In a city like London, where their are many teams, does one root for a team based on what end of town they live? Or is it more an economic, social or religious thing. For example, is Chelsea a rich man's team, and Arsenal is a working class team? Here in the USA, some cities have more then one baseball team, like Chicago. If you live on the South side of town, you are a White Sox fan. People on the North side of the city generally root for the Cubs.
It is generally to do with your location within the city ie arsenal north london, chelsea west london etc. However people tend to support the same teams as thier families depending on where they were brought up etc...
London has is a extremely deverse city. But it doesnt effect what team people support really at all. Supposably Spurs have a large Jewish support as the clubs always been owned by Jews and North London has alot of Jewish areas. Spurs and Arsenal have a large coloured people support as the area they are in in North London has a large amount of black people living there. Go to Tottenham and all you see is black people - one of the reasons i love the area. Chelsea is a bit of a rich area - but like all clubs they have support from all classes. Fans travel from all over the city to see a team place e.g i know Spurs fans that live in South London. North London rules - best place to live.
I have a question...wasn't Chelsea one of the most hooligan-ridden clubs in the 80s? Did the area get gentrified?
No. It was always very, very posh - I guess the bit of town right around Fulhahm Broadway (where Stamford Bridge) has gotten more upscale over the years, but in general the SW7, SW3, and SW10 post codes are some of the most expensive addresses on the planet. Football in general "got gentrified" - i.e., the middle class suddenly found it "acceptable" to follow football starting about 10 years ago - that's true across the board - I think this is something that most Yanks don't seem to understand. The composition of the football "supporter" for top division has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 years - it's gotten a lot more diverse - the middle class home counties types would not have been supported football in large numbers 15 years ago
^What you are mad!! Middle classes have always been into football. My Dad has been going to Spurs games since the 70s or 60s (dont know when he started) and everybody i know has been into football from the 60s/70s.
Sure. But you have to admit that the explosion in mass market interest in football - has occurred in the past 10-15 years - I am admittedly speaking in generalities - but I think it is safe to say the make up of a top division crowd 10-15 years ago is different than what it is today
Didn't a lot of that have to do with the crack-down on hooligan-ism, making it safe to brings the women & children to matches? Lee
I've heard this said a lot and on the whole it's crap. Football was always popular across the board - it's just the all-seater stadiums, with the inevitable mixing of social types who'd have previously sat/stood in different parts of the ground, that makes it seem different. What is noticeable about pretty much everyone who spouts all this stuff about it being some "working class only" sport 10-15 years ago never actually went to games back then. Sure you don't get unemployed hooligans at games these days, but you didn't really get them 20 years ago either - it was just assumed that hooligans were violent because they were "disenfranchised from society" or some crap like that, rather than the more simple truth of they liked fighting as it gave them a buzz. What you could probably argue is that crowds have got older, especially in the premiership as it's harder for young new fans to ever get beyond the season ticket waiting lists. In other words, crowds aren't so much middle class as middle aged.
not really. the 'new fan' is more likely to be the one who sits and watches the games on SKY, not goes to the matches.
Arf ... hardly the point. You never spent any time at the Bridge in the 80's, I take it? The London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea is indeed one of the nicer parts of the city, but until very recently indeed, the Bridge was an absolute shithole and their support (drawn from all over West London traditionally) was one of the most brutalised in the game. It was Ken Bates, remember, who had the frankly mind-boggling idea of wiring the pitch-side fences up to the mains for a that authentic chargrilled flavour of crowd control. Chelsea's following has long been riddled with one of the most pernicious firms in the game partly because every fan they had was treated like scum by the club and it's owners. To answer your main point, Dave, the Headhunters are still pretty active today, as any visitor to the Bridge for a London derby can readily testify.
So...Chelsea have both a very upper-class fanbase, *AND* a still-functioning, nasty "firm?" So they're the New York Yankees of the EPL.