Why fans have become more demanding?

Football has changed since I started watching as a lad and I often wonder has it changed for the better? Perhaps it’s an age thing, but I don’t understand why fans become aggressive when they are denied success?

Like quite a few contributors on here I went to my first match at Roker Park in the early ‘50s when the likes of Shack, Trevor Ford and Ray Daniel, turned out for the club – all internationals by the way. If you couldn’t afford to go the match (and that applied to most kids including me), it was no problem to meet these heroes because a few worked in local car sales in the summer months or had a paper shop where they always obliged with an autograph and a chat. In addition, they inevitably lived next door to someone you or your parents knew, as they were mostly accommodated in a house provided by the club, which were no different other private homes around town. It was no big deal to bump into the players in shops, pubs, restaurants or night clubs. They were revered just as much then, yet they were accessible.

The introduction of the Premier League in 1992 changed all that and with it came the high rolling players plus a different and more demanding fan.

In the old First Division, only 1 club won a place in Europe based on league performance and 2 were relegated. This meant that out of a total of 20 clubs that avoided the drop, for 19 clubs (or 95%) their only way to enjoy European football was via the FA Cup, otherwise their supporters spent the whole of the summer with nothing to look forward to but the hope of an improvement next year. But that was accepted because it had always been like that, since 1890 or whatever. Fans could only look at the likes of Liverpool and Man U and just pray that one day, their own club would embark on such European ventures.

Last season, out of 17 teams that remained in the Premier League by end of May, 7 had qualified to play in a European competition this season. So now only 59% of teams ended up with nothing and that is a lot less tolerable for supporters. It’s not so bad being in a group of 19 who failed to win when only one place is up for grabs, but when that number is increased to ten out of only 17, the losers feel greater disappointment because a wining position was that much more achievable.

Is this the reason why failure is now often accompanied by such anger and a constant demand for immediate success?

I’d be interested to hear your views.

 

Nicely done piece Argus, and certainly a slightly different slant.

It is true that the group of 'also rans' is smaller, if you then splice that together with the fact we see ourselves, rightly or wrongly, as one of the bigger clubs (crowds, heritage etc) then it's definitely harder to take when we see Stoke, Leicester, Birmingham, even frigging Millwall in Europe.

I think seeing the calibre of footballer we do week in week out, due to the increased revenue streams adds to the spice, subconsciously you see yourself as 'part of the best league' rather than 'mid table'.

I think we'll get there within the next 3 years, my only hope being that when we do, we maintain it.

As an aside, I'd like the Mags to be there competing with us, titles are unrealistic, but 4th place? Everton have done it, and may well do it again, so why not us & the Toon?

Nice to see you back on the forum marra

 

I think the popularity of the game has also grown and as such more friends and family take a keener interest in the game. because of this there's more banter and therein more pressure for your chosen team to perform to ensure your entry to work on a Monday morning is a 'wum free' as possible. we're more demanding because for some it may matter more becasue of this.

 

We must be about the same age Argus because I saw my first game in the 50s, Shack and all.
The team I remember best:
Frazer,
Hedley & McDonald.
Anderson, Daniel & Aitken.
Bingham, Chisolm (or Fleming), Ford (or Purdon), Shackleton & Elliot

The big differences in my opinion are exposure and finance. The higher the stakes, the more competitive it becomes, and everything that goes with it. Weather it is as enjoyable is a matter of opinion and in my view, no. Like everything nowadays the sole criteria for success seems to be monay.

Hope I don't sound too much like an old fart.

 

Although I'm younger, even I see some validity in this.

I remember when we were utter ****e, the joyous feeling of a Phil Gray diving header for a 2-1 win that meant **** all in real terms, but meant I trydged home after the match cock-a-hoop.

Now, if we win 1-0 v Wigan, it's not good enough.

For sure, the purity of the emotions you got from going to the match has been lost, and it's highly unlikely to return.

 

Good article Argus, your Echo namesake would be proud.

Also some good replies there after, my observations are:-

The demographics of football supporters have also changed greatly - my first games were also in the late 50's and there are so many more ladies present these days in every aspect other than on the pitch - resulting mainly in better toilet facilities!(oink, oink)

The cost of tickets has also taken football out of the reach of many, whilst live matches have perversely increased the interest and debate on how your team is performing almost inviting comment upon, which of course you can now do freely on forums such as these.

Society is very much "I want it and I want it now" and that appears to apply to football management.

 

Good shout and great post Argus.
Nice to have you back posting!

What I would add is that, football used to be OUR game.
We felt the coppers we paid through the turnstiles was paying the players wages.
The players having to have second jobs to pay their way, meant they appreciated us coughing up our hard earned to watch them. (WTF were the directors doing with all the cash back then? It certainly wasn't going into the Fulwell End toilets. )

Now we see mediocre players being set up for life, on the back of our club.
I know I personally feel angry, when players turn out for SAFC and you can see they are just going through the motions.
They are going to earn more in a few years than some of us see in a lifetime.
They show no loyalty and are only looking for the next big pay day.
So when we see them earning these huge amounts, when they clearly aren't doing enough to earn a tiny percentage of what they get. We, or in my case, I, feel more let down than we actually should do.
In fact it boils my piss, to see a player being able to jog off the pitch without a drop of sweat on his forehead at the end of a losing game.

So my thinking is, that the obscene amounts they earn, makes the disappointment that much harder to take. Knowing the amounts they make should make us more demanding and expect more.

Completely disagree with ACS I don't think the game is more popular.
I think the TELEVISED game is more popular, the people you are talking about are not the ones gong to the ground they are the armchair viewers.
When we were younger the only way you could have a comment on the match, is if you had been standing in the ground watching it.
(Oddly I was talking to my Skunk neighbour about the TV coverage the other day. I wont hijack Argus's thread with that though.)

One of my mates a lad in his thirties goes to most matches he can get too.
But absolutely gobsmacked me when he said he doesn't go if it is raining or cold!!!!!!!!