by sussexpob » Wed Apr 10, 2024 10:26 am
Is this resilience something organic, or was it an element of control implemented by a ruling class that had lost influence in the rise of sport as the biggest thing of cultural significance of the time? I very much view it as the later. Before the golden age of sport takes off in the mid-19th century, any sporting endeavours were in firm control of upper class institutions. Horse racing was incredibly popular, but upper class monopolies on betting existed. Any working class attempts to break these monopolies were treated as default illigmate operations, and this apparent criminality made sure that the working class never got near challenging the established upper class dominance or interferred with the steady flow of profits. Prizefighting/Boxing fell to working class influence over time, and was banned when the upper class stopped making money. It reappeared once the introduction of technology allowed rich promoters to turn it from a live event held deep in working class communities, to one that was beamed into cinemas across the land. Interesting how all the concerns about criminality, violence and what not disappeared once rich people found a way to monetise it.
Amateurism was not the default setting. Attempts by the FA to keep football amateur in the 1880s were already too late, as professionalism pretty much took hold as soon as football became officialised. It is very clear that working class players expected to be paid some form of wage for contributing their time and effort. The FA attempted to flex their muscles by kicking Preston out of the FA cup one year after it became apparent all of their squad had been stolen from Scotland's best talent, but this facilitated a mass exodus of players to the South, where the Southern League had started in competition with the Football League, and had no rules against professionalism. Tottenham Hotspur, from the Southern League, annihilated all their opponents in the FA Cup shortly after and the FA had to face the reality of caving in. A huge gap in quality had instantly appeared between the Football league and Southern league, and the FA teetered on the brink of losing its position as the rightful guardian of the game. They had no choice but to accept professionalism.
Footballers in the 19th century and early 20th century actually made a lot of money at the top end of the sport and the big city clubs. The FA and Southern League continued all the way to WWI with disagreements about player earnings, but the eventual compromise was to have a maximum wage set for players in order to better facilitate competitive leagues between smaller and richer clubs... this maxmium wage was many multiple times the average wage of skilled artisans of the time. And before the wage cap, some earned astounding money for the day. The very best could earn the equivalent of 100,000s nowadays in win bonuses if they won the league or FA cup. During the depression and the war years, this maximum wage never shifted, and lasted all the way until the age of hoolighanism killed the game in popular culture.... so there exists a period between say the 1940s and early 1990s where footballers wages were not very high in most cases. But when they became noticeably low, the money and popularity of the game had declined to an all time low.
Another example of it not being widely accepted as standard is Rugby. Football before the creation of the FA included all the rugby clubs, because they were considered the same sport with different interpretations of the rules (Sheffield + Cambridge rules became what we know as football, Rugby School rules became rugby). Once the rules were established, rugby clubs broke away and formed the RFU as a seperate code. Early on, rugby was as popular as football, with a huge following in the working class. It was a working class East London club (Blackheath I think its called) that pretty much made the breakaway from Football and created rugby. Almost instantly arguments broke out about amateurism vs professionalism. What was clear was, rugby could not exist in working class areas without players being paid. Clubs started to pay players the equivalent of their professional wages when taking time out to play or train... in response, the RFUs upper class elements demanded it stop, or that working class clubs would be kicked out the game and banned.
The net effect...... Rugby League seperated from Rugby Union. I believe the reason why the rules are different in both sports was because the RFU was the recognised institution of rugby in the world, and the splinter clubs that departed Union could not form a legitimate sporting association when one legally existed. To be legit, they needed to represent a sport that didnt exist... and hence we get the different codes with different rules. To this day, the distinction has retained Rugby Union as a sport of the upper-middle class and deeply rooted in the private school system. Rugby League became professional, and remained a mostly northern town sport of the working class.
Worth noting that RFUs fierce determination to stay amateur was a position of hyper hypocracy. Upper class players were routinely paid (and this remained), even at the time the schism broke between codes... the first BI Lions tour paid their amateur players. Amateur players routinely received benefits akin to wages. There cannot be any misinterpretation that this was nothing other than a move from the upper class to seize the game of rugby and exclude the working class. Very few rugby players moved to the professional code over the years (in fact, more have moved from league to Union chasing extra cash since professionalism). Plenty of Union players in the age of amateurism turned down professional deals from League clubs, often citing the fact that they would in essence take a paycut. Rugby Union was just a blatant form of shamateurism for much of its amateur days.
Now, finallly to cricket.
Professionalsim had been the standard up to the point that cricket was formalised into the county championship system. The upper class actually ditched cricket in the 19th century, it became a certain level of taboo to play. Its not really clear why, but there are records of rowdy behaviour and drunkness attached to high profile games in the early 19th century. The sport was kept in existence by working class teams and travelling professional sides, who would be paid to come to challenge local club sides with money at stake. These were popular, and continued to be until the 1860s.
At that time, the upper class u-turned. Its worth noting at this point that the upper class had no sport to call its own. All the other popular sports had become working class dominated, with their associations focused on widespread popularity. Cricket represented a sport where they could muscle into the control and governance fairly easily, and that is what they did. When the FA and the RFA were created, the upper class then responded by formalising cricket with proper rules. Those rules enshrined amateurism and player eligibility that were distinctly against the participation of the working class, and cricket was sold on upper class social culture and behavioural rules. Professionalism was all but banished. This amateur code became stricter and more resistive until 1948, and adapted inorganically to stop the tide of working class invasion into the game, especially at times when it inceased in popularity.
Much like rugby, this was total hypocracy.... "shamateurs" as they were called were regularly paid to play. But the reason why it became stricter was because the shamateurs were upper class or educated people who simply made money from cricket, but didnt need it for the livelihoods. These loopholes started to be exploited by the players of working class origin, so the rules were redefined constantly to close those loopholes.
Its therefore nothing to do with competition or protecting the sanctity of sport not being dominated by money. Cricket was dominated by money, because the only people who could play it were independently wealthy. Gentleman players would go to private school and stand out, would then filter to a varsity side or famous invitational only club to excel, and then move onto county cricket. It was a total parallel system to working class clubs based on open meritocracy, and who were barred. Much like rugby, you pretty much ended with amateurs who made money on the sly being ignored, but poor players making less money being sneered at.
And let's be honest..... you cant really consider this to be anything other than class based discrimination, when you had different dressing rooms for different classes. When players and amateurs would have different titles affixed to the scorecards to designate class. When players had to address their equal colleaagues as sir, and be treated as sub-standard humans.
Australian Ashes tours used to share the profits between the squad. England's players did not.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru
And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
Couldnt agree more.