The British Journal of Sociology 2004 Volume 55 Issue 4
Giulianotti and Robertson (Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen) (Corresponding author email:
r.giulianotti@abdn.ac.uk)
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004 ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA on behalf of the LSE. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00037.x
The globalization of football: a study in the
glocalization of the ‘serious life’
Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
Abstract
Sport, in particular football, constitutes one of the most dynamic, sociologically
illuminating domains of globalization. This paper examines the globalization of
football with particular reference to Robertson’s theorizations of global processes.
We examine football’s cultural globalization through the concept of ‘glocalization’,
which highlights the interdependence of local and global processes within the
game’s identities and institutions. We address economic globalization in football
by considering the world’s leading clubs as ‘glocal’ transnational corporations. We
assess the political globalization of football with reference to the possible enhancement
of democracy within the game’s international governance. We conclude by
affirming the utility of sport in advancing our empirical and theoretical understanding
of globalization processes.
Keywords: Globalization; football; glocalization; transnational corporations;
democracy
Introduction
Football has been the world’s most popular sport, at least since the late nineteenth
century and its international diffusion by the British. The ‘global game’
spans culturally diverse societies in all continents; an estimated 250 million
people are direct participants, around 1.4 billion have an interest,1
and football’s
flagship tournament, the World Cup finals, attracts a cumulative global
television audience of 33.4 billion.2
Only relatively recently has the game’s
unparalleled cross-cultural appeal been realized financially. In 1998, football’s
world governing body, FIFA,3
controlled contracts worth some £4 billion; by
2001, world football’s turnover was estimated at around £250 billion, equivalent
to the Netherlands’ GDP (Walvin 2001). Given these figures alone, we
might propose, to adapt Durkheim, that of all contemporary cultural forms,
football is ‘the serious life’.
Curiously, while research sub-disciplines such as the sociology of sport have
utilized theories of globalization, the major sociological analysts of global
change have passed over football as a relevant object of study.4
Conversely,
we argue here that sport generally, and football in particular, constitutes a vital
site for the theorization and empirical exploration of the multidimensional and
long-term process of globalization. One might say something similar about
cuisine, music, health, sexuality, fashion, the cinema, the novel and so on. We
are here, however, concerned with ‘the global game’ – both in its own right
and how, on the other hand, analysis of it contributes to our sociological understanding
of globalization.
We advance a preliminary, sociological analysis of the major themes and
problems relating to football and globalization. We utilize our, heretofore
mainly separate works that have served respectively to found the sociology
of globalization5
and to develop the sociology of world football.6
Our relatively
‘voluntaristic’ theory of globalization highlights the role of empirical
developments in reshaping the ‘global order’, in this case in regard to football
(Robertson 1992: 61–2). We understand globalization as being characterized
by two distinct but closely connected processes. Social actors possess greater
senses of ‘globality’: that is, globalization is marked by increasing subjective
consciousness of the world as a whole; or, in other words, it involves
heightened awareness of the world as a ‘single place’ (Robertson 2002). It is
also characterized by a global intensification of social and cultural ‘connectivity’,
such as through telecommunications and international travel (cf.
Tomlinson 1999). Moreover, we argue here that globalization is marked culturally
by processes of ‘glocalization’, whereby local cultures adapt and redefine
any global cultural product to suit their particular needs, beliefs and
customs (Robertson 1992, 1995, 2003; Robertson and White 2003b, 2004).
We examine the broad cultural, social, economic and political questions concerning
the globalization of football. First, in discussing the cultural elements
of football’s globalization, we focus on the interdependencies of the local/particular
and the global/universal, and on how these are reflected in processes
of glocalization. Second, we interpret the world’s major clubs as transnational
corporations (TNCs) that serve to drive the game’s contemporary globalization
(Robertson 1992, 1995; cf. Sklair 2001). Third, we consider issues of social
exclusion in regard to the globalization of football, and how these may be challenged
through the democratic reform of the game’s governance.
Our argument is not that globalization is somehow externally imposed upon
the game; rather, we understand football as one representation – indeed, manifestation
– of globalization. Certainly, football has possessed some essential
components that have advanced its global diffusion: it has a particularly simple
set of rules; unlike rugby and cricket, its playing customs are not closely
546 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
associated with British imperialism; and its basic equipment costs are very low
as balls can be manufactured from bundles of rags or paper. However, we are
not advocating an essentialist explanation of football’s international accessibility.
Rather, we seek to account sociologically for the cultural, social, economic
and political contours of the game’s globalization. Whilst, in empirical
terms, we draw heavily upon the stronger football cultures of Europe
and South America, largely for reasons of brevity, the broad thrust of our
arguments.
Football culture: universalism-particularism and glocalization
The fulcrum of football’s cultural dimensions is the relationship of the universal
and the particular, ‘the elemental form of global life’ per se (Robertson
1992: 103; 1995). Otherwise stated, any particular experience, identity or
social process must be understood through its relationship to universal phenomena.
Globalization relativizes all particularisms, forcing exponents of
specific beliefs or identities to confront and to respond to other, particularistic
ideas, identities and social processes across the universal domain. Thus,
while universalism and particularism may appear as categorical antinomies,
they are interdependent, fused together in a globewide nexus (Robertson
1992: 102).
This interdependence is developed fruitfully through two key notions
(Robertson 1990a, 1992). First, the ‘universalization of particularism’ designates
the universal expectation that all ‘particular’ communities and cleavages
will harbour unique identities, at least as ‘inventions’ of such specificity. For
example, modern national-societal identities emerged within and through the
international political and economic system (Robertson 1992: 103). Within the
context of international football tournaments or other cultural competitions,
and no matter how polyethnic a single society may be, its individual members
are each expected to identify with a specific national team. At major international
tournaments, thousands of different supporter groups commingle, with
each nation displaying distinctive kinds of dress, song, music and patterns of
behaviour (such as in their relations with local people, other supporter groups,
and the various security forces). Thus, cultural relativization turns the global
game into the ‘glocal game’.
Conversely, the ‘particularization of universalism’ arose as the world
acquired a ‘socio-political concreteness’. This establishes extensive political
chains of global connectivity, and serves to order nations for example through
their specific constitutional frameworks, calendars, and positioning within
world time zones (Robertson 1990a: 51–2). Football’s pyramid of global
governance has the world governing body (FIFA) at the apex, followed by
competing continental governing bodies, national associations, regional and
Globalization of football 547
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
local associations, the various football clubs, and fans at the base who literally
‘support’ the entire edifice.7
Notably, the national football associations are the
principal political units of representation within football’s international
governing bodies. All nations are organized into the world football calendar,
specific continental associations, and continental qualifying groups for the
World Cup finals; each nation has a standard national team and league system,
governed by national, FIFA-endorsed associations.
While the universalism-particularism nexus is rooted in interdependent cultural
processes, the social consciousness of globalization provokes misguided
anxieties that the ‘global’ is abolishing or subverting the ‘local’ (Robertson
1992, 1995: 35). During Europe’s belle époque, ‘wilful nostalgia’ arose alongside
the ‘invention of tradition’, to imagine the world in terms of historical
decline and loss of particularistic collective identity (Robertson 1990a: 46;
1995: 35).8
Since the 1960s, a ‘somewhat different and diffuse kind of wilful,
synthetic nostalgia’ has emerged that is characterized globally by postmodernist
thought and consumer practices (Robertson 1990a: 53–5).
Contemporary British nostalgia is consumption-centred, and decorated by the
‘enchanted glass’ of ‘Ukania’ (of monarchy and heritage) and Blair’s ‘curation’
of the British state (Nairn 1988, 2000). Of course, both historical types of nostalgia
construct particularistic forms of cultural discourse and identity that
sustain forms of relativization vis-à-vis ‘other’ societies.
In football, nostalgia underlies the transmogrification of old football spaces
into ‘heritage sites’ that house museums. For example, Manchester United’s
Old Trafford stadium and Hampden Park (Scottish football’s national
stadium) in Glasgow were both first built before 1914, and now contain football
museums. Strong nostalgic themes have been evident, particularly through
the idea that football should ‘come home’, when England hosted the 1996
European Championship finals and then made a strong bid to host the 2006
World Cup finals.9
The vast market in football literature is strongly nostalgic,
notably through recent biographies of long-retired players.10
Contemporary
football media evince a postmodern, ‘schizophrenic’ nostalgia, notably by
conflating past and present football images in football discussion programmes
and adverts.
Wilful nostalgia is evident in football’s mediated aestheticization, for
example, in conjoining classical music to football competitions (the World
Cup, the European Champions League11
). The postmodern dimension is
added by ‘dedifferentiating’ low culture (football) and higher, intellectualizing
cultural forms (the performing arts, literature). This trend accords with the
taste patterns of new football followers among the growing, service-sector
social classes, especially the ‘new middle classes’ (Giulianotti 1999). Unlike the
earlier, more nationalistic nostalgia, contemporary romanticization is also
more cosmopolitan. For example, the great postwar Brazilian football players
and teams are mythologized in the mass media internationally, and this
548 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
can sharpen the disappointment of football spectators when contemporary
Brazilian teams appear to display the dogged competitiveness and tactical
caution that are otherwise associated with European football’s invented
traditions.12
The term ‘glocalization’ helps to explain how the symbiosis of the local and
the global differs according to particular cultural circumstances (Robertson
1995: 27). Glocalization (the word) seemingly originated in Japanese business
practices, but when it is applied to explain broader cultural projects, it can be
argued that ‘the projects of glocalization [are] the constitutive features of contemporary
globalization’ (Robertson 1995: 41). For example, within the sports
media, glocalization arises through the use of local terms and points of
reference, such as constant discussion of national players or issues to frame or
interpret global events such as the World Cup finals. More subtly, glocalization
is evidenced in the cultural differences that arise in the production techniques,
camera angles and commentating conventions in televised football.
Mirroring Dayan and Katz’s (1992) findings regarding Dallas television
audiences, glocalization also arises in the ways that particular viewer cultures
interpret televised football matches.
Significantly, football’s global diffusion has met with different kinds of cultural
glocalization. First, at the outset, in more extreme circumstances, some
cultures either rejected or radically reformed its rules when football was introduced.
The local elites in the Asian sub-continent preferred cricket, then
hockey, to high-contact sports like football or rugby; the Australians formulated
their own football code (Australian Rules football) to accommodate
local conditions and the fitness needs of cricketers in winter; and the
American colleges later adapted rugby rather than association football to
produce ‘gridiron’.
Second, once the game had enjoyed a more favourable cultural reception,
football was glocalized according to a ‘universalization of particularism’
process. Specific local cultures worked inside football’s universal rules to
establish their own football ‘traditions’, as illustrated by distinctive corporeal
techniques, playing styles, aesthetic codes, administrative structures and
interpretative vocabularies. Third, from the 1920s to the 1960s, football’s
glocalization was marked also by the particularization of universalism, as
international tournaments and different tiers of governing body were
established.13
Fourth, since the late 1960s, glocalization has been shaped by intensified
flows; in football, this involves the transnational circulation of labour, information,
capital and commodities that can underpin non-national forms of cultural
particularity. There are fewer tactical and aesthetic differences between
specific football nations or continents, yet nations still struggle to relativize
themselves through successful competition. Spectator cultures play a
heightened role in ‘representing’ the locality, or the nation, by actuating
Globalization of football 549
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
particularistic symbolism in dress, songs, flags before global audiences.14
Yet
football also possesses a cosmopolitan, world community of followers who
‘relativize’ themselves into specific cross-national preferences for world
players, managers, and clubs.15
We should underline here the substantial role played by mass media and
telecommunications corporations in football’s contemporary globalization.
World cartels of satellite, cable and free-to-air broadcasters have emerged to
distribute football images globally, such that the game is now an important
constituent in the ‘banal cosmopolitanism’ of popular culture (see Billig 1995).
To paraphrase Hannerz (1992: 255), just about all football followers are ‘a little
more cosmopolitan’ within a global football ‘ecumene’, particularly if cosmopolitanism
is comprised in part by mastery of, and competence in, crosscultural
football traditions and aesthetic codes. Cosmopolitanism has not in
itself dissolved forms of cultural particularity; rather, it engenders greater
reflexivity regarding the ‘traditions’, cultural identities and practices of others,
thereby contributing to the intensification of cultural relativization and
glocalization.
Contemporary glocalization processes have always been manifested within
football’s economic realms. In football’s business structure, we find long histories
of ‘glocalization’ in the different corporate structures of clubs within
specific nations. In the UK, clubs were usually organized as ‘limited companies’,
but leading teams pursued stock market flotation during the 1990s. In
South America, parts of Germany and (until recently) Spain, clubs are usually
owned by members (often known as socios) and controlled by elected governors.
In Italy clubs still tend to be owned by rich local industrialists, although
since the early 1980s emerging owners may be in new industries (e.g.
Berlusconi at the Milan club) or under parent company control (e.g. the
heavily indebted Cirio in control at Lazio, and the now bankrupt Parmalat at
Parma).
The most dynamic agents in football’s contemporary glocalization are
various ‘transnational corporations’ (TNCs): these include merchandise companies
such as Nike, media complexes such as BSkyB and its sister companies,
or large football clubs (the G-14 clubs,16
and other top European, Japanese
and Latin American clubs). TNCs possess worldwide infrastructures for the
production, distribution and marketing of sports-related commodities such as
sports DVDs, equipment or kit. In England, a merchandise corporation like
Nike obviously sells more football shirts that are endorsed by local clubs than
basketball shirts that are worn by American sides. Such facts may be viewed,
from the corporation’s position, as indices of how the ‘glocalization’ or ‘micromarketing’
of sports commodities functions through the use of local symbols
and advertising discourses to appeal to particular cultures of consumer (cf.
Robertson 1992: 185–6).17
550 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
However, TNCs also seek to create their own ‘local’, deterritorialized communities
of global consumers, as symbolized most succinctly by the recent
‘NikeNation’ advertising campaign. Transnational clubs like Manchester
United, Juventus and Bayern Munich have global communities of supporters
and merchandise consumers that are similar in size, if not patterns of identification,
with the citizenry of nations. Such clubs highlight the deterritorialized
kinds of glocality that can arise among international communities of
followers of popular culture. We call these football communities ‘self-invented
virtual diasporas’ as they are forged from the global dispersal of club-focused
images and products, and from the voluntaristic identification of individuals
with club-related symbols and practices. We turn now to explore more fully
the relationship of transnational clubs to glocalization processes.
Glocalization and TNC football clubs
The TNC is a profit-centred business that crosses national borders in trade and
investment, and has relatively weaker connections to its ‘home’ location compared
to prior corporate models.18
Many TNCs interconnect the universal and
the particular through complex institutional structures and cultural practices,
and so they possess less globality than their title implies. Perlmutter
(1972) distinguished three kinds of transnational along territorial lines.
‘Ethnocentric’ corporations are controlled by a home-based HQ;‘polycentric’
corporations facilitate local self-determination within centrally-defined
margins; ‘geocentric’ enterprises are controlled by globally mobile managers
who are constituents of what Sklair (1995, 61; 2001) has termed a ‘transnational
capitalist class’ that dominates the global economic system. Other analysts
suggest ‘geocentric’ hegemony within TNCs is limited. Wilkins (1998: 95)
emphasizes the ‘crucial’ ties of transnationals and multinationals to ‘home’
locations. These analyses of TNCs complement Hirst and Thompson’s (1999,
2000) broad argument that economic globalization, in the sense of the crystallization
of the global economy, has been markedly exaggerated.
Drawing on Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), Smith (1997) forwards three
definitive features of the ‘truly transnational corporation’ (TTNC): it freely
undertakes research and development worldwide; recruits elite employees
from anywhere; and is acutely flexible in product development and micromarketing.
Smith (1997: 39) concludes, ‘there are actually relatively few such
TTNCs’. Alternatively, most corporations are nationally specific for reasons of
legality (ownership and taxation), patenting and technology, or cultural identification
of corporate products with the nation. Similarly, Chang (1998:
227–30) notes that most foreign direct investment (FDI) involving TNCs is not
distributed globally, but regionally confined, especially to developed northern
Globalization of football 551
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
nations. Moreover, few ‘stateless’ TNCs manufacture truly ‘global’ products
like the allegedly epochal ‘world car’. TNCs, argues Chang (1998: 228–30), are
essentially ‘international firms’ whose assets, production processes and key
employees retain a largely ‘home’ national imprint. In short, these ‘global
realist’ arguments highlight the ‘glocality’ of TNCs in geographical location,
legal regulation and corporate identity inter alia.
A corollary concern is the status of nation-states vis-à-vis TNCs. Various
analyses foretell the state’s emasculation by transnational practices (including
criminal ones) within the ‘information age’ (Strange 1994; Castells 1997: 261;
Habermas 1999: 48; Giddens and Hutton 2000: 216). More extremely, Beck’s
(2000: 161–3) provocative and dystopian vision of ‘Brazilianization’ forewarns
Europe of the dangers of absolute neoliberalism:19
a stateless, rigidly stratified
society witnesses the elite inhabiting luxurious fortresses, travelling in superlimousines,
and recruiting private armies to ward off the desperate dispossessed.
Conversely, we reiterate Robertson’s (1992: 184) earlier judgment that
‘there is nothing to suggest that the nationally organized society, more specifically
the state, is about to wither away’ (see also Meyer 1980). Market-centred
globalization is not anathema to the state’s survival.20
Weiss (1997) (and Chang
above) emphasizes the nation-state’s capacity to manipulate market globalization,
sustaining national governance alongside more regional rather than
global transborder flows.21
A global realist understanding of the glocality of TNCs helps explain the
contemporary condition of football’s largest clubs. All clubs are ‘ethnocentric’
(Perlmutter): they retain key symbolic ties to ‘home’ (Smith,Wilkins), notably
through name, headquarters, home stadium, branding, strip colour, and local
support. However, as clubs like Manchester United establish marketing
outlets in Asia and North America, more ‘polycentric’ marketing possibilities
arise.22
Deterritorialization would intensify if clubs were to play ‘home’ fixtures
outside their ‘home’ city, or to obfuscate their geographical origins.23
Nevertheless, like TNCs generally, major impediments restrict football clubs’
transition into fully-fledged geocentric institutions. First, legal restrictions can
undermine club capacities to recruit labour from any nation.24
TNC clubs are
still tied closely to nations, for reasons of finance (e.g. most income derives
from competition in a national league) or law (e.g. to gain recognition from
FIFA). Second, though some have sister clubs in other sports, such as Spanish
and Greek clubs linked to basketball, football clubs are primarily known for
sport-specific products and so cannot reinvent themselves entirely in other
sports.
Regional rather than global patterns of player recruitment are still strongly
apparent. English clubs have long imported labour ‘internationally’, from culturally
and linguistically similar nations across the British Isles, the Commonwealth,
Holland and Scandinavia (McGovern 2002; Lanfranchi and Taylor
2001); other players from France, Italy and Germany have followed, reflecting
552 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
the sudden rise in wealth among England’s top clubs since 1990. Elsewhere,
regional patterns remain: Iberian clubs look to South America for cheap, talented
players; southern and central African players migrate towards South
Africa; North American clubs look south; Australian clubs look to the UK or
the Pacific islands. However, among Europe’s top clubs – in the major leagues
of Germany, Spain, England and Italy – a growing ‘transnational capitalist
class’ (Sklair) is circulating, comprising players, agents and coaches. On occasion,
some TNC clubs have recruited foreign players as a form of extrafootball
FDI. For example, buying Asian players can boost a club’s sale of merchandise
in the Far East rather than improve the quality of its football team.25
Indeed, many football commentators drew direct connections between player
celebrity and club global ambitions when explaining David Beckham’s transfer
to Real Madrid in summer 2003. Such transfers tend not to undermine the
coaches’ powers within clubs. High merchandise sales may increase transfer
budgets for new players. If coaches doubt their new recruits’ abilities, the latter
may be restricted to less important fixtures or performing simpler functions
within the team. No director would jeopardize the club’s competitive (and thus
financial) status by insisting that highly marketable, weak players must feature
in the team.
The truly ‘global’ team rarely emerges; instead, many players are hewn still
from the host nation and accorded the accolade of club captain. In 2002, we
had: Bayern Munich (captained by Germany’s Stefan Effenberg), Barcelona
(Spain’s Luis Enrique), Manchester United (Ireland’s Roy Keane), Glasgow
Celtic (Scotland’s Paul Lambert), Glasgow Rangers (Scotland’s Barry
Ferguson), Arsenal (England’s Tony Adams), AC Milan (Italy’s Paolo
Maldini), Juventus (Italy’s Alessandro Del Piero), Roma (Italy’s Francesco
Totti), Lazio (Italy’s Alessandro Nesta), Real Madrid (Spain’s Fernando
Hierro) and so on. These ‘home’ players are typically viewed as the ‘heart’ of
the team: renowned worldwide, but personifying the local or national particularities
of the club and its fans.26
Thus, in football’s labour markets,TNC clubs
still practice cultural ‘glocalization’: they accord status to symbolic local or
national figures and recruit ‘foreign’ players from culturally similar nations
while at the same time seeking to build global recognition.
Football’s national governing bodies, like nation-states, appear as agents
rather than victims of globalization. Consider the English Football Association
which controls football in England. It recruits overseas coaches (notably
the Swede Sven-Goran Eriksson, the English national team’s current manager
since October 2000), borrows foreign playing styles, markets its club tournaments
to worldwide audiences through transnational media corporations,
strikes regional political deals with other national bodies, and exploits local
club ‘brands’ (like Manchester United) when it bids to host lucrative tournaments.
The national association gains popular legitimacy when football clubs
compete in its tournaments. Moreover, it effectively ‘taxes’ clubs when their
Globalization of football 553
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
players are selected to play free of charge for the national team in fixtures that
raise money for the national association.
While the patterns of ownership and control at leading football clubs have
entered more complex relations with the wider economic system, they continue
to be strongly differentiated along cultural lines. Since the late nineteenth
century, British clubs have typically been owned by well-known local
business people, often with longstanding family ties (e.g. the Moores family’s
ownership of Littlewoods and Liverpool). In the past fifteen years, new kinds
of ownership and investment source have emerged: from ambitious entrepreneurs
committed to profitable investment (e.g. David Dein at Arsenal, David
Murray at Rangers); stock market flotation of share-ownership (e.g.
Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Chelsea, Aston
Villa, Leeds United, Sunderland, Celtic); strategic investments by media corporations
in several clubs (e.g. BSkyB buying shares in Manchester United,
Manchester City, Leeds United, Chelsea and Sunderland); and takeovers by
exceptionally rich businessmen committed to unprecedented investment in
players (e.g. Jack Walker at Blackburn in the early 1990s, Roman Abramovich
at Chelsea in 2003).27
Only in exceptional cases like Chelsea, Fulham and
Portsmouth are clubs owned by high-profile business people from outside the
British isles.
While leading clubs in Italy (AS Roma, Lazio, Juventus), Germany
(Borussia Dortmund, possibly Bayern Munich) and Turkey (Galatasaray,
Besiktas) have followed English clubs towards exploring flotation,it is unlikely
that this will lead to the dramatic transfer of ownership and control to nonnationals.
Capitalization has enabled new institutional investors and funds to
gain (usually small) stakes in clubs. The ENIC company, with its holdings in
English, Scottish, Italian, Swiss, Greek and Czech clubs, provides an extreme
instance of cross-border ownership; more modest examples include the Libyan
oil company Lafico’s Italian footholds at Juventus (7.5 per cent stake) and
Triestina (33 per cent). While clubs in many nations number various television
corporations among their shareholders, it is only in distinctive cases such as
France or Mexico that national media corporations gain a dominant role in
club ownership (Hare 2003: 170–1; Sandvoss 2003: 69).
The market ‘branding’ of TNC clubs features significant forms of glocalization.
Brand-building itself involves a corporation’s purposive market relativization
vis-à-vis its rivals, with the strongest brands being synonymous with
high-profile global consumerism (Sklair 1995: 168–9). In terms of football club
support, branding thrives on the universalization of particularism, that is, the
assumption that all football followers favour a specific club, and that they wish
to display that allegiance through a consumption-dependent display of club
products. The crests or nicknames of TNC football clubs cannot match the
defining logos and slogans of major brands, such as Nike’s ‘swoosh’ and ‘just
do it’ legend. However, top clubs are otherwise well placed to construct brand
554 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
identities, exploiting intense brand ‘loyalty’ from fans; ‘customer bonding’ is
augmented through product discounts or personal perks such as meet-theplayers
invitations to season-ticket holders (Kapferer 1992: 164–5). TNC clubs
now market a smorgasbord of ‘sub-brand’ products such as foodstuffs (e.g. biscuits,
beer), financial services (e.g. car insurance, credit cards), and household
items (e.g. bed linen, kitchen clocks) (Hart 1998: 211). Brand ‘equity’ – the
value added to the product by its brand name – is most obvious in the sale
of these sub-brand products, and in the marketing of football-specific merchandise.
Replica football shirts, for example, have premium brand equity in
that they define the consumer’s football identity as a form of market
partisanship that is not otherwise apparent in customer relations with other
brands such as Coca-Cola or Ford. In football, negative brand equity can arise
since particular clubs may alienate other possible consumers who decide to
support rival clubs. Yet such oppositions serve to intensify existing brand identification
and thereby strengthen football’s international matrix of economic
relations.
Football’s strongest ‘brands’ have longstanding associations with quality qua
competitive success (e.g. Real Madrid, nine time European champions);
positive emotional associations are delivered through victorious, exciting play
(e.g. both Real Madrid and Manchester United). Other contributions to brand
equity include recruitment of star players and coaches (e.g. Real Madrid’s
galácticos such as Zidane, Figo, Beckham and Ronaldo), and the promise of
spectacle (Manchester United’s Old Trafford being repackaged as the ‘Theatre
of Dreams’). TNC clubs are threatened by brand ageing and the possible end
of the product’s lifecycle. ‘Revitalizing’ measures include redesigning kits, and
recruiting new coaches and players to safeguard future successes (Kampferer
1992: 321–7).
Product branding is subject to substantial glocalization at both supply and
demand sides. In micro-marketing terms, just as soft-drinks manufacturers
adapt flavours to suit regional tastes, so TNC clubs may vary regional marketing
(see Mooij 1997). For example, on international tours, team players
from the nation visited are given greater public relations duties to reach home
audiences; in relatively new football nations, such as China or Japan, celebrity
players are most prominent, to attract new especially female supporters.
Among football consumers, a branded product like Coca-Cola is given
different pre-match uses within diverse societies, functioning as a part-potion
in juju ceremonies in southern Africa, or as an alcohol mixer among Scottish
drinkers (see Tomlinson 1999: 84). Similarly, football followers glocalize the
merchandise of TNC clubs, for example by wearing replica shirts in the militias
of West Africa, in the boardrooms of agribusiness transnationals, or at
international youth and rock festivals.
TNC clubs have struggled to glocalize their brands to harmonize with the
US cultural habitus. Notwithstanding American soccer’s obscured social
Globalization of football 555
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
history,28
the USA has played little role in football’s global diffusion and crosscultural
flows, such as administrative leadership, tournament successes, coaching
techniques or player mobility. Indeed, while some American marketing
and media production techniques have penetrated football, pace the
Americanization thesis, the USA has been relatively marginal to the globalization
of football and sport in general. In the late nineteenth century, the
Americans consciously rejected outside sporting models in order to invent
new national traditions in baseball and American football. For most
Americans,‘football’ means their own game of‘gridiron’ while‘soccer’ denotes
a decidedly non-American pastime.
In the past two decades, football in the USA has become a mass participation
sport with some 18 million players, assisted by American hosting of the
1994 World Cup finals, but soccer’s professional club league remains blighted
by low spectator and television audiences. Indeed football is most popular
among Americans who are traditionally marginal to ‘national’ sports – for
example, women (as players), and ethnic groups with strong affinities to their
European or Latin American cultural identity. The latter communities often
support their ‘home’ clubs from afar, as highlighted by the huge crowds
attracted when European and South American clubs play fixtures in North
American cities. Such processes underline football’s significance in the production
of diverse community, ethnic and national identities; and spotlight the
American ‘nation’ as a polyethnic ‘world space’ (Balibar 1991). For TNC clubs,
America offers the chance to reglocalize their brand identity by deterritorializing
themselves in part from their ‘home’ with a view to attracting other
consumers in richer markets (Giulianotti 2004). For example, US-based
followers of Celtic or Manchester United may ‘ground’ their respective
club identities rather differently to ‘home-city’ supporters in Glasgow or
Manchester.
The corporate and international expansion of TNC clubs is one globalization
process that inevitably ignites political conflicts over the social exclusion
that is wrought by marketization. Elite English football has become highly
lucrative,29
provoking public and academic concerns that the pursuit of new
product consumers at global level has shaken the stake-holds of established,
less wealthy, local supporters (Conn 1997; Dempsey and Reilly 1998; Walsh
and Giulianotti 2001). More categorically, many fans reject their classification
as ‘consumers’ since, unlike purchasers of clothing or foodstuffs, they could
never envisage ‘switching brands’ by supporting other teams. Popular misgivings
regarding football’s commodification were prevalent in the successful
1999 campaign by supporters to block the proposed takeover of Manchester
United by Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB (Brown and Walsh 1999). Rising neoliberalism
does carry potentially serious consequences for football’s culture.
In terms of the universalization of particularism, the particular identities of
556 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
clubs and supporters may be dominated increasingly by elites so that football’s
international system becomes essentially a universal interplay and relativization
of elitist (rather than more inclusive) cultural identities.
Cultural differences arise over the free market’s role within football – differences
that both relativize nations in cross-cultural comparison, and disclose
divergent visions of globalization per se. Bourdieu (1998: 19–21), for example,
discusses the French state’s expansive role in football in relation to its
distinctive, collectivist world vision that is diametrically opposed to the
American, individualistic, neoliberal model. Most extremely, while Beck’s
concept of ‘Brazilianization’ applies in part (but far from fully) to football in
Brazil, its European manifestation is much more distant. Brazilian football has
been ravaged by degrees of intensified poverty and crime levels, political
cronyism and rigid social stratification that are not matched in Western
Europe. Fan violence has intensified, stadium attendances have plummeted,
and official corruption and media manipulation of clubs and leagues have
increased.
Those movements that declare a resistance to neoliberal influences can be
trapped by a particularistic set of strategic and ideological dilemmas (Jameson
2000: 66). The apparently more exploitative, economic motors of globalization
may be contested at local level through populist yet divisive discourses such
as explicit nationalism whereas it might be assumed that a more collective
movement should possess more potency. In football, club-level expressions of
opposition can contest local instances of commodification, but cross-club or
national movements would be better placed to have longer-term influence.
Meanwhile, poorly articulated supporter alienation can degenerate into
extremist politics, as witnessed by rising racist and neo-fascist spectator subcultures
in parts of the continent.30
Alternatively, as we next argue, we propose
that debates regarding commodification and marginalization from the ‘glocal
game’ are underpinned by intensified globality and greater consciousness of
humankind. If such consciousness is to be buttressed institutionally, football’s
governance requires to be radically reformed in accordance with principles of
democratic citizenship.
Football governance: humankind, citizenship and democracy
We propose that the contemporary politics of football should be theorized in
terms of the interrelations between the four ‘reference points’ that are elemental
to the ‘global-human condition’: these are individual selves, (national)
societies, the world system of societies (international relations), and
humankind (Robertson 1992: 104). Each reference point is constrained by the
other three. For example, in European football, individuals possess particular
Globalization of football 557
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
legal rights – players freely enter contractual relations with clubs, and supporters
may expect particular standards of safety and comfort within stadiums.
The national association exercises particular kinds of authority over these individuals,
for example in terms of punishing players who contravene rules or
preventing spectators from entering specific parts of football grounds. The
world football system – notably the international governing bodies – can adjudicate
on player contracts and impose universal penalties on players, while
controlling football fans’ access to televised games through the contracts that
these bodies sign with television corporations. A stronger focus on humankind
as a ‘species-community’ is apparent through the development work of
players, coaches, and both national and international governing bodies in the
developing world and in war-torn regions.31
Football has experienced particularly significant changes within the national
and international reference points. Constant struggles among institutional
actors highlight diverse ‘definitions of the global situation’ within the game
(see Robertson 1992: 42). Key participants are football’s governing bodies
from district up to global levels, mass media corporations, merchandise corporations,
organized labour at national and world levels, player agents, international
political federations such as the EU, the different categories of
football club from amateur to TNC-level, and supporters’ organizations. Some
recent conflicts have arisen over the banning of players who miss drug tests
(player unions and clubs against football’s governing bodies),32
the date and
time of club fixtures (supporters against media corporations),33
and the transfer
of players (clubs against players and agents).34
Moreover, each category of
institutional actor contains significant internal schisms: for example, the G14
of top European clubs have a different agenda to small professional clubs in
Eastern Europe.
In refocusing on the analytical nature of the four-fold framework, we could
turn to consider how advanced globalization may witness the rise of the
humankind reference point. How may global consciousness be concretized
such that the world may become for itself (Robertson 1992: 183)? Trends
toward unifying humankind do not, by themselves, guarantee harmony. Yet if
globalization encourages us in spatio-cultural terms to see the world as one
place, then in socio-cultural terms it facilitates perception of the world as harbouring
one people. Rising conceptions of humankind reflect a stronger cultural
imagining of a common humanity, opening spaces for constructive
inter-cultural dialogue, and introducing the possibility of citizenship principles
that may emerge within a global cosmopolis.
Football has contributed greatly to enhanced consciousness of humankind.
If football is to contribute more fully to a world for itself, the governing bodies
would require to prioritize distributive justice over economic profitability.
Besides the World Cup’s sheer scale as a global event, there is increasing
reflexivity about its ‘glocal’ features, for example in terms of how the event is
558 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
reported differently in particular nations, or in how the fans of specific nations
have their own distinctive rituals and styles of support vis-à-vis other supporter
groups. Yet, for the 2002 finals, the participation of much of football’s
community was jeopardized by the doubling of match-ticket prices, and by
FIFA’s initial sale of television rights to the finals to pay-per-view stations.35
Such policies can serve to exclude significant sections of football’s audience.
They can undermine social integration within football’s ‘family’, reducing the
global commingling of football cultures and identities, and weakening the
game’s aesthetic development by discouraging sport participation among
marginalized social groups – ironically, the very groups whose contributions
dominate football’s folklore and official histories.36
Moreover, football’s international
governing bodies fail to respond adequately to accusations of corruption
and gross mismanagement that are fuelled by the notorious opacity
of football governance, the collapse of FIFA’s marketing partner ISL with
debts of $300 million, and the thwarted financial investigation of FIFA President,
Sepp Blatter.37
Three kinds of institutional, political and intellectual realignment would
be required for world football to become more democratic in prioritizing
humankind. First, currently FIFA claims to be ‘truly democratic’: its Congress
meets biennially and accords one vote to each FIFA nation/member.38
No
innately democratic procedures exist for electing congressional members, who
are appointed instead by their respective football associations. FIFA’s daily
business is administered by the General Secretary and a 24-member Executive
Committee (‘a kind of board of directors’)39
elected by Congress. A more
democratic system would begin at national, grass-roots level, to elect congressional
members, and to facilitate more regular congressional sittings.
Longer term, in light of the deterritorialized transformation of the ‘local’
through contemporary globalization, FIFA membership and congressional
representation might be extended to non-national entities – for example, different
women’s football groups, supporter associations, grassroots football
bodies, and match officials. Football certainly has the institutional potential to
secure enhanced democratic global governance. In purely political terms,
FIFA is the game’s world system. TNC clubs, for example, might be equipped
economically to found rival, international football systems and tournaments.
But any party that contravenes FIFA statutes is liable to suffer the economic
catastrophe of temporary or permanent expulsion.
Second, if they prioritize profitability, football’s governing bodies may be
interpreted as the sporting equivalents of FIFA’s Swiss neighbour, the World
Trade Organisation (WTO). As such, these football sovereigns would merely
guarantee the free market within which football’s commercial enterprises (the
TNC clubs and their weaker competitors) do business. Conversely, football’s
governance may be reordered to prioritize democratic, inclusive, humanitarian
functions, to warrant comparison with more philanthropic NGOs such as
Globalization of football 559
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
radically reformed versions of the UN or, more modestly, UNESCO. FIFA’s
global responsibilities towards developing countries have been recognized
through development work, beginning in 1975 and organized through the
‘Goal’ programme since 1999, and partnerships with NGOs like SOSChildren’s
Villages. These projects’ budgets remain relatively small.40
Fresh,
better-funded projects could focus on wider local needs, such as financing
widespread sports participation and health education, rather than jetting
European coaches and celebrities into the developing world to give short
clinics on football technique. Stronger legal initiatives are required to curb the
systematic exploitation of players from developing countries by club directors,
international agents and coaches (Broere and van der Drift 1997: 94–7).41
Third, we envision the foundation of normative arguments that explore
issues of distributive justice, global citizenship, and democratic political structures
inside football’s public sphere, in contrast to contemporary discourses
regarding market-access via consumption of the game’s paraphernalia. The
work of political theorists of globalization – notably Held (1995), Habermas
(1999), Walzer (1998) and Archibugi (2000) – may structure these debates. A
reformed sports polis may connect with Held’s perhaps over-utopian idea of
‘cosmopolitan democracy’, a notion that requires much fuller elaboration in
order to engage closer inspection. Elsewhere, Morgan’s (1993) idea of a
‘practice-community’ points to a reformed sporting public sphere, wherein its
members ‘come into the athletic forum armed only with their arguments,
leaving behind all titles, goods, and vantage points that derive from their standing
in other spheres’ (1993: 242). Genuine citizenship must be embedded here,
establishing solidarity programmatically and through inclusive dialogue and
cultural exchange, rather than through simply ‘buying into’ football via consumption
or links to ‘partner’ products. This, needless to say, has strong implications
for both ‘participatory observation’ vis-à-vis football and, better yet,
quotidian involvement in the game itself. Football is a sport which people,
mainly males, simply watch. Women’s football is the world’s fastest growing
sport, providing an intriguing and counter-intuitive manifestation of genderless
involvement. There is, of course, much more to say about football, eroticism,
sexuality and gender; issues that we cannot address fully here.
Alongside other criticisms of global democratic reform, it might appear
‘hopelessly utopian’ to envisage FIFA’s reinvention when the model cannot
guarantee mass participation (Goldblatt 1997: 149). Discursively, the reformed
association should reference the normative power of its democratic vision, to
discourage others from backing rival, market-orientated football systems. The
competitive nature of club competitions inevitably induces self-interest among
club supporters, players and directors. But there is need to reassert the proposition
that support for any club is dependent upon support for football per se.
Only a reformed, truly democratic governing body can revitalize that ethos
and carry it forward through effective governance.
560 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
Sport and the ‘serious life’
By this stage, the reader should be aware that we have adhered to our opening
claim, via Durkheim, that football is the ‘serious life’, wherein the dynamics
of globalization are manifest in the game’s long-term changes. Our concluding
comments, then, advance two broad arguments. First, we submit that sport,
and especially football, is epicentral to contemporary globalization processes.
Second, we contend that analysis of football’s globalization can advance
both the sociology of the game and our theoretical understanding of
globalization.
In cultural terms, modern football affords a rich study of glocalization
processes. The game gives rise to a compelling relativization of social identities
(‘universalization of particularism’) alongside concrete socio-political
frameworks (‘particularization of universalism’). The construction of nostalgic
discourses within football largely reflects particular glocal responses to
social change. Historically, football, as a cultural form, has undergone different
kinds of glocalization, such as an initial rejection or transformation in
some societies, a more common development of highly particularistic identities
among participants, and an institutional organization of the game into distinctive
political tiers. The greater cosmopolitanism of supporters and
commentators, as assisted by the intensive global mediation of the game’s
major news and key tournaments, serves to revitalize the relativization of cultural
identities in football. The game’s business structures also display strong
degrees of glocality, as leading clubs in particular show marked cultural variations
in their systems of political association.
Our global-realist position views elite football clubs as TNCs with strong
glocal dimensions. Leading clubs have retained strong legal, financial and symbolic
ties to their home cities and surrounding cultures while building competitive
success and supporter markets internationally. While top clubs possess
a strong global brand equity that facilitates their marketing of multifarious
products, sizeable cultural differences remain in the way that these brand features
acquire glocal meaning for particular consumers: for example, while
Manchester United’s local supporters will prioritize the club’s symbolic traditions,
its Asian followers may be more attracted to its celebrity players.
One serious concern is that, as the commodification of football intensifies,
the cultures of glocalization at the game’s top end look likely to become
increasingly elitist. Meanwhile, football’s contemporary globalization is
marked by increasing tensions between different forces that we associate with
the elemental reference points of individuals, national societies, international
system, and humankind. We argue that world football could only become ‘for
itself’ – otherwise stated, to prioritize ‘humankind’ – through institutional
democratization of its major political structures. Reformed football governance
could help to promote social inclusion within the game. To take one
Globalization of football 561
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
562 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
1. See http://www.fifa2.com/scripts/
runisa.dll?M2:gp:729039:67173+find/display
+22747+E
2. The World Cup finals are contested
every four years by nations that have
emerged successfully from continental qualifying
groups. See http://a1801.g.akamai.net/
f/1801/2004/3d/www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-
401-E-TV.pdf
3. Acronym of the Fédération Internationale
de Football Association. FIFA is the
ultimate power within world football. It controls
the implementation and interpretation
of the laws of football, and it establishes
world rules for such matters as player transfers,
doping controls, relations with the mass
media, football competition procedures,
and the administration of football’s national
associations. FIFA has the power to arbitrate
on disputes within national associations,
and can expel specific member nations
from all football competition. FIFA also
aspect: football is, in most nations, primarily a male sport in which much more
could, and should, be stated regarding women’s potential participation.
There are at least five particular ways in which this reading of football’s
globalization might contribute to our sociological understanding of globalization.
First, its global seriousness is such that sociological analyses of sport must
enhance empirical and theoretical understandings of globalization in general.
Second, we locate the cultures of glocalization at the heart of the sociology of
football. It would be valuable to explore continuities and differences with
the patterns of glocalization experienced by other cultural forms. Third, our
global-realist perspective interprets major cultural institutions such as football
clubs as TNCs that possess strong degrees of glocality. In doing so, we have
worked the idea of glocalization, originating in Japanese micro-marketing,
from the cultural domain back into the political and economic domains.
Fourth, we argue that commodification processes inevitably impact upon glocalization
cultures, threatening some communities with social exclusion from
meaningful participation in the constructive relativization of their cultural
identities and practices through sport. Fifth, we have addressed contemporary
conceptions of humankind and how, within at least one cultural sphere, the
world can become ‘for itself’. We consider that governance in football represents
a useful domain in which the ideas and inherent problematics of a global
political community can be elaborated and tested in greater detail.
(Date accepted: September 2004)
Acknowledgements
We thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on a previous
version of this paper. A recent grant from the ESRC (Award Number
000239833) contributed to the research for this paper.
Notes
The globalization of football 563
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
organizes and controls football’s World Cup
finals and other world competitions differentiated
according to age and gender.
4. See for example the readers by Held
and McGrew (2000), Beynon and Dunkerly
(2000) and Lechner and Boli (2000);
also Robertson (1992), Giddens (1990),
Wallerstein (1974), Beck (2000) and Scholte
(2000) within the intersecting fields of sociology
and international relations. The sixvolume
set on globalization by Robertson
and White (2003a) devotes one section to
sport.
5. See for example Robertson (1990a,
1990b, 1992, 1995, 2001).
6. See for example Giulianotti (1999),
Armstrong and Giulianotti (1999, 2001), and
Finn and Giulianotti (2000). However, see
also Giulianotti and Robertson (2002).
7. There are six continental confederations
in world football – the AFC (for Asia),
CAF (Africa), CONCACAF (North and
Central America), CONMEBOL (South
America), OFC (Oceania), and UEFA
(Europe). According to FIFA, ‘The Confederations
are the umbrella organizations of
the national associations on each continent’
(http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/
confederations/index.html). The confederations’
main functions are to organize continental
tournaments for club and national
sides, and to represent the collective interests
of their national members such as in
dealings with FIFA.
8. This follows the broad position of
Stauth and Turner (1988).
9. The European Championship finals
are the leading tournament involving
Europe’s top national teams and they are
contested every four years.
10. Consider the various biographies and
autobiographies of Billy Meredith (who
played during the 1900s), Raich Carter
(1930s), Tommy Taylor (1940s), Wilf
Mannion (1950s), Bobby Moore (1960s),
Giorgio Chinaglia (1960s and 1970s) and
Alan Hudson (1970s).
11. The Champions League is European
club football’s most prestigious tournament
and is contested annually.
12. Brazil won the World Cup finals
in 1958, 1962 and 1970, during which football
reached a global television audience.
Brazil’s leading players – such as Pelé, Garrincha,
Didì, and Jairzinho – became international
‘household names’, and their highly
skilful and entertaining style of attacking
football gained widespread admiration.
13. Most of football’s continental governing
bodies were established during this
period, as were international tournaments
like the World Cup finals (in 1930), and club
tournaments like the European Cup (1955)
and South America’s ‘Copa Libertadores’
(1960).
14. For example, at international football
tournaments since the early 1980s, Scottish
supporters’ dominant culture has centred on
anti-English discourses and rituals, and the
display of symbols springing from Scotland’s
invented traditions (such as the kilt and
general tartanry) (Giulianotti 1991).
15. For example, among the millions
watching the World Cup we find ‘world communities’
that identify with, for example, the
counter-attacking guile of the 1982 Italians
but not the ‘pressing’ Italians of 1992–4;
others that scorn the ‘European’ Brazilians
of 1974, but not the highly expressive 1982
Brazilians; others still admire the flamboyant
1978 Argentinians under Menotti, but
not the 1986 or 1990 team under the dour
Bilardo (notwithstanding Maradona’s
brilliance).
16. The G-14 is the legally established
body based in Brussels that represents eighteen
of Europe’s richest and most successful
clubs.
17. Goldman and Papson (1998: 170)
allude to this in discussing Nike (quoted in
Sklair 2001: 110n).
18. Sklair (2001: 2–3) defines TNCs
broadly as being ‘owned by shareholders
and controlled by Boards of Directors who
can be citizens of any country.’ This may be
a long-term tendency of TNCs, but the
actual levels of ‘global’ ownership and
control are still debatable. Many TNCs (like
Coca-Cola and GM) harbour Boards of
Directors that are largely hewn from one
564 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
nation, reflecting each corporation’s
national origins. Some nations possess citizenship
rules that restrict ownership and/or
control of specific TNCs (hence Rupert
Murdoch’s attainment of American citizenship
to safeguard business expansion in the
United States). In football, top clubs resemble
contemporary TNCs via share-holdings
that have transnational dimensions,
although the boards of directors remain primarily
national.
19. By ‘neoliberalism’ we mean a philosophy
of political economy that emphasizes
the free market, a minimal (and, in historical
terms, markedly reduced) economic role
for the state, and a belief that wealth can
percolate down through the social structure
and across nations through free trade and
commerce.
20. On state sovereignty, Sassen (1999)
observes that globalization is not entirely
corrosive. Supranational institutions like the
EU or WTO require nation-states to police
agreements. Globalization requires the
nation-state to redefine itself relative to new
flows of money and people.
21. Weiss (1999) discerns analogous arguments
in the collections by Michie and
Smith (1997) and Baker, Epstein and Pollin
(1999).
22. MORI estimate that Manchester
United possess 8 million fans in China,
and 50 million worldwide (see http://news.
bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_201300
0/2013112.stm).
23. For example, in the sport of Australian
Rules Football, the former ‘North
Melbourne Kangaroos’ changed their name
to‘Kangaroos’ and began playing‘home’ fixtures
in the ‘target market’ of Sydney.
24. UK clubs must obtain ‘work permits’
for players from outside the EU. Typically,
work permits are only granted if the player
has played in 75% of all national team
games for the past two years.
25. Consider, for example, the marketing
logic allegedly behind the purchase of the
Japanese Hidetoshi Nakata by the Italian
clubs of Perugia, Roma then Parma
(Guardian, 24 July 2001). Arsenal purchased
the Japanese Junichi Inamoto for £3.5
million in July 2001, and were assumed to
have netted more than that sum in Japanese
merchandise sales; Inamoto played in three
minor matches and was released by Arsenal
within one year.
26. We suggest Irish, Scottish, Welsh and
English players are not ‘foreign’ if they play
inside the UK or Ireland, but outside their
nation of birth, given the long history of
football connections and deeper cultural
and structural ties between these nations.
27. The late Jack Walker was a steel
magnate who sold his business for £330
million in 1991. Subsequently, he took over
Blackburn Rovers and ploughed much of
that fortune into buying top players for the
club. Blackburn won the English Premiership
in 1995. Roman Abramovich is a
Siberian billionaire with large shareholdings
in privatized Russian oil companies. In
summer 2003 he bought the London club
Chelsea, and over two seasons has funded
the expenditure of over £200 million on new
players. Chelsea are currently viewed by
many inside football as the richest club in
the world.
28. In the late nineteenth century, soccerstyle
games were played atYale whileAmerican
soccer teams contested representative
fixtures (Gorn and Goldstein 1993: 130–1).
During the inter-war period recent immigrants
sustained strong local US football
systems while British, Italian, Spanish,
Central European and South American
clubs regularly toured North America. In
the postwar period, national leagues were
established, notably the North American
Soccer League that was laden with highlypaid
world stars in the 1970s, and the more
modest Major League Soccer tournament
after hosting the 1994 World Cup finals.
The USA has competed in all but one of
the World Cup finals, defeating England
in 1950, only reaching the later rounds in
2002.
29. Between 1995/6 and 1999/2000,
the English Premier League clubs’ total
turnover rose from £346 million to £772
million. By the season 1999/2000, average
The globalization of football 565
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
club turnover, at £38.6 million, was five times
greater than in 1991/2 (Deloitte and Touche
2001).
30. It is important to distinguish spectator
hooliganism from racism (Armstrong 1998:
153–5, 279–80; Back, Crabbe and Solomos
1999).
31. For example, FIFA is an official financial
supporter of the charity SOS-Children’s
Villages and of UNICEF.
32. For example, a major controversy
arose in England in 2003 when Rio
Ferdinand was banned for eight months
after failing to attend a drugs test.
33. For example, to suit television stations,
club fixtures in England and Scotland
are often switched from their traditional 3
pm kick-off on Saturday afternoons to alternative
times and days. Many fans oppose
these inconvenient changes.
34. Most club officials and managers
come into conflict with players and their
agents over wage demands and the latter’s
methods in seeking moves to other clubs.
35. For Europe’s governing body, one
criticism may centre on how its premier club
tournament, the ‘Champions League’, was
organized in the early 1990s to maximize the
competitive chances and television revenues
of Europe’s richest sides.
36. Football cultures produce particular
myths of origin that link favourite playing
styles to spaces that are either natural or
marked by relative social deprivation. In
Brazil, we have the favelas or the beaches,
notably in Rio; in Argentina, it is the potrero
(urban wasteland); in the UK, it is the
working-class street.
37. There are regular allegations that
elections to high office in FIFA have been
corrupted by secret payments to individual
voters (representatives of football’s national
associations). ISL collapsed in April 2001.
A year later, FIFA’s General Secretary,
Michel Zen-Ruffinen, alleged mismanagement,
false accounting and criminal practices
were evident at the top of the
organization. Blatter was subsequently reelected
FIFA President by the representatives
of football’s national associations. An
internal inquiry into FIFA’s finances was
wound up, and Zen-Ruffinen was fired.
38. See http://www.fifa.com/fgg/index_
E.html.
39. See http://www.fifa.com/fgg/index_
E.html.
40. The ‘Goal’ project was founded to
enable development programmes in up to
120 countries over a three-year period. Its
total budget was around £43 million
(http://www.fifa.com/goal/index_E.html).
Compare this to FIFA’s sale of World Cup
television rights (to European stations
alone) for around £590 million.
41. European club officials and player
agents have been strongly criticized for
attracting cheap young African players and
abandoning them if they fail to make a
serious career in the game.
Bibliography
Archibugi, D. 2000 ‘Cosmopolitical Democracy’,
New Left Review 4: 137–50.
Armstrong, G. 1998 Football Hooligans:
Knowing the Score, Oxford: Berg.
Armstrong, G. and Giulianotti, R. (eds)
1999 Football Cultures and Identities,
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Armstrong, G. and Giulianotti, R. (eds)
2001 Fear and Loathing in World Football,
Oxford: Berg.
Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos J. 1999
‘Beyond the Racist/Hooligan Couplet:Race,
Social Theory and Football Culture’, British
Journal of Sociology 50(3): 419–42.
Baker, D., Epstein, G. and Pollin, R. (eds)
1999 Globalization and Progressive Economic
Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Balibar, E. 1991 ‘Es gibt keener Staat in
Europa: Racism and Politics in Europe
566 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
Today’, New Left Review 186 (March/
April).
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. 1989 Managing
Across Borders: The Transnational Solution,
Boston.
Beck, U. 2000 What is Globalization?,
Cambridge: Polity.
Beynon, J. and Donkarly, D. (eds) 2000
Globalization: The Reader, London:
Athlore.
Billig, M. 1995 Banal Nationalism, London:
Sage.
Bourdieu, P. 1998 ‘The State, Economics and
Sport’, Culture, Sport, Society 1(2): 15–21.
Broere, M. and van der Drift, R. 1997 Football
Africa!, Amsterdam: KIT.
Brown, A. and Walsh, A. 1999 Not for Sale:
Manchester United, Murdoch and the Defeat
of BskyB, Edinburgh: Mainstream.
Castells, M. 1997 The Power of Identity,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Chang, H.-J. 1998 ‘Transnational Corporationsand
Strategic Industrial Policy’, in
R. Kozul-Wright and R. Rowthorn (eds)
Transnational Corporations and the Global
Economy, Basingstoke: Palgrave in association
with the United Nations University and
WIDER.
Conn, D. 1997 The Football Business,
Edinburgh: Mainstream.
Dayan, D. and Katz, E. 1992 Media Events:
The Live Broadcasting of History,
Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Deloitte and Touche 2001 Annual Review of
Football, London: Deloitte and Touche.
Dempsey, P. and Reilly, K. 1998 Big Money,
Beautiful Game: Saving Soccer from Itself,
Edinburgh: Mainstream.
Finn, G.P.T. and Giulianotti, R. (eds) 2000
Football Culture: Local Conflicts, Global
Visions, London: Frank Cass.
Giddens, A. 1990 The Consequences of
Modernity, Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. and Hutton, W. 2000 ‘Fighting
Back’, in W. Hutton and A. Giddens (eds)
On, The Edge: Living with Global Capitalism,
London: Verso.
Giulianotti, R. 1991 ‘Scotland’s Tartan Army
in Italy: The Case For The Carnivalesque’,
Sociological Review 39(3): 503–27.
Giulianotti, R. 1999 Football:A Sociology of
the Global Game, Cambridge: Polity.
Giulianotti, R. 2004 ‘Celtic, Cultural Identities
and the Globalization of Football’, Scottish
Affairs 48 (in press).
Giulianotti, R. and Robertson, R. 2002
‘Die Globalisierung des Fußballs:
“Glokalisierung”, transnationale Konzerne
und demokratische Regulierung’, in
P. Lösche, U. Ruge and K. Stolz (eds)
Fußballwelten, Opladen: Leske and
Budrich.
Goldblatt, D. 1997 ‘The Limits of Political
Possibility: The Cosmopolitan Democratic
Project’, New Left Review 225: 140–50.
Goldman, R. and Papson, S. 1998 Nike
Culture: The Sign of the Swoosh, London:
Sage.
Gorn, E.J. and Goldstein, W. 1993 A Brief
History of American Sports, New York: Hill
and Wang.
Habermas, J. 1999 ‘The European NationState
and the Pressures of Globalization’,
New Left Review 235: 46–59.
Hannerz, U. 1992 Cultural Complexity:
Studies in the Social Organization of
Meaning, New York: Columbia University
Press.
Hare, G. 2003 Football in France, Oxford:
Berg.
Hart, S. 1998 ‘The Future for Brands’, in
S. Hart and J. Murphy (eds) Brands: The
New Wealth Creators, Harmondsworth:
Macmillan.
Held, D. 1995 Democracy and the Global
Order, Cambridge: Polity.
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (eds) 2000 The
Global Transformations Reader, Cambridge:
Polity.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 1999. Globalization
in Question, Cambridge: Polity.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 2000 ‘Globalization
in One Country? The Peculiarities of
the British’, Economy and Society 29(3):
335–56.
Jameson, F. 2000 ‘Globalization and
Political Strategy’, New Left Review 4:
49–68.
Kapferer, J.-N. 1992 Strategic Brand Management,
London: Kogan Page.
The globalization of football 567
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
Lanfranchi, P. and Taylor, M. 2001 Moving
with the Ball: the Migration of Professional
Footballers, Oxford: Berg.
Lechner, F.J. and Boli, J. (eds) 2000 The
Globalization Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
McGovern, P. 2002 ‘Globalization or Internationalization?
Foreign Footballers in the
English League, 1946–1995’, Sociology
36(1): 23–42.
Meyer, J.W. 1980 ‘The World Polity and
the Authority of the Nation-state’, in A.
Bergesen (ed.) Studies of the Modern World
System, New York: Academic Press.
Michie, J. and Smith, J.G. (eds) 1997 Global
Instability: the Political Economy of World
Economic Governance, London: Routledge.
Mooij, M. de 1997 Global Marketing and
Advertising, London: Sage.
Morgan, W.J. 1993 Leftist Theories of Sport:
A Critique and Reconstruction,Urbana:University
of Illinois Press.
Nairn, T. 1988 The Enchanted Glass: Britain
and Its Monarchy, London: Hutchinson.
Nairn, T. 2000 After Britain, London:
Granta.
Perlmutter, H.V. 1972 ‘The Development of
Nations, Unions and Firms as Worldwide
Institutions’, in H. Gunter (ed.) Transnational
Industrial Relations, New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Robertson, R. 1990a ‘After Nostalgia?
Wilful Nostalgia and the Phases of Globalization’,
in B.S. Turner (ed.) Theories of
Modernity and Postmodernity, London:
Sage.
Robertson, R. 1990b ‘Mapping the Global
Condition: Globalization as the Central
Concept’, Theory, Culture and Society 7:
15–30.
Robertson, R. 1992 Globalization: Social
Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage.
Robertson, R. 1995 ‘Glocalization: TimeSpace
and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity’,
in M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R.
Robertson (eds) Global Modernities,
London: Sage.
Robertson, R. 2001 ‘Globalization Theory
2000+: Major Problematics’, in G. Ritzer and
B. Smart (eds) Handbook of Social Theory,
London: Sage.
Robertson, R. 2002 ‘Globality’, in N.J.
Smelser and P.B. Baltes (eds) International
Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Volume 9, Oxford: Elsevier/
Pergamon Press.
Robertson, R. 2003 ‘The Conceptual
Promise of Glocalization: Commonality and
Diversity’, in 2003 Gyeongju World Culture
EXPO Organizing Committee and the
Korean National Commission for UNESCO
(eds) International Forum on Cultural
Diversity and Common Values, Gyeongju,
Korea: 2003 Gyeongju World Culture
EXPO Organizing Committee and the
Korean National Commission for
UNESCO.
Robertson, R. and White, K.E. 2003a ‘Globalization:
An Overview’, in R. Robertson
and K.E. White (eds) Globalization: Critical
Concepts in Sociology (Volume 1), London:
Routledge.
Robertson, R. and White, K.E. (eds) 2003b
Globalization: Critical Concepts in Sociology
(six volumes), London: Routledge.
Robertson, R. and White, K.E. 2004 ‘La
Glocalizzazione Rivistitata ed Elaborata’,
in F. Sedda (ed.) Gloc/bal, Roma: Luca
Sossella Editore.
Sandvoss, C. 2003 A Game of Two Halves:
Football, Television and Globalization,
London: Routledge.
Sassen, S. 1999 Globalization and Its Discontents,
New York: New Press.
Scholte, J.A. 2000 Globalization: A
Critical Introduction, Harmondsworth:
Macmillan.
Sklair, L. 1995 Sociology of the Global
System, Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.
Sklair, L. 2001 The Transnational Capitalist
Class, Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, P. 1997 Millennial Dreams: Contemporary
Culture and Capital in the North,
London: Verso.
Stauth, G. and Turner, B.S. 1988 ‘Nostalgia,
Postmodernism and the Critique of Mass
Culture’, Theory, Culture and Society 5(2–3):
509–26.
Strange, S. 1994 The Retreat of the State,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
568 Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
Tomlinson, J. 1999 Globalization and
Culture, Cambridge: Polity.
Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern World
System Vol. 1, London: Academic Press.
Walsh, A.J. and Giulianotti, R. 2001 ‘This
Sporting Mammon! A Moral Critique of the
Commodification of Sport’, Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport 28: 53–77.
Walvin, J. 2001 The Only Game: Football In
Our Times, London: Pearson.
Walzer, M. 1998 Toward a Global Civil
Society, Providence: Berghahn.
Weiss, L. 1997 ‘Globalization and the Myth
of the Powerless State’, New Left Review,
225: 3–27.
Weiss, L. 1999 ‘Managed Openness: Beyond
Neoliberal Globalism’, New Left Review,
238: 126–40.
Wilkins, M. 1998 ‘Multinational Corporations:
A Historical Account’, in R. KozulWright
and R. Rowthorn (eds)
Transnational Corporations and the Global
Economy, Basingstoke: Palgrave.