Soccer and Society Article

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/254254455
Interpreting and exploring football fan rivalries: An overview
Article in Soccer and Society · July 2012

DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2012.677224
CITATIONS READS
54 1,563
2 authors, including:
Győző Molnár
University of Worcester
51 PUBLICATIONS 523 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Impact of Performance Analysis in Elite Wheelchair Basketball View project
Whose knowledge counts in Adapted Physical Activity? View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Győző Molnár on 02 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Adam Benkwitz]
On: 26 April 2012, At: 03:30
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Soccer & Society

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

rivalries: an overview
a a
Adam Benkwitz & Gyozo Molnar
a
Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester,
Worcester, UK
Available online: 25 Apr 2012
To cite this article: Adam Benkwitz & Gyozo Molnar (2012): Interpreting and exploring football fan
rivalries: an overview, Soccer & Society, DOI:10.1080/14660970.2012.677224
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2012.677224
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Soccer & Society
2012, 1–16, iFirst Article
Interpreting and exploring football fan rivalries: an overview

Adam Benkwitz* and Gyozo Molnar
Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK
Academic literature on football fans has shifted focus, away from the study of
‘exceptional fans’, most notably hooligans, towards ‘everyday fans’ and their
experiences. Especially, the rivalry-related aspect of football fandom has been
given growing attention. Gradually increasing literature has demonstrated that
rivalries are unique and complex, underpinned by social, historical and/or cul-
tural factors. This suggests that each rivalry must be studied in-depth in order to
Downloaded by [Adam Benkwitz] at 03:30 26 April 2012
understand the underlying factors that shape oppositions and social identities.
Although attempts have been made to sociologically explore rivalries in such a
way, two fundamental issues have not been fully addressed: paucity of in-depth
empirical evidence and lack of transparency in terms of research methodologies.
Therefore, this essay, after locating football rivalries within the broader genre of
fandom, proposes to use ethnographic research methodologies to elicit rich,
qualitative data, thus providing empirically grounded interpretations of fans’ per-
ceptions. Also, it calls for more open and detailed methodological and theoreti-
cal discussions which would aid our understanding of the unique and complex
factors underpinning football fan rivalries.
Introduction
Aside from the extensive body of literature addressing football hooliganism, the
study of football was traditionally characterized by relatively limited references to
the phenomenon of rivalry, often with little attention given to the basis of inter-club
tensions or the sociocultural factors which influence and reinforce them. However,
in the past decade, academic literature on football fans began to shift focus, away
from the study of ‘exceptional fans’, most notably hooligans, towards ‘everyday
fans’ and their experiences.1 Especially, the rivalry-related aspect of football fandom
has been given growing attention.2 As research on and around football fans was
expanding, it became clear that each rivalry must be studied in-depth in order to
understand the underlying factors and unique cultural properties which shape oppo-
sitions and social identities.3 Consequently, a few empirically grounded investiga-
tions have been carried out to conceptualize football fans and their social worlds,
but there is scope for the extension of, and elaboration on such studies.
In this essay, we provide a review of the limited, but growing literature on foot-
ball fan rivalry with the view to highlighting areas which are in need of further
research, as well as some of the unique and complex factors which have been
shown to underpin particular football rivalries. This we aim to achieve by locating
football rivalries within the broader genre of fandom, providing an analysis of foot-
ball fan rivalry literature and reviewing specific fan rivalries. Through this process,
*Corresponding author. Email: adam.benkwitz@cumbria.ac.uk
ISSN 1466-0970 print/ISSN 1743-9590 online

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2012.677224
http://www.tandfonline.com
2 A. Benkwitz and G. Molnar
it will be possible to identify existing scientific lacunae and methodological con-

cerns, and propose approaches towards future research.
Locating football fan rivalries within the fandom genre

The academic fandom genre encompasses a wide range of literature and fan inter-
ests, with notable and influential contributions in areas including film, television,
science fiction and music.4 Generally speaking, the literature on fandom appears to
have been characterized by two significant aspects: (1) the defence of fans against
the stigma of being ‘crazed’ and ‘deranged’ fanatics,5 or ‘comic’ and ‘psychotic’,6
whilst also rejecting claims that fandom is an attempt to compensate for a perceived
personal lack of autonomy, absence of community, incomplete identity or lack of
power and recognition.7 Abercrombie and Longhurst have claimed that the negative
perception of fans could be due to early studies which tended to focus on excep-
tional fans who exhibited obsessive and/or hysterical behaviour, but also observed
that journalistic writings regarding fans often suggested that ‘there is something
wrong with being a fan’.8 Increasingly, literature has highlighted the significance
and value of fans to the object of their fandom; for example, the importance of fans
to football in terms of support9 and finance.10
(2) A break with elitist assumptions regarding culture could also be observed.
This led to a more realistic conception of popular culture in fandom literature,
which critiques elitist perceptions of high–low culture and follows the tenet that the
symbolic experiences and practices of ordinary people are important, valued and as
such should be sociologically analysed.11 This outlook derives from the influence
of cultural studies, in particular the work of Hoggart, Williams and Hall. They
established the sociological consideration of popular culture (from the mass media
to sport fandom to dance crazes) ‘on an academic and intellectual agenda from
which it had been excluded’,12 due to the preceding elitist assumptions regarding
what culture is or should be. Continuing with this focus on mass popular cultural
forms, due mostly to its culturally engaging potential, sport fandom, especially foot-
ball fandom, has emerged as an academic genre within the overall scope of fandom
research.
From football hooliganism to football fandom

The sociological study of football hooliganism has had a significant impact upon
the overall field of football fandom.13 During the early 1970s, it was maintained by
theorists14 that hooliganism must be explained by examining wider economic and
social changes, as the bourgeoisification of football was said to have alienated tradi-
tional working-class fans. As a reaction to these economically reductive Marxist
approaches,15 scholars like Peter Marsh16 adopted an ethnographic approach, the
analysis of which lead to football hooliganism being explained as ritualized aggres-
sion acted out by male youths within the structure of ‘rules of disorder’.17 The par-
ticipant observation and interview approach taken by Marsh provided a qualitative
insight into hooligans and football supporters. This study has become formative in
the development of football fan research, as employing an ethnographic approach is
becoming increasingly common when studying fans.18 From the early 1980s
onwards, Eric Dunning and colleagues19 at the Leicester School attributed football
violence to those members of society who were less affected by civilizing
Soccer & Society 3
processes, and rightly observed that football violence had always been prevalent in
football. Despite the vast contribution of the Leicester School to the study of foot-
ball hooliganism, their research was often criticized due to over-reliance on one the-
oretical perspective, possible historical inaccuracies, substandard understanding of
‘other’ football cultures outside of England and methodological weaknesses.20
Following the tragic and high-profile football disasters of the late 1980s, and
the impact of the Taylor Report21 in 1990, the public’s attention and the focus of
research began to increasingly analyse the response of the authorities to football
violence, including police tactics,22 segregation and crowd safety.23 This expansion
of research focus was significant, as it demonstrated the beginning of a move away
from trying to explain football hooliganism, towards gaining a more informed per-
spective on football fans and their behaviour in general. Subsequent research has
demonstrated this shift in academic focus away from studying exceptional fans
(especially hooligans) towards understanding the broader and more subtle expres-
sions of identity, and how football is experienced by less conspicuous groups, i.e.
the ‘everyday’ fans.24 With fans’ cultural role and identity in mind, it is necessary
to discuss the influence cultural studies has had on football fandom-related
research.
Football fandom via cultural studies

We argue that the general shift outlined here, towards researching and understand-
ing the experiences of everyday fans, is at least partly due to the influence of cul-
tural studies, specifically within the context of the broader fandom studies, focusing
less on elitist cultural perspectives and more on the experiences and practices of
ordinary people, as outlined above.25 The early works of Hoggart26 and Williams27
in particular have been significant, as they wrote in the interests of the working-
classes, aiming to legitimize their ‘everyday’ experiences and lived reality.28 This is
significant, as it is the everyday and the ordinary aspects of our lives that exert
powerful and unquestioned influence over our existence which we take for granted,
and which need to be further understood.29 The influence of focusing on ‘everyday’
experiences has transcended into research on football in England which has tradi-
tionally been a working-class sport,30 despite the perceived recent bourgeoisification
of football.31
Focusing on the everyday experiences of ordinary fans has helped further
develop the overall understanding of previously neglected aspects of everyday fans’
experience, for example, football fan rivalries. Despite this shift in focus, it often
appears that the issue/phenomenon of rivalry is only referenced in a casual manner,
for example, only stating that a rivalry exists, without any attempt to identify or
examine it in depth. Since we argue that rivalries are part and parcel of most foot-
ball subcultures, the subsequent sections of this essay focus on rivalry and in partic-
ular the current literature on football fan rivalries.
Identifying rivalries
Literature focusing on international and state rivalries has assessed previous
attempts to conceptualize the identifying of rivals and rivalries,32 and has outlined
two contrasting models. The first model, often referred to as ‘dispute–density’,
conceptualizes the identifying of rivalries based on satisfying a minimal number of
disputes.33 Also known as an enduring rivalry, according to this model, a rivalry

must have: a level of severity; a beginning and an end; and a minimum amount of
time to constitute an ‘enduring rivalry’ (for instance, two states involved in two
conflicts within the space of 10 years).34 Thompson has highlighted a potential
issue with this conceptualization, in that it assumes there must be actual disputes or
conflicts35 for a rivalry to exist, which might not always be the case.36 Thompson
has asserted that the dispute–density model would also appear to pay scant attention
to the complexities of a rivalry, as complicated disagreements regarding territory,
influence, status and ideology are at the core of every rivalry.37 Whilst similarities
could be highlighted using this concept as an analogy to football rivalry, it may
prove difficult to draw comparisons between conflicts at state- and football-level,
and also how often these conflicts occur. For example, many football teams play
each other several times each year, yet not all pairings could be considered as a riv-
alry. Nonetheless, this model emphasizes the employment of history in understand-
ing the roots of existing state rivalries by exploring their sociocultural origins and,
thus, the reasons why they became and endured. Regardless of the specificity of the
research area (state rivalries or football rivalries), by acquiring an historical insight
and adopting historical sensibility, we acknowledge that ‘history is the shank of
social study’ and ‘no social science can be assumed to transcend history’.38
The second conceptual model for identifying rivalries is based on placing inter-
pretive emphasis on perceptions of threatening competitors, which are often based
on historical analyses and the subjective views of those involved.39 This approach
is more time consuming due to the nature of the research process, i.e. collecting
personal accounts of those involved, in comparison to a dispute–density analysis,
but does allow the inclusion of rivalries which do not involve militarized conflicts.
Focusing on the actors actually involved opens up a different angle and enables a
deeper insight into any potential or existing rivalry, through fans’ perceptions of the
intensity and underlying factors, which would then inform interpretations. This
approach facilitates the inclusion and analysis of complex issues and underlying
factors which are present in all rivalries.40
Though the focus of the above models is on the identification of rivalries, they
can also contribute to the analysis of existing rivalries, particularly through identify-
ing and examining original, historical tensions and factors pertaining to the emer-
gence of rivalries and therefore forming the foundations of further studies. The
concept of interpreting perceptions is useful in demonstrating the need for focus on
the nuances, complexities and unique factors which influence rivalries. Goertz and
Diehl have also argued for the value of placing a conflict, or potential conflict,
between two interested parties in a historical context as previous incidents can influ-
ence a rivalry or help predict possible future directions.41 This conceptual model,
focusing on exploring perceptions within relevant historical contexts along with uti-
lizing a qualitative interpretation of the fans’ perceptions, could be applied to foot-
ball fan rivalries to form the basis of our understanding of the complexities of a
rivalry.
Rivalries, identities and communities

Rivalry is often described as ‘binary opposition’ and competition with ‘opposing
numbers’.42 When considering football fan rivalries, this opposition and competition
is with fan groups who support a different football club, and therefore share a
Soccer & Society 5
different collective identity, which bears relevance to the operation of modern

societies. Anderson, Hobsbawm and Smith have discussed at length how modern
nation-states have lost the collective belonging of real human communities and net-
works, and how these have been replaced with ‘imagined communities’.43 As
Anderson has described, all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-
face contact are imagined, and even the largest imagined community has finite, if
elastic, boundaries.44 This concept of imagined communities can be utilized in ref-
erence to the supporters of a football club, as Giulianotti stated ‘football supporters
of the modern age belong to an “imaginary community” of those that follow the
same club’.45 Giulianotti further borrows from Anderson to describe how the sense
of communitarianism and collective identity remains undiminished, although fans
may never encounter all their fellow fans, nor even attend home fixtures.46 Hob-
sbawm also claimed that sport, and in particular football, reinforces this imagined
sense of belonging and unity, for example, with the establishment of international
football fixtures in order to integrate multinational states and provide a safety valve
for group tensions within a ‘friendly rivalry’.47

It has previously been highlighted that sporting rivalries between imagined com-
munities can perform social functions, affecting society in various ways. Though
rivalries may reinforce competition, bias and prejudice,48 they also provide an arena
for social interaction where people with different backgrounds, experiences and
allegiances may come together, as team-mates or opposing fans, in a competitive
rivalry that can help breakdown barriers.49 Football rivalries also provide entertain-
ment and excitement for huge numbers of individuals, as ‘the non-violent expres-
sion of hot rivalry and opposition enlivens the football spectacle’,50 and could
arguably be referred to as a powerful opiate for the masses.51 This interest and fas-
cination with sporting rivalries is also exploited by the media in order to generate
further consumption by fans,52 which includes boosting television ratings and sales
of newspapers and books.53
However, as is often the case, the above functionalist assessment of rivalry is
arguably overly positive, and it is important to consider that rivalries may often fos-
ter socially divisive attitudes which increase the possibility of social conflict and
can lead to hostility and even violence.54 On a broad level, the word rivalry brings
with it thoughts and ideologies of conflict, domination, power and struggle, which
are arguably traditionally embedded and signifiers of masculinity and which could
be viewed in opposition to the functionalist ideals of what is often associated with
modern sports.55 Therefore, it must be acknowledged that rivalries have both many
negative and positive features. A particular aspect of football fan rivalry which has
received only a small amount of academic interest is how rivalries manifest them-
selves within the football (sub)culture, or put differently, how a rivalry is actually
acted-out and lived-through by fans and fan communities.
Clark’s ethnographic study of football fans demonstrated the importance of
chanting, the significance of certain chants during games and how fans use chanting
to establish and reinforce the internal–external dialectic between ‘them’ and ‘us’.56
When at a local derby, this differentiation is taken a step further as not only is
chanting used by an imagined community of fans to identify who they are, but also
who they are not, through the vocal denigration of their rivals. On a superficial
level, all these songs and chants express the fans’ affiliation and commitment to a
specific team. However, on a deeper level, the underlying themes of these verbal
expressions are dominance, courage and invincibility.57
A cultural studies analysis may describe chanting as a signifying practice, which

is a meaning-producing activity involving the production and exchange of signs
which generate meaning.58 The language used in chants by football fans may be
explained by two systems of signification: denotation which is a descriptive and lit-
eral level of meaning shared by practically all elements of a culture; and connota-
tion which involves meanings that are generated by connecting various signifiers to
wider cultural concerns.59 It is argued that chanting may therefore be analysed to
uncover meanings which offer information or explanation of, for example, a rivalry
between two teams. Therefore the denigrating chants of fans regarding other teams
may act as an indicator of who a certain fan group actually perceives to be their
rivals, which could be part of the ‘interpretation of perceptions’ conceptual model
for identifying rivalries,60 as discussed previously.
Carefully choreographed displays of colourful flags and banners are also utilized
by fans inside the stadium, in order to intimidate rival fans and demonstrate that
they are superior, taking ‘audio-visual passion to new heights’.61 Often associated
more with fan groups referred to as ultras62 in southern Europe, the battle of the
rivals is often limited to a symbolic duel because its purpose is to show to the ‘ene-
mies’, spectators and even the TV audience which are the strongest groups. As Dal
Lago and De Biasi describe:
The fight is mainly symbolic from two points of view. First, during a football match
every group fights to impose its symbolic strength in terms of the beauty and impres-
siveness of the choreography (flags, choruses and songs) and in terms of displaying
courage (to steal in front of all other fans the enemy’s flags, scarves, or even hats is
considered by the youngest ultras the noblest of group activities). Second, every
group, before or after the match, regards the end, the stadium and the open spaces sur-
rounding the stadium (including underground stations, railway stations and so on) as
its exclusive territory to be defended against the enemy’s raids.63
Defending territory and the conflicts resulting from football fan rivalries may also
be linked to the previously mentioned ‘dispute–density’ model,64 as analysing the
frequency and historical roots of conflicts between rival fan groups can assist in
identifying a rivalry and form the basis for further research.
The above examples of fan behaviour are generalizations based on research
available, and it is acknowledged that fans from different regions/countries may
demonstrate rivalry and team identification in further diverse and unique ways.
Nonetheless, one thing which can be discerned from preceding research is that a
macro-level approach is unsuitable when studying football rivalries, as this would
overlook the idiosyncrasies and nuances of each imagined community of fans
involved, and therefore lack a rich and deep understanding of the complex cultural
tapestry of a rivalry.
Idiosyncrasies of football rivalries

Rivalries are often based on very conspicuous and complex social or cultural
differences between sets of supporters. For example, Bairner explained how the Lin-
field–Glentoran rivalry in Northern Ireland is reinforced not only by ethno-sectarian
conflict involving nationalist and loyalist supporters but also intra-community terri-
torial disputes, in addition to the on-the-pitch rivalry as the ‘Big Two’ in Northern
Ireland.65 However, it is equally important to note that rivalries do not necessarily
Soccer & Society 7
have to be based on major differences between two groups, a rivalry can exist
between extremely similar groups of fans, referred to as the ‘narcissism of minor
differences’.66 These rivalries are triggered by legitimating one’s own cultural prac-
tices against imagined others whose very cultural and geographical proximity threat-
ens the attempts of imagined communities to achieve distinction.
In regard to the subtle differences that establish and reinforce a fan rivalry, dif-
fering perceptions of fans can also lead to intense rivalry. For instance, a central
feature of the rivalry between the fans of the Kaizer Chiefs and the Orlando Pirates,
in South Africa, is that despite both sets of fans having comparable socio-economic
positions, the Chiefs’ fans perceive themselves to be socially superior. Therefore,
Pirates’ fans resent them and view them as snobs, which has so often escalated into
violence and tragedy.67 Similarities could be drawn with the football rivalry in Shef-
field, as Wednesday fans have traditionally been regarded as the city’s premier club,
giving the United fans an inferiority complex in respect of their more famous neigh-
bours.68 Though these fan groups may actually be on a relatively equal socio-eco-
nomic standing, the opposition and rivalry may be underpinned by the subtle
hegemonic control and consensus gained by the more dominant groups within the
subculture,69 who, in these examples, appear to be the Chiefs’ fans and the Wednes-
day fans. Marxists would argue that this is due to the economic goggles worn in
societies where work and productive activity is of paramount importance, and those
outsiders (from a different imagined community), who are perceived to be from a
lower socio-economic class, are believed to represent less value.70 Conflict is there-
fore created due to the imbalance in perceived power relations, between clubs imag-
ined to be at the opposite ends of the economic status scale.71
Previous research on the Mohun Bagan-East Bengal rivalry in India has also
revealed how complex football rivalries can be, and how difficult it is to understand
the fans and the factors which underpin rival attitudes. An initial study by Dimeo con-
cluded that this intense and often violent Calcutta football rivalry was based on the
ethnic conflict involving West Bengal’s Hindu settlers and East Bengal’s Hindu immi-
grants.72 However, Majumdar later described this as a ‘rigid ethnic polarisation’ due
to ‘the writer’s lack of awareness about the fluidity of cultural identities of the two
groups of people’.73 Majumdar instead argued that although the origins of the rivalry
lay in the social and sub-regional tensions and differences of the fans, it is actually
intense club loyalty and aggressive fan culture which had underpinned and reinforced
this rivalry for the past 25 years.74 The examples above demonstrate the complex and
idiosyncratic nature of football fan rivalries, highlighting the need for in-depth studies
with historical sensibility of fan groups in order to adequately understand each indi-
vidual rivalry. Bearing the above in mind, and utilizing the themes and concepts
which have emerged from research into football fan rivalries, we will now suggest a
potential conceptual framework for further research on such rivalries.
Towards a conceptual framework

Previous research has provided a classificatory framework for football rivalries
based on geographical location and linked identities.75 However, this approach only
provides a basic analysis, paying heed to location rather than to equally relevant
social or cultural factors. Whilst not dismissing territoriality, conflict and rivalry
should be viewed as cultural manifestations of power struggles and imbalances per-
vading every level of social relationships,76 which may or may not be connected to
geographic identity (territorial marking). In other words, when analysing rivalries in

general, and football rivalries in particular, a monocausal explanation should be
avoided and, instead, a multicausal account should be developed to capture the
complexity of such social reality.77
Armstrong and Giulianotti have identified a thematic framework which relates to
the production and reproduction of ‘football-centred oppositions’, which has the
capacity to enable a multicausal account to be developed. Each football rivalry is said
to be underpinned by the ‘Construction of Conflicting Identities’.78 It is claimed that
football rivalries are influenced by various forms and degrees of power, which shape
the interplay of social identities in three ways: ‘Legitimising Identity’ – constructed
through the dominant institutions of society, and the reproduction of such domination,
which may potentially be challenged; ‘Resistance Identity’ – constructed by those out-
side of mainstream values – establishing new emergent values and identities and,
‘Project Identity’ – constructed by social collectives that are committed to the creation
of a different life through replacing dominant practices with residual or emergent
ones.79
Comparisons can be drawn between the legitimizing, resistant and project identi-
ties, and Raymond Williams’s interpretation of dominant–residual–emergent. The
legitimizing identity can be analysed as the dominant, both in the sense of the dom-
inating powerful identity and also in the Gramscian hegemonic sense which places
emphasis on cultural coercion rather than just economic and brute physical power.80
And the project identity could be regarded as the emergent, linking the present and
the future through the transition to a new phase which is alternative or oppositional
to the previous cultural formation.81
The dynamic interplay between the three identities or value systems can lead to
opposition and rivalry, which can be categorized as follows: the drama of power
inequalities; submerged nationhood; minority identity and local difference; the sym-
bolic violence of exclusion; aesthetic codes, tradition and modernity and, disorga-
nized capitalism and the transformation of rivalry.82 Each imagined community of
fans is said to hold (at least) one of the collective identities outlined above, in rela-
tion to the themes which underpin and organize rivalry. For example – utilizing the
drama of power inequalities theme – fans from a rich and powerful football club
assume the legitimizing identity, which is in opposition to rival fans from a poor
and less powerful club who have the collective resistance identity.83
It has been suggested that any study exploring football rivalries must engage
with a ‘middle-range’ structuralist approach,84 but only to a certain degree. It is rec-
ognized that adopting a ‘full’ structuralist approach is unsuitable as research would
overlook or dismiss the thoughts, opinions and experiences of the social actors
involved (the fans). Also, as Armstrong and Giulianotti claimed, a structuralist
approach as, for instance, advocated by Claude Levi-Strauss may encourage the
researcher to pass over the complexity of data, in favour of evidence which con-
firms and fits within an objective and underlying model.85 Such an approach would
shy away from a rivalry that is influenced by unique cultural practices and, thus,
any pre-determined assumptions based on findings from previous research on other
football rivalries may be misleading or counter-productive. As Armstrong and
Giulianotti explain:
We do require to be highly cognizant of the classificatory practices and binary opposi-

tions that shape football rivalries; but we need to allow for the possibilities that these
Soccer & Society 9
oppositions contain relatively unique cultural properties, and are understood in com-
plex terms by the social actors themselves. Moreover, we need to consider the under-
lying power inequalities that also shape the structure of oppositions and social
identities.86
Consequently, further development of this framework, whilst ensuring a continued

emphasis on the social actors themselves (through both Emic and Etic accounts),87
would greatly benefit the study of football fan rivalries focusing on the wider social,
cultural and historical context. However, it is not only theoretical, but also method-
ological approaches that we must discuss here, as those appear to be scarce in the
literature.
Methodological observations in researching rivalries

Although the limited number of case studies on football fan rivalries elicited useful
information, there appears to be a lack of transparency in terms of the methodolo-

gies employed when gathering data for such studies. From the literature available, it
is unclear whether long-term, micro-level qualitative research has been undertaken
or if the known macro-level historical and sociocultural factors of communities, cit-
ies or countries have been applied to a football fan rivalry without data actually
being collected directly from the social actors (the fans) involved in these rivalries.
We argue it is essential to highlight how the lack of transparency may hinder future
research and any development of a consistent and rigorous methodological frame-
work which may be employed in order to gain further insight into the sociocultural
properties of fan rivalries. For example, in the introduction to their collection of
case studies on football rivalries, Armstrong and Giulianotti stated briefly that the
articles included ‘draw upon anthropological, sociological and historical perspec-
tives that are rooted in a qualitative methodological approach’, but provided no fur-
ther elaboration.88 Then throughout the subsequent chapters, there was little, or in
the majority of cases, no mention of the specific methodologies employed by the
various authors.
From the case studies examined, with a few exceptions, there also appears to be
an over-reliance on historical records of football teams and newspaper reports, with-
out providing a voice for the fans of these clubs who actually experience these
rivalries in their everyday lives. This would be essential as it offers ‘the most acces-
sible means of getting to the heart of the questions about why and how groups of
people do what they do in particular social contexts and settings’.89 Ethnographic
methodological approaches have been utilized to achieve more in-depth accounts in
a number of naturalistic enquiries on football fandom.90 We suggest that this
approach is considered by future research on football fan rivalries in order to gather
relevant and rich data, which allows development and elaboration on certain themes
within a flexible, extended time period.
The self-immersion involved in ethnographic research, specifically participant
observation and interviews, would ‘provide data about the lives and experiences of
specific people (fans) allowing us to see alternative realities’,91 and gain a deep and
rich understanding of the seemingly mysterious imagined communities of fans at a
micro-structural level. Also, the delicate and intricate social, cultural and political
issues which other methods find intangible can form the focus for analysis.92
Especially, the combination of participant observation and interviews allows scope
for clarification and further investigation on issues or themes when required, due to
the flexibility of an ethnographic approach and the theory-evidence interplay it
entails. Nevertheless, an ethnographic approach is not without its perils.
Concerns have been addressed in open and candid accounts by Sugden and by
Klein, which discuss not only the theoretical underpinnings of ethnography, but also
the formal and informal practical aspects of actual self-immersion in a subculture,
following ethnographic studies on boxing and bodybuilding subcultures respec-
tively. Sugden has discussed the ethical dilemmas and physical risks involved in
ethnography,93 whilst Klein has written frankly on the danger of preconceptions
and the naivety of taking what participants say at face value.94 These aspects are
central to the ethnographic methodology; however, they are often omitted from cur-
rent literature. Therefore, it is argued here that the sort of transparency shown by
Sugden and Klein is vital for future growth and progress in this area. It is acknowl-
edged that ethnographies can be time consuming and emotionally demanding,95
however, the relatively long-term nature of an ethnographic study, combined with
its flexibility, is arguably its strength as it enables the researcher to empirically cap-
ture the meanings people give to their actions96 and become sufficiently conversant
with the formal and informal rules which govern the human interaction under inves-
tigation.97
Summary
In this essay, we have located football fan rivalries within the overall context of
the fandom genre and outlined how cultural studies steered research away from
elitist cultural perspectives and exceptional social behaviour towards the ordinary,
taken for granted aspects of everyday life. The limited but growing research in this
area has shown that there are complex social and cultural factors at play in fan
rivalries, which highlight the importance of adopting a multi-causal approach to
fully understand the idiosyncratic combination of social properties underpinning
each individual rivalry. Specifically, when exploring the sociocultural origins of
rivalries, as indicated by the dispute–density model, adopting historical sensibility
is essential.
By reviewing the relevant literature, two areas of concern have been identified:
a paucity of in-depth empirical evidence on football fan rivalries and insufficient
information regarding appropriate methodologies. Consequently, firstly, we have
proposed that ethnographic research has a so far unharnessed potential to study
football fan rivalries. Ethnographic studies would elicit rich data and provide the
depth and insight necessary for a reality congruent interpretation of the imagined
communities of rival football fans. Finally, we have also called for more open and
detailed methodological and theoretical discussions, which appear to be regularly
omitted from existing literature. Open and detailed accounts can guide and improve
future research, both in terms of football fan rivalries, in particular, and the ethno-
graphic study of subcultures, in general.
Notes
1. Schimmel et al., ‘Keep Your Fans to Yourself’; Stone, ‘The Role of Football in Every-
day Life’.
2. See, for example: Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football; and,
Majumdar, ‘Ghati-Bangal on the Maidan’.
Soccer & Society 11
3. See, for example: Giulianotti, A Sociology of the Global Game, in relation to football
rivalries; and Thompson, ‘Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics’, for a dis-
cussion of rivalries more generally.
4. Examples cited frequently elsewhere include: Abercrombie and Longhurst, Audiences;
Bacon-Smith, Enterprising Women; Ehrenreich et al., ‘Beatlemania’; Jenkins, Textual
Poachers; Roberts, Idle Worship; and, Thornton, Club Cultures.
5. Jenson, ‘Fandom as Pathology’.
6. Jenkins, Textual Poachers.
7. For further discussion see Jenson, ‘Fandom as Pathology’.
8. Abercrombie and Longhurst, Audiences, 122.
9. Charleston, ‘Determinants of Home Atmosphere in English Football’.
10. Barajas, ‘Economic Impact of Support’.
11. Overview of this perception provided by: Hills, Fan Cultures; and Barker, Cultural Studies.
12. Turner, British Cultural Studies, 2.
13. An overview of the significant contributions to football hooliganism literature and theory
has been provided by, amongst others: Armstrong, Knowing the Score; Giulianotti, A
Sociology of the Global Game; and Spaaij, Understanding Football Hooliganism.
14. Most notably Taylor, ‘Football Mad’.
15. A claim made by Spaaij, Understanding Football Hooliganism, 38.

16. Marsh, The Illusion of Violence.
17. Outlined by Marsh, The Illusion of Violence.
18. For example: Clark, ‘Constructing and (Re)negotiating Identity through the Terrace
Chant’; Weed, ‘The Story of an Ethnography’.
19. Specifically: Dunning, ‘The Social Roots of Football Hooliganism’; Dunning et al., ‘The
Social Roots of Football Hooligan Violence’; Dunning et al., ‘Spectator Violence at
Football Matches’; Dunning et al., The Roots of Football Hooliganism.
20. One such claim, made by Armstrong, Knowing the Score, is that Dunning and col-
leagues were never seen ‘at or near a football match’, though this particular claim
appears unsubstantiated. Bairner (‘The Leicester School’, 587) also commented on con-
cern that the Leicester School was attempting to use football hooliganism to validate the
civilizing process, leading to an inaccurate analysis of hooliganism, using as an example
the claims that the majority of hooligans are ‘rough’ working-class males which fits into
Elias’ process, however, ‘does not necessarily offer an accurate portrayal of the people
who engage in football hooliganism’.
21. Taylor, ‘Inquiry into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster’.
22. Stott and Pearson, Policing and the War on the ‘English Disease’.
23. For example: Frosdick, ‘Crowd Segregation’.
24. Which has been called for previously, see Stone, ‘The Role of Football in Everyday
Life’, 170.
25. Overview of this perception provided by: Hills, Fan Cultures; and Barker, Cultural Studies.
26. Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy.
27. Williams, Culture and Society; The Long Revolution.
28. During, Cultural Studies Reader.
29. Turner, British Cultural Studies, 2.
30. Spaaij, Understanding Football Hooliganism, 24.
31. Working class, Bourgeoisification and football discussed at length, see: Taylor, ‘Football
Mad’; Dunning et al., The Roots of Football Hooliganism; and Giulianotti, A Sociology
of the Global Game.
32. Thompson, ‘Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics’, 558.
33. Geller, ‘Power Differentials and War in Rival Dyads’.
34. Goertz and Diehl, ‘Enduring Rivalries’, 158.
35. For the purpose of this paper, a conflict is understood to be an individual incident or
occurrence, whereas a rivalry is understood to be long-standing and involves many inci-
dents and factors.
36. Thompson, ‘Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics’.
37. Ibid., 559.
38. Mills, Sociological Imagination, 143, 146.
39. Outlined and discussed further by Thompson, ‘Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World
Politics’.
40. Complexity and underlying factors of any rivalry must be analysed, as advocated by,
amongst others: Giulianotti, The Sociology of the Global Game; and Thompson, ‘Identi-
fying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics’.
41. Goertz and Diehl, ‘Enduring Rivalries’.
42. Giulianotti, The Sociology of the Global Game, 10.
43. Anderson, Imagined Communities; Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780;
and, Smith, National Identity.
44. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 10–11.
46. In reference to nations, Anderson wrote: ‘It is imagined because the members of even
the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even
hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion’. Imagined
Communities, 6.
47. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, 142.
48. Lee, ‘From Rivalry to Hostility’.
49. Ibid., 47.
50. Armstrong and Giulianotti, ‘Introduction: Fear and Loathing’, 2.

51. For further discussion of this see: Smith, ‘The Noble Sports Fan Redux’.
52. Sport fans and consumption critically discussed at length elsewhere, for example see:
Crawford, Consuming Sport: Fans, Sport and Culture.
53. Interest in football rivalries has spawned journalistic-style books on the subject, for
example: Beattie, The Rivals Game; and Mitten, Mad For It.
54. Lee, ‘From Rivalry to Hostility’, 39.
55. For example, Feminism and sport critically discussed at length, see: Hargreaves, ‘Query-
ing Sport Feminism’; and Jarvie and Maguire, Sport and Leisure in Social Thought.
56. Clark, ‘Constructing and (Re)negotiating Identity through the Terrace Chant’.
57. Merkel, ‘Milestones in the Development of Football Fandom in Germany’, 232.
58. Barthes, ‘From Work to Text’.
59. Barker, Cultural Studies.
60. See Thompson, ‘Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics’.
62. Ultras, originating from southern Europe, they are more militant and organised fan
groups than are traditionally found in northern Europe. Ultras are often misrepresented
as hooligan groups and not interested in football, but as Giulianotti (The Sociology of
the Global Game) outlines, they are the most committed fans who express extremely
complex social and political identities. For further discussion see: Hazard and Gould,
‘Three Confrontations and a Coda’; and Spaaij, Understanding Football Hooliganism.
63. Dal Lago and De Biasi, ‘Italian Football Fans’, 85–6, adapted from Bale, Il pubblico
come fonte di topofilia.
64. Goertz and Diehl, ‘Enduring Rivalries’.
65. Bairner, ‘The Dog that didn’t Bark?’
66. Hills, Fan Cultures, 61.
67. Burnett, ‘The Chiefs–Pirates Conflict’.
68. Armstrong, Knowing the Score, 206.
69. Ingham and Hardy, ‘Sport Studies Through the Lens of Raymond Williams’, 3.
70. Morrison, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, 67.
71. For a general account on rivalry and conflict existing between two groups assuming sim-
ilar economic power but representing differing social status, see: Elias and Scotson, The
Established and Outsiders.
72. Dimeo, ‘Team Loyalty Splits the City into Two’.
73. Majumdar, ‘Ghati-Bangal on the Maidan’, 286–7.
74. Ibid., 287.
75. Alabarces, ‘Football, Politics and Violence in Argentina’.
76. Barker, Cultural Studies.
77. For an account of multicausal interpretation of actions of human agency, see: Molnar
and Maguire, ‘Hungarian Footballers on the Move’.
Soccer & Society 13
78. Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football, 270–9.
79. The example of Dynamo Zagreb changing their name to Croatia Zagreb, in order to help
symbolize a break with the Yugoslav, communist past, is offered here as an example of
the ‘project’ identity (see: Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Foot-
ball, 271). Also, footballers in post-communist Hungary could be another example of an
emergent imagined community’s project identity, for further discussion see: Molnar and
Maguire, ‘Hungarian Footballers on the Move’.
80. Ingham and Hardy, ‘Sport Studies Through the Lens of Raymond Williams’, 4.
81. Ibid., 6.
82. Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football.
83. The example of Manchester United during the late 1990s (legitimising identity) and their
less successful/powerful/affluent rivals Manchester City (resistance identity) is provided
by Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football, 272–3. However,
at the time of publication of this article, following the takeover of Manchester City by
Abu Dhabi United Group, the ambitious investment has suggested Manchester City has
collectively adopted the ‘project identity’ of becoming the biggest and most successful
club in England, which demonstrates the complexities and ever-evolving dynamics of
football rivalries.
84. Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football, 267.
85. Ibid., 268.
86. Ibid., 269.
87. Emic accounts – narratives that individuals themselves use to organize and situate their
(hi)stories; Etic accounts – attempts at interpretation and representation by the social
researcher. For further discussion, see: Butt and Molnar, ‘Involuntary Career Termination
in Sport’, 246.
88. Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football, 3.
89. Hallinan and Hughson, Sporting Tales, 3. Also cited in Hallinan et al., ‘Supporting the
“World Game” in Australia’, 290.
90. For example: Giulianotti, Participant Observation and Research into Football Hooligan-
ism; Armstrong, Knowing the Score; Hallinan et al., ‘Supporting the “World Game” in
Australia’; Weed, ‘The Story of an Ethnography’; and, Clark, ‘Constructing and (Re)
negotiating Identity through the Terrace Chant’.
91. Hallinan et al., ‘Supporting the ‘World Game’ in Australia’, 290.
92. Neyland, Organisational Ethnography, 2.
93. Sugden, Boxing and Society.
94. Klein, Little Big Men.
95. Sugden, Boxing and Society, 201.
96. Silk, ‘Sporting Ethnography’.
97. Sugden, Boxing and Society.
References
Abercrombie, N., and B. Longhurst. Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Performance and
Imagination. London: Sage, 1998.
Alabarces, P. ‘‘Aguante’ and Repression: Football, Politics and Violence in Argentina’. In
Fighting Fans: Football Hooliganism as a World Phenomenon, ed. E. Dunning, P. Mur-
phy, I. Waddington, and A.E. Astrinakis, 23–36. Dublin: University College Dublin
Press, 2002.
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
London: Verso, 2006.
Armstrong, G. Football Hooligans: Knowing the Score. Oxford: Berg, 1998.
Armstrong, G., and R. Giulianotti. ‘Introduction: Fear and Loathing’. In Fear and Loathing
in World Football, ed. G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti. Oxford: Berg, 2001a.
Armstrong, G., and R. Giulianotti. ‘Afterword: Constructing Social Identities: Exploring the
Structured Relations of Football Rivalries’. In Fear and Loathing in World Football, ed.
G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, 267–79. Oxford: Berg, 2001b.
Bacon-Smith, C. Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular
Myth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
Bairner, A. ‘The Dog that didn’t Bark? Football Hooliganism in Ireland.’ In Fighting Fans:
Football Hooliganism as a World Phenomenon, ed. E. Dunning, P. Murphy, I. Wadding-
ton, and A.E. Astrinakis, 118–30. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2002.
Bairner, A. ‘The Leicester School and the Study of Football Hooliganism’. Sport in Society
9, no. 4 (2006): 583–98.
Barajas, A. ‘Economic Impact of Support in Spanish Professional Football’. International
Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 8, no. 3 (2007): 272–9.
Barker, C. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage, 2008.
Barthes, R. ‘From Work to Text’. In The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. S. During, 3rd ed., 1–
8. London: Routledge, 2007.
Beattie, D. The Rivals Game: Inside the British Derby. Warwickshire: Know the Score
Books, 2008.
Burnett, C. ‘The ‘Black Cat’ of South African Soccer and the Chiefs-Pirates Conflict’. In
Fighting Fans: Football Hooliganism as a World Phenomenon, ed. E. Dunning, P. Mur-
phy, I. Waddington, and A.E. Astrinakis, 174–89. Dublin: University College Dublin
Press, 2002.
Butt, J., and G. Molnar. ‘Involuntary Career Termination in Sport: A Case Study of the Pro-
cess of Structurally Induced Failure’. Sport in Society 12, no. 2 (2009): 236–52.
Charleston, S. ‘Determinants of Home Atmosphere in English Football: A Committed Sup-

porter Perspective’. Journal of Sport Behavior 31, no. 4 (2008): 312–28.
Clark, T. ‘I’m Scunthorpe “til I die”: Constructing and (Re)negotiating Identity through the
Terrace Chant’. Soccer and Society 7, no. 4 (2006): 494–507.
Crawford, G. Consuming Sport: Fans, Sport and Culture. London: Routledge, 2004.
Dal Lago, A., and R. DeBiasi. ‘Italian Football Fans: A Societal Psychological Perspective’.
In Football, Violence and Social Identity, ed. R. Giulianotti, N. Bonney, and M. Hep-
worth, 73–89. London: Routledge, 1994.
Dimeo, P. ‘“Team Loyalty Splits the City into Two”: Football, Ethnicity and Rivalry in Cal-
cutta’. In Fear and Loathing in World Football, ed. G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti,
105–18. Oxford: Berg, 2001.
Dunning, E. ‘The Social Roots of Football Hooliganism: A Reply to the Critics of the
“Leicester School”’. In Football, Violence and Social Identity, ed. R. Giulianotti, N. Bon-
ney, and M. Hepworth, 128–57. London: Routledge, 1994.
Dunning, E., J. Maguire, P. Murphy, and J. Williams. ‘The Social Roots of Football Hooli-
gan Violence’. Leisure Studies 1, no. 2 (1982): 139–56.
Dunning, E., P. Murphy, and J. Williams. ‘Spectator Violence at Football Matches: Towards
a Sociological Explanation’. British Journal of Sociology 37, no. 2 (1986): 221–44.
Dunning, E., P. Murphy, and J. Williams. The Roots of Football Hooliganism: An Historical
and Sociological Study. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988.
During, S. ‘Introduction’. In The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. S. During, 3rd ed. London:
Routledge, 2007.
Ehrenreich, B., E. Hess, and G. Jacobs. ‘Beatlemania: Girls Just Want to Have Fun’. In The
Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. L. Lewis, 84–106. London:
Routledge, 1992.
Elias, N., and J.L. Scotson. The Established and Outsiders. London: Sage, 1994.
Frosdick, S. ‘Pompey v Saints: A Case Study in Crowd Segregation’. International Journal
of Police Science & Management 7, no. 3 (2005): 149–59.
Geller, D.S. ‘Power Differentials and War in Rival Dyads’. International Studies Quarterly
37, no. 2 (1993): 173–94.
Giulianotti, R. Football: A Sociology of the Global Game. Cambridge: Polity, 1999.
Goertz, G., and P.F. Diehl. ‘Enduring Rivalries: Theoretical Constructs and Empirical Pat-
terns’. International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 1 (1993): 147–71.
Hallinan, C.J., and J.E. Hughson. Sporting Tales: Ethnographic Fieldwork Experiences. Syd-
ney: ASSH, 2001.
Hallinan, C.J., J.E. Hughson, and M. Burke. ‘Supporting the “World Game” in Australia: A
Case Study of Fandom at National and Club Level’. Soccer and Society 8, no. 2/3
(2007): 283–97.
Hargreaves, J. ‘Querying Sport Feminism: Personal or Political?’ In Sport and Modern
Social Theorists, ed. R. Giulianotti, 187–205. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Soccer & Society 15
Hazard, P., and D. Gould. ‘Three Confrontations and a Coda: Juventus of Turin and Italy’.
In Fear and Loathing in World Football, ed. G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, 199–219.
Oxford: Berg, 2001.
Hills, M. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002.
Hobsbawm, E.J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Hoggart, R. The Uses of Literacy. London: Penguin, 1958.
Ingham, A.G., and S. Hardy. ‘Introduction: Sport Studies Through the Lens of Raymond
Williams’. In Sport in Social Development: Traditions, Transitions and Transformations,
ed. A.G. Ingham and J.W. Loy, 1–19. Leeds: Human Kinetics, 1993.
Jarvie, G., and J. Maguire. Sport and Leisure in Social Thought. London: Routledge, 1994.
Jenkins, H. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Cultures. London: Routl-
edge, 1992.
Jenson, J. ‘Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterisation’. In The Adoring
Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. L. Lewis, 9–30. London: Routledge, 1992.
Klein, A.M. Little Big Men: Bodybuilding Subculture and Gender Construction. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1993.
Lee, M.J. ‘From Rivalry to Hostility among Sports Fans’. Quest 37, no. 1 (1985): 38–49.
Majumdar, B. ‘Ghati-Bangal on the Maidan: Subregionalism, Club Rivalry and Fan Culture
in Indian Football’. Soccer and Society 9, no. 2 (2008): 286–99.
Marsh, P. Aggro: The Illusion of Violence. London: Dent, 1978.
Merkel, U. ‘Milestones in the Development of Football Fandom in Germany: Global Impacts
on Local Contests’. Soccer and Society 8, no. 2/3 (2007): 221–39.
Mills, C.W. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959/2000.
Mitten, A. Mad For It: From Blackpool to Barcelona Football’s Greatest Rivalries. London:
Harper Sport, 2008.
Molnar, G., and J. Maguire. ‘Hungarian Footballers on the Move: Issues of and Observations
on the First Migratory Phase’. Sport in Society 11, no. 1 (2008): 74–89.
Morrison, K. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London:
Sage, 2006.
Neyland, D. Organisational Ethnography. London: Sage, 2008.
Roberts, C., ed. Idle Worship: How Pop Empowers the Weak, Rewards the Faithful and Suc-
cours the Needy. London: Harper Collins, 1994.
Schimmel, K.S., C.L. Harrington, and D. Bielby. ‘Keep Your Fans to Yourself: The Disjunc-
ture Between Sports Studies’ and Pop Culture Studies Perspectives on Fandom’. Sport in
Society 10, no. 4 (2007): 580–600.
Silk, M.L. ‘Sporting Ethnography: Philosophy, Methodology and Reflection’. In Qualitative
Methods in Sports Studies, ed. D.L. Andrews, D.S. Mason, and M.L. Silk, 65–103.
Oxford: Berg, 2005.
Smith, A.D. National Identity. London: Penguin Books, 1991.
Smith, G.J. ‘The Noble Sports Fan Redux’. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 13, no. 2
(1989): 121–30.
Spaaij, R. Understanding Football Hooliganism: A Comparison of Six Western European
Football Clubs. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.
Stone, C. ‘The Role of Football in Everyday Life’. Soccer and Society 8, no. 2/3 (2007):
169–84.
Stott, C., and G. Pearson. Football ‘Hooliganism’: Policing and the War on the ‘English
Disease’. London: Pennant, 2007.
Sugden, J. Boxing and Society: An International Analysis. Manchester: Manchester Univer-
sity Press, 1996.
Taylor, I. ‘Football Mad: A Speculative Sociology of Soccer Hooliganism’. In The Sociology
of Sport, ed. E. Dunning, 52–7. London: Frank Cass, 1971.
Taylor, P. Lord Justice. Inquiry into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster: Final Report.
London: HMSO, 1990.
Thompson, W.R. ‘Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics’. International Studies
Quarterly 45, no. 4 (2001): 557–86.
Thornton, S. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity Press,
1995.
Turner, G. British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2003.
Weed, M. ‘The Story of an Ethnography: The Experience of Watching the 2002 World Cup
in the Pub’. Soccer and Society 7, no. 1 (2006): 76–95.
Williams, R. Culture and Society. London: Chatto and Windus, 1958.
Williams, R. The Long Revolution (First published 1961). London: Penguin, 1965.
View publication stats

Soccer and Society Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soccer and Society Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Interpreting and exploring football fan rivalries: An overview

Article in Soccer and Society · July 2012

Impact of Performance Analysis in Elite Wheelchair Basketball View project

Whose knowledge counts in Adapted Physical Activity? View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soccer & Society

Interpreting and exploring football fan

Available online: 25 Apr 2012

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2012.677224

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Interpreting and exploring football fan rivalries: an overview

Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK

*Corresponding author. Email: adam.benkwitz@cumbria.ac.uk

ISSN 1466-0970 print/ISSN 1743-9590 online

it will be possible to identify existing scientiﬁc lacunae and methodological con-

Locating football fan rivalries within the fandom genre

From football hooliganism to football fandom

Football fandom via cultural studies

disputes.33 Also known as an enduring rivalry, according to this model, a rivalry

Rivalries, identities and communities

different collective identity, which bears relevance to the operation of modern

for group tensions within a ‘friendly rivalry’.47

A cultural studies analysis may describe chanting as a signifying practice, which

Idiosyncrasies of football rivalries

Towards a conceptual framework

geographic identity (territorial marking). In other words, when analysing rivalries in

We do require to be highly cognizant of the classiﬁcatory practices and binary opposi-

Consequently, further development of this framework, whilst ensuring a continued

Methodological observations in researching rivalries

information, there appears to be a lack of transparency in terms of the methodolo-

15. A claim made by Spaaij, Understanding Football Hooliganism, 38.

50. Armstrong and Giulianotti, ‘Introduction: Fear and Loathing’, 2.

Charleston, S. ‘Determinants of Home Atmosphere in English Football: A Committed Sup-

View publication stats

You might also like