Why I hope England will be knocked out in the first round
STEPHEN GLOVER
When England won the World Cup in 1966, broadsheet newspapers were restrained in their front-page coverage. The World Cup of 2002 has not even started, yet hardly a day passes without one or more of them carrying a photograph of a footballer on the front with an accompanying story. Will David Beckham's foot be mended in time for Sunday's match against Sweden? Is Roy Keane, who doesn't even play for England, going to return to Japan? What does Sven have for breakfast? Every development in the England camp is reported as though our team were engaged on a diplomatic mission vital to the future of civilisation.
What is true of our so-called quality press has long applied to politicians. Stanley Baldwin genuinely loved football and once delivered a lecture on the subject. But he was a rarity at the time. If a leading politician today admitted that there were more important things in life than kicking a small sphere around a field, he would be judged to be finished. Tony Blair, steered towards the camera by his Burnley-supporting image-maker, Alastair Campbell, loves to show off his footballing tricks. Perhaps unwisely, John Major made known his preference for cricket, but lain Duncan Smith will make no such mistake. He has already been pictured playing football with asylum seekers, thereby advertising at one and the same time his compassion and his reverence for England's national game.
Of course it never occurs to the politicians or the media that they might be over-egging the pudding. Sport ranks relatively low in any survey of the interests of broadsheet readers. I suppose you might say that the World Cup is different, but even here there is room for doubt. According to a recent poll, more people will change their viewing and listening habits for the Queen's Golden Jubilee than for the World Cup. While 25 per cent of respondents said they would go out of their way to follow coverage of the World Cup, 40 per cent said they would do the same for the Jubilee celebrations. Women and older people in particular were less moved by football, with 45 per cent of the first group and 57 per cent of the second disclosing a greater interest in the Jubilee. Not very surprisingly, young people under the age of 24, who like to sit slumped in front of the television with a can of lager, say that they prefer the World Cup. Our cultural arrangements are evidently made to suit their tastes.
Do not get me wrong. On Sunday morning I shall be glued to the box, as will a third of the rest of the English nation. I know my Jo Coles from my Ashley Coles and my Andy Coles. I think I understand the offside rule. I can tell you how many times Liverpool have won the European Cup. But it is difficult nonetheless not to regret the footballisation of our culture. The BBC succumbed long before the broadsheet newspapers. Now there is scarcely a bolt-hole into which a person who believes that there are more important things in life can disappear. The most depressing story I have heard this week is of a Church of England vicar who is installing a television in his vestry for Sunday's match against Sweden. A sidesman will be deputed to watch the game, and when England score a goal or, as it may be, concede one, he will notify the vicar who will interrupt the service with the good (or bad) news. As a young boy watching the 1966 World Cup, I may have offered up a prayer during extra time, but this is ridiculous.
The oddest thing is that the media should be so obsessed with a game at which we are not very proficient. One can understand why New Zealanders, whose country has made relatively little impact on the world, should be exercised about rugby, at which they excel. But the English have other things to shout about than football, even now. It seems particularly idiotic to get so worked up about something which we are bound to lose. The soundest approach is to assume that England will be beaten and then you will not be disappointed. This time I am going a little further, I am actually persuading myself that it would be a good thing if England were knocked out in the first round. In that case, the footballisation of our culture would be likely to suffer at least a temporary setback. For a while there would be fewer pictures of David Beckham on the front pages of our national newspapers. Consider, too, the effect of English success on the vengeful Scots. It would be far better if we fielded a British football team — as we did at the 1912 Olympics — but that opportunity was thrown away a long time ago. An English triumph would do nothing for the Union.
But perhaps the most powerful reason for not wanting England to prevail is that Tony Blair would claim our team's achievement as his own. Can you not see it? The ear-to ear grin, the winning football clasped close to his chest, the joshing with our plucky lads. I can assure you that whatever fleeting satisfaction you might have felt at our victory would be destroyed by such a sight.
Isaid last week that I would write about the price war between the Sun and the Daily Mirror. Now I find I have little I want to say. It just seems so utterly pointless. If it goes on very long, the war will bankrupt Trinity Mirror. News International, owner of the Sun, has deeper pockets but it will not relish losing so much money while advertising revenues are down on all its titles. So long as both papers are selling at 20 pence, there appears to be some expansion of the market as non-readers are drawn in and there is some double purchasing with other titles. But when the price war ends — and they surely won't be able to sustain these crippling losses for very long — my bet is that most of the new readers will evaporate and the papers will find themselves back almost exactly where they started. How much better it would have been to have spent just some of this money on producing better newspapers.
Readers may know that I have occasionally criticised the BBC. Conceivably I am not Greg Dyke's absolutely greatest fan. But there are pockets of excellence and New Labour-free zones, particularly on Radio Four, though for the life of me I still cannot understand why Andrew Rawnsley, an openly New Labour figure, should be allowed to introduce the Westminster Hour on Radio Four on Sunday evenings, good journalist though he undoubtedly is. Imagine the hue and cry if a Tory-supporting pundit such as Michael Gove or Simon Heifer were put in charge of it.
But I digress. Panorama is an independent-minded programme on BBC1 which should also be singled out. Perhaps BBC bosses no longer notice it since shunting it into the so-called graveyard slot on Sunday evenings. Last Sunday Panorama ran a brilliant investigation into New Labour's spending spree on government advertising before the last election. This was described by senior civil servants as 'improper'. The only pity was that newspapers did not make more of Panorama's coup.
Previous page
