Sociology of Sports

"This is the Britain we want to represent, the Britain where ladies wore beautiful dresses and waiters served the crowd tea on silver platters. This is the Britain of old, a Britain that never existed, but it's the Britain we remember."
This quote should sound familiar. As we sat at Court One in Wimbledon, our tour guide rather poetically explained the impression the legendary tennis site attempts to impart upon all its visitors. But why, I wondered, would an institution attempt to protect a historical identity that never existed? What's the purpose in defending this image, and who invented this fabricated Britain anyway? But, most interestingly, I pondered why a sporting event would serve as such a major guardian for tradition that had little, if anything, to do without the sport itself. And as I reflected, I came up with other examples - how the Premier League mirrors the immigration "crisis" in England, how the Olympics were London's greatest model of sustainability and a unified Great Britain - from the UK, and realised that British athletics are the primary defenders of British identity. However, they go beyond simply standing pat of existing models of Britishness - these major competitions also paint a picture of the impending New British identity, one that stays true to the many traditions while including a new group of British citizens.

Current British identity, in my opinion, cannot distinguish itself from its colonial past, particularly in athletics. Beginning in the 18th century, and spanning until the First World War, Great Britain's possessed an unmatched empire, controlling as much as a quarter of the world's land. They all purported back to the King or Queen, an identity that never left British sport. When Thomas Hughes quotes a cricket master in 1857, as saying "it ought to be such an unselfish game. It merges the individual in the eleven; he doesn't play that he may win, but that his side may," (Hughes 28), he shows an appreciation for the greater good, the equivilant of the Monarch in sports. It still maintains dominian over many of these locations today, known as the Commonwealth. Today, I see what I perceive as a yearning for times gone by, when the English dominated, manifested in sports. Great Britain believes it deserves a place amongst the upper echelon of countries athletically, regardless of what their resources can allow for. They confidently hosted the 2012 Olympics, even without the athlete base that all but guarantees a medal count victory to the United State or China. They continue participation in the Commonwealth Games, a tournament where THEY are the big fish, reaffirming their colonial strength. The English even continue to search for the "fix" to their national football team, although metrics run by the authors of Soccernomics (CITATION) have established the team already overachieves compared to their resources and population. After all, the British spread the game through colonialism. The world would catch up eventually.

Britain can't help but pine for these earlier, easier days, when sport was more British. These memories toe a difficult line between real and imagined, as our tour guide alluded to, and comprise the narrative of Britain that the world thinks of, where every Brit has the polite nature of Mary Poppins and eats bangers and mash for breakfast, then tea and crumpets for lunch. Wimbledon stands as the grandest reminder of this tradition, where the classy and classic British feel meets an authoritative sporting event. With fans adorning Henman Hill, trying to sneak a glance at first rate tennis, arcitecture neatly laid out to look balanced and effortless, superb television coverage and, of course, top class players, it's a famous specticle around the world. But watching from the United States, I always wondered why the British announcers focused so consistently on the current dry spell of British champions. Around the world, we wondered why Britain bemoaned so frequently its absence of top quality players. Why did a smaller, football nation worry about winning a sport it, according to our tour guide, "doesn't care much about"? But being in Britain, these concerns made perfect sense. Britain expects to win, always, at everything. The attitude they've held over since the colonial days, activating itself again in sport. And I better understand the excitement around Andy Murray's Olympic 2012 and Wimbledon 2013 victories.

However, Murray, from Scotland, brings about a new layer to the meaning of Britishness. It remains difficult to truly define "British Identity", not so much because of its subjectivity, but more because its contested demographic. After all, it's almost impossible to finger who, exactly, this identity belongs to. Technically, Britain encompasses England, Wales, and Scotland, who also comprise the larger United Kingdom, along with Northern Ireland. But, to Scotland and Wales, "British" identity seems suspiciously similar to "English" identity. As the Scottish sociologist Bairner suggests, England is the "main" exporter of Britishness, which considers Scotland and Wales under its wing (CITATION), and adopts them especially when convenient (use quote from his reading). Murray himself, when asked if he identifies as British or Scottish, joked that "it depends if I'm winning". Scotland is preparing to vote on its independence from Britain this year. Wales speaks its own language, which is historical but returning to prominence in schools. Both have their own decentralised government. It's safe to say that Britishness, from an English perspective, includes the entire landmass, but to Scotland and Wales, centers around England.

But while the English cling to the idea of a three country Britain, they simultaneously feel extremely defensive about the ethnic construction of their own. My British Life and Europe course focused heavily on multiculturalism, and one day, we were asked to take to the street and interview locals about their views on the topic. We received a repetitive refrain of "immigrants are ruining our country", a familiar cry to Americans from the Southwest, where conservatives say the same about Mexicans. Instructed to research it, we saw damning evidence. A simple search of "UK Multiculturalism" on Youtube turned into a horror show of xenophobia and racism. The most conservative British can be seen everywhere, from interviews with Nigel Farage to message board comments by anonymous typists, "informing" the public on the dangers of immigration. Even David Cameron, in 2011, decreed the failure of multiculturalism, blaming it for anti-Islamic tensions. However, these people they disparage are the same who identify, according to an (CITATION) study, as more British than the on-the-fringe Scottish and Welsh! A full 33% of Londoners were born in a foreign country, and as the global recession continues to make finding work outside the British Isles more difficult than ever, that number should only increase.

Of particular concern to those worried about immigration, then, is the Barclays' Premier League, England's most distinguished level of football competition, which acts as an extreme example of the increasingly diverse Great Britain. Since the Bosman case blew open the market for footballers to move clubs, the Premier League's wealthy owners and lucrative television rights have proved a particularly enticing destination for foreign players (Maguire & Stead 1998). The league is the most globalised in the world, with around 30% of starters British, an arrangement most Brits would reverse if given the power to do so. Compared with other major European leagues like the Italian Serie A (%%), Spanish La Primera (%%), and especially German Bundesliga (%%), the low number of naturalised players appears surprising, if not outrageous, to traditionalists. Pundits argue that without the booming football academies of other countries, the English National Team is doomed to descend from its position among world powers into a hell of mediocrity, all because their domestic league placed pounds before development. This influx of foreigners can only hurt English football, they state. They yearn for the old days, when Brits made up the English football teams. Although some of these concerns are overstated (Fabio Capello, the English manager from 2008-2012, has the highest winning percentage of any English manager ever, and Daniel Sturridge, an Englishman, is second in the league in goals), they are widely cited as a concern for the Premier League. As a neutral observer, an American who loves watching the game at the highest level, the internationalisation of football, particularly in England, is a godsend, a rare opportunity to observe ethnoscopes in action. My opinion is not shared around the country.

However, few see this situation for what it really is: simply a new, revitalised version of the old favorite British hobby, colonialism. In this case, though, instead of exporting it, the English are now importing it. The league functions as a new medium of the policy; in this era, the top resources of other regions (players, now, instead of sugar or slaves) move themselves to England, for the profitable gain of the English. Whereas once upon a time, the Brits would travel abroad to claim land or resources, the top exports of poorer nations come willingly to ply their trade in (and, subsequently, make money for) Britain. With the ballooning television and players contracts, the Barclays Premier League remains one of the few recession-free businesses in the world. And due to its ability to draw top players, it succeeds internationally, owning the second highest UEFA coefficient in Europe. This unique tactic allows the domestic league to create cyclical success, as top players create wins, which generates money, which in turn can purchase more top players from nations with weak infrastructure, inadvertantly constructing a cosmopolital playing field. In a backwards, monetarily-driven sense, the Barclays Premier League has truly developed ahead of its time demographically, and, assuming foreigners will continue moving to Britain for work, is a progressive glance into the future of Great Britain, regardless of UKIP's qualms.

Unfortunately, the Wimbledon and BPL models of British identity are inherently flawed. The Wimbledon atmosphere provides pleasant nostalgia, but hardly speaks to the newly diverse Great Britain. On the other hand, the BPL is far too radical for the English afraid of losing their identity, especially if it means a dip in national team quality. Only one event, the 2012 London Olympics, truly offered a realistic insight of the new Britain, the confident Britain convinced of its own superiority while including a new ethnic spectrum in population. Not only did the British create new, innovative ways to revolutionise the Olympics, they also set aside any cultural differences to unite as Team GB.

Sustainability, recently, has grown into a dire concern for the British. London ranks just amongst average large European cities in the Green City Index, struggling particularly in environmental governance. However, they're moving in a positive direction. Initiatives have begun, mandating that buildings be built without emitting any CO2, including the incredible work done in the London Olympics. The decaying buildings on the intended park site were demolished, with an outstanding 98% of the materials reused. The stands at the Olympic Stadium itself were repackaged after, leaving a large enough capacity to move West Ham FC from Upton Park to the new building. Perhaps most impressively, the Velodrome's open space reduced the need for air-conditioning, lighting, and water flow, as it recycled rain water. Many other buildings were transportable or reusable, and all the buildings emitted less CO2 than expected. Compared to even just the Beijing Olympics in 2008, which produced 1.18 million tonnes of carbon alone, and Britain clearly outshined all past Olympics in sustainability, signaling the way for a greener future country (Smith 2012). And with the multiple facilities packaged and sold to the Olympics, London 2012 also has provided a cleaner Olympics Games in the foreseeable future.

Additionally, London 2012 set a new standard for Paralympic coverage of the Games, particularly in the United Kingdom. The Paralympics have struggled to gain attention many places - for example, in the United States, NBC only spared five and a half hours on the growing spectile. Having been there, it may as well have not existed, besides Oscar Pistorius, who managed to gain international fame by attempting to participate in the open Olympics. In Great Britain, on the other hand, where Channel 4 had the Games' rights, over 150 live hours of

But amazingly, London 2012 managed to not only demonstrate an invigorated, sustainable Britain, it also showed the future of the national as a multicultural entity. As many complaints as the country has had with immigrants, a review of the posters advertising the vote for London 2012 is jarring - Leap for London, with no names on the jerseys, but men, women, black, white, handicapped, non-handicapped, all represented. The emphasis, rather than on the athletes, rested upon the London background as the Olympic Committee attempted to unite the country around a somewhat mistrusted city. Or glance at the television advertisements, which lacked the recognisably gifted destruction of a Gareth Bale but instead pinpointed the more anonymous team aspect. They made sure to pick all backgrounds, as well, showing posh athletes training in world class facilities juxtaposed with less priledged competitors exercising in East London, both sporting the same Great Britain jersey. Come together. We're all one. We are Britain. Not England, Scotland, and Wales, but Britain. The team perfectly reflected the growing globalisation of the country. Additionally, it faced none of the same criticism as the globalised Premier League. Regardless of their heritage, all the Team GB athletes declared themselves fully British, happy to represent the entire nation in the Games. Fans do not face the same conflict of interest they might in watching their favorite football team start nine foreign players - their whole team was British. This proved the perfect vehicle for promoting the new British identity; not only did athletes of all shapes, sizes, and abilites compete, the media coverage spotlighted the variety. The 29 gold medals won by the team, third behind the United States and China, didn't hurt, either. Imagine a child growing up in London during the 2012 Olympics. There could not be a better indoctrination for their future as a British citizen than visuals of British heroes of all colors and backgrounds coming together to work for a common goal. They can not only gain sporting inspiration, but social inspiration, from their progressive and powerful team, who truly create and capture the new British Identity.


So as I squirmed in the uncomfortable seating in Wimbledon, I reflected on my philosophy class, recalling that George Berkeley and David Hume argued against an objective "reality", that our minds perceive a world that may exist, but not with the order and consistency we assume. Essentially, what seems real to us may not be real at all, but just a perception. I realized that the perceived identities of the past, the ones Great Britain cling so dearly to, are real as long as institutions like Wimbledon or