Football has a pretty big role in terms of UK culture, and never more so since the birth of Sky Sports and the Premier League, enhanced even further by Euro ’96. We’re now at a point where around 29 million people attend live games and that’s not even taking into account the millions more who watch from the comfort of their favourite armchair, and 1 in 4 of those who take on the title of a ‘fan’ suggest the game is one of the most important things in their lives.

Is that a bad thing?

Well, if you look at it from a Psychologist’s point of view, it’s pretty good. Dr. Sandy Wolfson, Head of Psychology at Northumbria University, says:

“Football does have positive effects on people’s psychological well-being. It gives people a ready-made topic of conversation where opinions on team selection, strategy, and players’ skills are enjoyable topics for debate. Many people have made good friends and even met their spouses through football.”

But considering some of us dedicate so much of our lives to it, it must give us more than just something to talk about surely? I mean, even the weather does that, right?

Well, when the 9-5 drudge gets about as exciting as watching paint dry, apparently it gives us something else — unpredictability. How can that not be exciting? While Fulham fans were full of hope and inevitable anxiety in preparation of facing Arsenal at the weekend, did they really expect to come away with 3 points? Of course they didn’t. And here’s the psychology bit, because research shows that when a team does well, it has an uplifting effect on the mood of not just individuals, but the wider community as well. So, it’s fair to say the Fulham community is probably in a better mood than Islington’s right now.

Hang on though, because there’s more. Football is cathartic, did you know that? It ‘provides an opportunity to express and release internalised emotion which men in particular may find difficult to express in other ways.’ Ah, so that’s what all the booing is about with Frank Lampard then? I’m sure he’ll be relieved to know that this has got nothing to do with his inept performances for his country and the public’s general dislike of him, and everything to do with the fact they’ve had a bad day at work, the missus ain’t sympathising and the kids are emptying his wallet.

Furthermore, the live game has a ‘carnival’ atmosphere — so is it any wonder supporters of Premier League club’s pay an average of £600 a year to experience this? Even the shirts supporters are fleeced for are part of this ‘team identity’ making them as ‘socially included’ as the language they choose to use. You see, the way supporters choose to behave encourages ‘a cathartic release of tension,’ be it through shouting, screaming, gesturing or chanting. So you see ref, no one really thinks you’re all the things they say you are, this is simply their way of releasing their own internalised feelings of annoyance — I don’t know, I mean, let’s just say the bank bounced the last cheque they wrote after they’d paid for the season ticket and the shirt and the… you get my drift.

Anyway, because our team — whichever we opt for, inherit, etc — is part of our identity, obviously we live with them through thick and thin, win or lose, bad performance or good, that’s life eh? But, in order to continue to feel positive about this choice (identity), we compare ourselves to other groups of supporters. By that, I mean we compare ourselves ‘favourably’ to them, and we stick with our own. By committing to a team we are expected to commit to our fellow supporters. We regard them as being more committed, enthusiastic and objective apparently — although it has to be said, whoever researched this clearly hadn’t read my blog.

Which brings me on to pessimism. Yes, believe it or not, somewhere amid this cathartic carnival, sometimes supporters feel a little pessimistic before a game. I don’t know, but let’s say for sake of argument you’d been given someone like Avram Grant as a manager. This is when a refusal to believe that things might go well protects against the disappointment of failure — aka being a Chelsea supporter. And yet even this can be a positive thing apparently because it ‘unites fans in the face of the possibility that it can all go wrong.’ So at least that gave us something to hold on to in Moscow, as did the ‘shared moan after defeat’ — another part of the good old bonding process.

Talking of bonding, football totally comes into its own where family bonding is concerned because it strengthens relationships between family members — because let’s face it, none of us have ever argued with family where football’s concerned right? But wait, that’s just the cynic in me, because football is actually considered to be a very important part of the relationship between a father and son, with almost every fan taken to their first game by their father and often continuing long after children have grown up… presumably so the old man gets a few pints brought back to make up for being fleeced for years?

But there is a down side to this whole football thing because some supporters apparently admit to becoming aggressive whilst watching a game (that’ll be the ref again), some even admit to the odd row with the wife after, and here’s the real shocker — heavy drinking is often a key element in that ‘good day out.’ So maybe losing isn’t such a great experience after all, because the news is that in a study of two major Scottish football teams (no prizes for guessing) it was found that after a few defeats too many, some of their supporters experienced anxiety, irritability, sleep problems and headaches — nothing to do with the alcohol at all apparently!

Just blame it on the football.

Denise is a London-born Chelsea supporter, currently living in East Anglia. Having written on and off for a few years, this year she has dedicated most of that writing to football and when not working as a full-time Nurse Manager, spends some of her spare time writing for The Chelsea Blog — established to share her work with a wider audience.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

Following Abramovich’s arrival, Chelsea were hardly the most popular club on the planet, so the decision regarding who should be appointed Chief Executive, you’d assume, was given careful consideration.

After all, this particular candidate was not only going to be responsible for increasing Chelsea’s commercial income but was also going to be the club’s main spokesperson. But, you’d assume wrong, because careful consideration clearly wasn’t on the agenda when Peter Kenyon was hired.

I’m not suggesting whatever he’d done before he’d come to Chelsea was of no consequence, because despite Manchester United being his first job at a football club, he’d managed to secure the club some very lucrative sponsorship deals as well as being involved in the signing of players such as Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Rio Ferdinand. Rumour has it he even played a major part when it came to twisting Ferguson’s arm to delay his retirement. But how much could you trust a born and bred man whose professed ‘loyalty’ to the club he was supposedly a lifelong supporter of was so easily bought?

Anyway, sadly for Chelsea, the decision was made, Kenyon arrived in February 2004 and the question of trust was soon answered with him twisting the knife firmly in Ranieri’s back whilst courting Sven-Goran Eriksson. This, in turn, was warmly received by the home crowd, who treated him to a rendition of “Stand up if you hate Kenyon! Stand up if you hate Kenyon!” – which he obviously enjoyed because he then went on to pull stunts like inviting Arsenal players out for meals until they became ex-Arsenal players — all in the name of commercial income obviously.

The man just doesn’t care who he tramples over in order to make money. Supporters have become mere ‘customers’ as he tests loyalty to extremes, knowing that unlike his own ‘devotion’ to the reds, ours would remain intact long after he’s gone. Marketing the ‘brand’ of Chelsea with meaningless tours to ‘broaden the fanbase’ and take Chelsea ‘global’.

Whatever happened to preseason games you could realistically attend? What happened to season tickets with domestic cups as part of the package? Peter Kenyon happened. Never mind the loyal fanbase if you can pick up a few stragglers in Asia or bring in a few fly-by-nights for a cup game, eh Peter?

Now having alienated the majority inside Chelsea, it would seem he’s concentrating his efforts on anyone remaining outside Stamford Bridge who doesn’t despise him already. With absolutely no consideration given to the fact that it really wasn’t all that long ago when it was Chelsea unable to compete with the top clubs in their own league (and why would he?), Kenyon arrogantly dismisses concerns regarding lack of competition outside of the top four.

With the sort of condescension that’d push a nun to commit GBH, he says “Other teams in England should be knocking on our door, teams like Tottenham, Newcastle, Villa, Everton, it’s more about them getting their houses in order rather than us coming down to their level.”

Is he honestly suggesting the fact that Chelsea are £578 million in debt, to one man, entitles him to brag? Or the fact that we can ‘afford’ to shell out ridiculous sums of money, not only for the big time Charlies who demand £150,000 a week until they get their pension (chip off the old block with that sort of loyalty eh?) but also for players who wouldn’t even recognise the inside of Stamford Bridge? Then again, maybe it’s because he knows we’ll be self-sufficient by 2010?!

His arrogance is mind-blowing, he might believe that one man’s money makes us superior but in truth Chelsea lost more last season than any of the clubs outside the top four made — doesn’t sound like a man doing his job to me. You see, Kenyon’s a businessman first and foremost and he’s been sidetracked into believing he’s a football man, so he’s taken to talking about things he knows nothing about. It’s no coincidence that from the minute Mourinho left we’ve all had to endure his Gollum-like features on our screens almost regularly enough to be classed as abuse.

What was all that about in Moscow if not proof that he’s totally forgotten his position at the club? Manchester United were led up to receive their winners medals by Sir Bobby Charlton (and rightly so), who incidentally was far too humble to accept a medal having not taken part in the game. And the losers? Oh well, we didn’t feel humiliated anywhere near enough apparently, we had to suffer the indignity of having the ex-chief executive of Umbro accepting a medal off Platini.

His leading the players up that night demonstrates his total lack of class to the watching world. He’s a nobody who believes he’s bigger than he is as a result of money, and it’s that image of Chelsea that Peter Kenyon is ‘globally’ marketing.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

While the Ronaldo saga has rumbled on throughout the summer, I have to admit I’ve been one of the few who’ve let it go over my head. Obviously it’s a topic that’s been pretty much in your face for the most part, mainly because not only is this the way Real Madrid choose to conduct themselves, but also because this sort of behaviour has actually been endorsed by the seriously warped Sepp Blatter.

However, with their latest public statement unashamedly contradicting Blatter’s theory on football ‘slavery,’ I feel obliged to either openly question their disgraceful behaviour or headbutt the nearest wall. We all know how they’ve behaved in their shameless pursuit of Cristiano Ronaldo on an almost daily basis, and whilst I haven’t had much to say on the subject — mainly because I’ve never really believed he’d leave Manchester United this summer — I’ve viewed each statement from the Spanish club with serious distaste.

Firstly, we heard from Real’s Sporting Director, how, despite the fact Ronaldo has a contract without a buy-out clause, there was still a need for Real to harass pursue him. Then, we got the sheer arrogance with statements like “I think that sooner or later, Kaka, like Cristiano Ronaldo, will end up playing at Real Madrid because this is the most important club in the world and any player wants to come here.”

Obviously, the reason Real are falling over themselves — and not giving a damn who they trample in the process — is down to the form of the player they’re after. Ronaldo was seriously good last season, scoring what amounted to a pretty unreal amount of goals whilst playing the best football of his career to date. In doing so, he came away with both Premier League and Champions League winner’s medals. He’s got a good contract at a club that will guarantee him success for the next 4 years at least (if he sees it out). He’s also been given unbelievable support, verging on adulation, that not only enabled him to swiftly put the whole ‘World Cup wink’ behind him but also allowed him to brush the chip off his shoulder and grow into the player he is today. And still, Real believe they can offer him something better? Unbelievable.

But the Spanish club’s disgraceful practice doesn’t end there, because, whilst bigging themselves up as the best thing that’s ever happened to football and assuming there isn’t a player in the game who’d spurn their advances, what Real have actually done is show the world just how low they really are.

You see, while they’ve been busy directing their entire focus on one player this summer, they seem to have forgotten about the players they have already — and one in particular whose future at the club appears to remain in limbo. And it’s this treatment of Robinho that brings me back to the sheer hypocrisy of their behaviour in the face of recent comments from the FIFA president and Real Madrid affiliate, Sepp Blatter.

In a shocking display of total disrespect, Real Madrid have openly admitted that should Cristiano Ronaldo be naive enough to sign for them, then Robinho will be considered surplus to requirements and sold to the highest bidder. However, should Ronaldo have more sense stay at United, then, and only then, will they offer the Brazilian an improved deal to keep him at the club. Did someone mention the word ‘slavery’?

Even worse than that though, is their apparent refusal to allow Robinho, who must feel about as welcome as your missus on your stag night, to leave in the meantime. Hang on a minute though, what was it Blatter was saying in his defence of Real Madrid’s recent conduct?

“If the player wants to play somewhere else, then a solution should be found because if he stays in a club where he does not feel comfortable to play then it’s not good for the player and for the club,” he said. “The important thing is, we should also protect the player. I’m always in favour of protecting the player, and if the player he wants to leave, let him leave.“

And yet, despite Chelsea making clear how much they’d welcome Robinho at Stamford Bridge, Mijatovic is reported to have said the player will not be allowed to leave. Well, until it suits Real anyway.

Now, my point is, not only does Real’s stance in not allowing Robinho to leave — despite having completely undervalued him — totally contradict Blatter’s statements when it comes to players Real Madrid want to prise away from other clubs, but their sheer front in admitting they’d happily sell him for the highest available price if they got Ronaldo, begs the question: Isn’t that what they used to do with the hired help years ago, Mr. Blatter?

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

With Frank Lampard’s demands at Chelsea firmly on the agenda right now, it’s had me thinking about how sad it is that the trust I once had in players at the club has decreased in sharp contrast to their ever-increasing salaries.

Funny then, when reading an old article circa 2002, to realise that the Chelsea transfers and salaries deemed so ridiculous now, were (relatively) even more obscene pre-Abramovich when the club didn’t even have a Russian sugar daddy to fund them. Probably around the 1995-1996 time, we saw them arrive: Hughes at £1.5million; Vialli £1million per annum; Di Matteo arriving for £4.9million; Zola £4.5million (an absolute bargain), increasing steadily until 2000 saw Hasselbaink at a whopping £15million, before we arrive at the then questionable transfer fee of a pretty average West Ham midfielder in 2001 with an £11million price tag.

In fact, by 2002 Chelsea were struggling so much with their massive wage bill that ‘summit meetings’ were held over Hasselbaink’s future and the players were actually warned before the last game of the 2002-2003 season that failure to qualify for the Champions League that day would spell more than just financial disaster for all concerned. And yet a mere 30 days later, the arrival of Roman Abramovich ended the financial battle… and maybe started the financial war?

This war seems to have been largely around the effect vast sums of money have had on today’s game, culminating in constant debates of loyalty vs. money and reaching a ridiculous peak recently with the suggestion that the top players, despite earning more in a week than most of us will see in a lifetime, are no more than slaves. And whilst we all know Blatter is incapable of making any statement related to English football without a large dose of personal bias, one of the things his laughable comments indicated was that in terms of ‘rights,’ the pendulum seems to have swung firmly in the players’ direction.

Pele rightly questioned Blatter’s deluded rants, pointing out that slavery was never noted for either its use of contracts or a handsome wage and strangely enough, I can’t recall the car collections and celebrity status – complete with extra-marital activities – being enjoyed from my history lessons on the subject either.

Certainly, slaves were never, to my knowledge, given the nod to release themselves and hot-foot it to somewhere they felt their labour could be better suited and yet that almost definitely seems to be the case with today’s players. This summer has seen a fair few attempts at breaking contracts in search of better pay and/or conditions. But should this be allowed to happen? Shouldn’t players, who sign these contracts with no evidence of thumbscrews as part of the negotiation, be expected to fulfill their side of the deal?

I’ve seen plenty argue that if you look at your average employee, they might develop their careers within one company and happily move to another firm with a clear conscience. At least in football, the employers receive a substantial package for that broken contract and therefore any time and effort invested in his development is financially compensated.

But whilst this is all very true, football players can’t reasonably be compared to your average employee. With footballers, we’re talking about fairly short term contracts, contracts around which teams are built and subsequently, lives revolve. If one of my more competent colleagues left, for sure it’d affect the team but it wouldn’t cost us millions — and it’s doubtful it’d be mourned by millions in the papers over their cornflakes either.

You see, when some of these players sign contracts, they feel obliged to make very public statements that the more naive among us often take at face value. These pledges of devotion to those dishing out adulation and hard-earned cash in equal measure every weekend are duly noted, along with any badge-kissing that goes on, and taken as some kind of loyalty. And yet the celebrity status and lifestyle of today’s footballers has them so far removed from supporters, they have no idea of the level of faith invested in them and their ‘gestures.’

Take Stevie Me for instance. A Liverpool lad who flatly refused a move to Manchester United in the past such was his loyalty to his club. Fast forward a bit and selective amnesia saw that loyalty disappear just long enough for him to hand in a transfer request as he sought a move to Chelsea. The ‘supporters’ (and the threat of the odd hit-man) saw to it (once they’d finished burning shirts that is) that the move never took place and they continue to laud over him as if the whole episode was no more than a bad dream. But the fact remains, whether Liverpool like it or not, Steven Gerrard is no more loyal than the majority of today’s players.

Which brings me back to the ultimate ‘badge-kisser’ and the contract he’s managed to avoid negotiating – whilst professing unconditional love to his ‘people’ – for the past couple of years. The way he’s conducted this whole contract saga, leaving it to drag on and allowing the finger to be pointed at the club when the truth is there’s a deal there that he is refusing to accept (and probably has for two years), is totally wrong. And whether the vast majority continue to refer to him as a ‘legend’ or not, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate term for such classless behaviour.

The way I see it, whilst players are perfectly entitled to move from club to club, provided they’ve seen out their handsomely paid contracts first of course, they should do it in a manner befitting the sort of respect bestowed on them. Nobody is asking for, or probably even expects undying loyalty these days because the reality is, that really is a thing of the past. But the least supporters deserve in return is probably the biggest quality Frank Lampard has lacked since the end of last season — HONESTY!

Denise is a London-born Chelsea supporter, currently living in East Anglia. Having written on and off for a few years, this year she has dedicated most of that writing to football and when not working as a full-time Nurse Manager, spends some of her spare time writing for The Chelsea Blog — established to share her work with a wider audience.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News