information and can be requested by the author.
Frtjes and Hagenah, Der Fuball und seine Entproletarisierung.
For further details, see Frtjes, Gentrizierung des Stadionpublikums.
Lash and Urry, The End of Organised Capitalism.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

20

O. Frtjes

56. Mason, Association Football, 423; Tischler, Footballers and Businessmen, 71 et seq.;
and Vamplew, Pay Up and Play the Game, 161 et seq.
57. Mason, Association Football, 445.
58. Fishwick, English Football and Society, 29; and Vamplew, Pay Up and Play the Game,
161.
59. Mason, Association Football, 151.
60. Fishwick, English Football and Society, 62.
61. Ibid., 567.
62. Russel, Football and the English, 56.
63. Mellor, The Social and Geographical Make-up of Football Crowds, 25.
64. Taylor, The Association Game; Tischler, Footballers and Businessmen; and Vamplew,
Pay Up and Play the Game.
65. Taylor, The Association Game, 118 et seq.
66. Malcolm, Football business and football communities.
67. Wagg, The Football World, 35.
68. Mason, Association Football.
69. Gehrmann, Fuball - Vereine Politik.
70. Schulze-Marmeling, Der gezhmte Fuball, 223.

References
Aschenbeck, A. Fuballfans im Abseits [Football Fans Offside]. Kassel: Agon, 1998.
Bausenwein, C. Geheimnis Fuball. Auf den Spuren eines Phnomens [The Mystery of
Football. On the Trail of a Phenomenon]. Gttingen: Die Werkstatt, 2006.
Bleeker-Dohmen, R., K.-H. Stammen, H. Strasser, and G. Weber. Sind wir so unwichtig?
Fuballfans zwischen Tradition und Kommerz [Are we so Unimportant? Football Fans
between Tradition and Commerce]. In Das Spiel mit dem Fuball: Interessen, Projektionen und Vereinnahmungen, ed. J. Mittag and J.-U. Nieland, 499519. Essen: Klartext,
2007.
Boyle, R., and R. Haynes. Football in the New Media Age. London: Routledge, 2004.
Burzan, N. Soziale Ungleichheit. Eine Einfhrung in die zentralen Theorien [Social Inequality. An Introduction to the Central Theories]. 4th ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2011.
Crabbe, T., and A. Brown. Youre Not Welcome Anymore: The Football Crowd, Class and
Social Exclusion. In British Football and Social Exclusion, ed. S. Wagg, 2646.
London: Routledge, 2004.
Critcher, C. Football Since the War. In Working-class Culture: Studies in History and
Theory, ed. J. Clarke, C. Critcher and R. Johnson, 16184. London: Routledge, 1979.
Digel, H., and V. Burk. Zur Entwicklung des Fernsehsports in Deutschland [On the
Development of TV Sport in Germany]. Sportwissenschaft 29 (1999): 2241.
Dubai, S. The Neoliberalization of Football: Rethinking Neoliberalism through the Commercialization of the Beautiful Game. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45
(2010): 12346.
Duke, V. The Sociology of Football: A Research Agenda for the 1990s. The Sociological
Review 39 (1991): 62745.
Duke, V. Local Tradition Versus Globalisation: Resistance to the McDonaldisation and
Disneyisation of Professional Football in England. Football Studies 5 (2002): 523.
Eggers, E. Fuball in der Weimarer Republik [Football in the Weimar Republic]. Kassel:
Agon, 2001.
Eisenberg, C. Deutschland [Germany]. In Fuball, soccer, calcio. Ein englischer Sport auf
seinem Weg um die Welt [The Spread of Football around the World 18632004], ed.
C. Eisenberg, 94129. Mnchen: DTV, 1997.
Eisenberg, C. Der Weg des Fuballs um die Welt 18632004. In Die lokal-globale
Fuballkultur, ed. D.H. Jtting, 4559. Mnster: Waxmann, 2004.
F.A. Premier League. National Fan Survey Report: 2005/06 Season. F.A. Premier League,
2006. http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publi
cations/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2005-06.pdf.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

Soccer & Society

21

F.A. Premier League. National Fan Survey Summary Report: 2007/08 Season. F.A. Premier
League, 2008. http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/
News/publications/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2007-08.pdf.
Fishwick, N. English Football and Society, 19101950. Manchester, NH: Manchester
University Press, 1989.
Frtjes, O. Der Fuball und seine Kontinuitt als schichtenbergreifendes Massenphnomen
in Deutschland [Football an its Continuity as a Classless Mass Phenomenon in
Germany]. SportZeiten 12 (2012): 5572.
Frtjes, O. Gentrizierung des Stadionpublikums seit den 1990er Jahren? Fuball und der
Mythos vom Proletariersport [The Gentrication of Football Since the 1990s? The Myth
of Football as a Working-class Sport]. Sport und Gesellschaft 10 (2013): 2754.
Frtjes, O., and J. Hagenah. Der Fuball und seine Entproletarisierung. Zum sozialstrukturellen Wandel der Kickerleserschaft von 1954 bis 2005 [Football and the Decrease of Proletarianization - An Empirical Analysis to Explain the Change of the Social Focus of
Football in Germany, Typieed by the Readership of the Kicker-Sportmagazin from 1954
until 2005]. Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 63 (2011): 279300.
Gabler, J. Die Ultras. Fuballfans und Fuballkulturen in Deutschland [The Ultras Football Fans and Football Cultures in Germany]. Kln: PapyRossa, 2012.
Gehrmann, S. Fuball - Vereine - Politik. Zur Sportgeschichte des Reviers 19001940
[Football Clubs Politics. The History of Sport in the Ruhr Area 19001940], Essen:
Hobbing, 1988.
Gehrmann, S. Ein Schritt nach Europa: Zur Grndungsgeschichte der Fuballbundesliga [A
Step Towards Europe: The Founding History of the Bundesliga]. Sozial- und
Zeitgeschichte des Sports 6 (1992): 737.
Giulianotti, R. Football: A Sociology of the Global Game. Cambridge: Polity, 1999.
Giulianotti, R. Supporters, Followers, Fans and Flaneurs: A Taxonomy of Spectator
Identities in Football. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 26 (2002): 2546.
Grohans, G.-T. Fuball im deutschen Fernsehen [Football in German TV]. Frankfurt am
Main: Lang, 1997.
Hagenah, J., and H. Meulemann. Sozialer Wandel und Mediennutzung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Nutzung der Daten der Media-Analyse fr Sekundranalysen [Social
Change and Media Use in Germany: Application of the Data from the Media-analysis for
Secondary Analyses]. In Sozialer Wandel und Mediennutzung in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, ed. J. Hagenah and H. Meulemann, 715. Mnster: Lit, 2006.
Hering, H. Im Land der 1000 Derbys. Die Fuballgeschichte des Ruhrgebiets [In the Land of
the 1000 Derbys. The History of Football in the Ruhr Area]. Gttingen: Die Werkstatt,
2002.
Holt, R., and T. Mason. Sport in Britain, 1945-2000. Oxford: Wiley, 2000.
King, A. New Directors, Customers, and Fans: The Transformation of English Football in
the 1990s. Sociology of Sport Journal 14 (1997): 22440.
King, A. The Lads: Masculinity and the New Consumption of Football. Sociology 31
(1997): 32946.
King, A. The End of the Terrace. London: Leicester University Press, 1998.
Knig, T. Fankultur. Eine soziologische Studie am Beispiel des Fuballfans [Fan Culture. A
Sociological Study on the Example of the Football Fan]. Mnster: Lit, 2002.
Lash, S., and J. Urry. The End of Organised Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity, 1987.
Leder, D. Vom Verlust der Distanz. Die Geschichte der Fuballbertragungen im deutschen
Fernsehen [On the Loss of Distance. The History of TV Football in Germany]. In Die
Visualisierung des Sports in den Medien, ed. T. Schierl, 4081. Kln: von Halem, 2004.
Lenhard, M. Vereinsfuball und Identikation in Deutschland: Phnomene zwischen Tradition und Postmoderne [Club Football and Identication in Germany: Phenomena between
Tradition and Postmodernity]. Hamburg: Kovac, 2002.
Lindner, R., and H.T. Breuer. Sind doch nicht alles Beckenbauers. Zur Sozialgeschichte des
Fuballs im Ruhrgebiet [Not all of us are Beckenbauers. The Social History of Football
in the Ruhr Area]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1978.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 10:56 04 June 2015

22

O. Frtjes

Luh, A. Fuball als Massenphnomen und Faszinosum der Weimarer Zeit Verbreitung,
Organisation und Koniktpotenziale [Football as a Fascinating Mass Phenomenon during
the Weimar Period - Spreading, Organization and Conict Potential]. SportZeiten 6
(2006): 770.
Malcolm, D. Football Business and Football Communities in the Twenty-rst Century.
Soccer & Society 1 (2000): 10213.
Malcolm, D., I. Jones, and I. Waddington. The Peoples Game? Football Spectatorship and
Demographic Change. Soccer & Society 1 (2000): 12943.
Mason, T. Association Football & English Society 18631915. Sussex: Harvester, 1980.
Mellor, G. The Social and Geographical Make-up of Football Crowds in the North-West of
England, 19461962: Super-Clubs, Local Loyalty and Regional Identities. The Sports
Historian 19 (1999): 2542.
Merkel, U. Football Fans and Clubs in Germany: Conicts, Crises and Compromises.
Soccer & Society 13 (2012): 35976.
Nash, R. Contestation in Modern English Professional Football. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport 35 (2000): 46586.
Pfaff, S.M. Erlebniswelt Fuball-Arena [The Football Stadium as a World of Experiences].
In Sportmanagement, ed. A. Krger and A. Dreyer, 21245. Mnchen: Oldenbourg,
2004.
Redhead, S. Post-Fandom and the Millennial Blues: The Transformation of Soccer Culture.
London: Routledge, 1997.
Russell, D. Football and the English: A Social History of Association Football in England,
18631995. Preston: Carnegie, 1997.
Schulze, G. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart [The Experience
Society. The Sociology of Contemporary Civilization]. Frankfurt: Campus, 1992.
Schulze-Marmeling, D. Der gezhmte Fuball. Zur Geschichte eines subversiven Sports
[Tamed Football - The History of a Subversive Sport]. Gttingen: Die Werkstatt, 1992.
Schulze-Marmeling, D. Fuball. Zur Geschichte eines globalen Sports [Football. The History
of a Global Sport]. Gttingen: Die Werkstatt, 2000.
Schmer, D. Gott ist rund. Die Kultur des Fuballs [God is Round. The Culture of Football].
Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 1996.
Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research. The FA Premier League National Fan Survey 2001. F.A. Premier League, 2002. http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/pre
mierleague/site-content/News/publications/fan-surveys/national-fan-survey-2001-02.pdf.
Stollenwerk, H.J. Sport-Zuschauer-Medien [Sport Spectators Media]. Aachen: Meyer &
Meyer, 1996.
Taylor, Lord J. The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster 15 April 1989: Final Report. London:
HMSO, 1990.
Taylor, M. The Association Game: A History of British Football. Harlow: Pearson, 2008.
Taylor, I. Soccer Consciousness and Soccer Hooliganism. In Images of Deviance, ed. S.
Cohen, 13463. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
Taylor, I. Football Mad: A Speculative Sociology of Football Hooliganism. In The
Sociology of Sport: A Selection of Readings, ed. E. Dunning, 35277. London: Cass &
Co, 1971.
Tischler, S. Footballers and Businessmen. New York, NY: Holmes & Meier, 1981.
Vamplew, W. Pay Up and Play the Game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Waddington, I., D. Malcolm, and R. Horak. The Social Composition of Football Crowds in
Western Europe: A Comparative Study. International Review for the Sociology of Sport
33 (1998): 15569.
Wagg, S. The Football World: A Contemporary Social History. Brighton: Harvester, 1984.
Walvin, J. The Peoples Game: The History of Football Revisited. Edinburgh: Mainstream,
1994.
Williams, R. The Long Revolution. Hamondsworth: Penguin, 1961.
Williams, J. Der Neue Fuball in England und Sir John Halls neue Geordie Nation
[The New Football in England and Sir John Halls new Geordie Nation]. In Fuball
und Region in Europa, ed. S. Gehrmann, 23980. Mnster: Lit, 1999.