Football Crazy? Then support for Brexit could be seen as a little bonkers too.
The benefits of EU membership are not only associated with economics and public administration; Brexit might also prove inimical to putting on top-class football in the UK.
It might be a blessing in disguise that Britain’s referendum on its membership of the EU, scheduled for 23 June, takes place on the first of a two-day interval separating this summer’s European Championship group stage from its knockout rounds. With three of the four Home Nations having qualified together for a major tournament for the first time since 1982, English, Welsh, and Northern Irish supporters could all be celebrating progress (Scots, whose team did not qualify, might be relishing their rivals’ failures). Not only can football fans take advantage of the transient respite to go out and vote, they might also take stock of some of the benefits that the European project has brought to football in this country.
Football has been an ever-present feature of the attempts to create a continent-wide identity over the past century. The celebrated Christmas Day match, played between opposing ranks in the First World War trenches, symbolised an interest common to normal citizens in a divided continent transcending national loyalties. During the Cold War years, European club competitions and, from 1960, the European Championship, poked holes through the Iron Curtain more persistently than any diplomatic initiative. The excitement generated by Bulgaria and Croatia (World Cup semi-finalists in 1994 and 1998) and the Czech Republic (runners-up at Euro 1996) demonstrated these new or resurgent nations’ optimism for a future free from isolation – all three are now EU members.
Britain’s footballing identity is inextricably linked to the continent. Leading sides in the semi-professional leagues of Wales and Northern Ireland dream of the financial and reputational rewards of glamourous European ties. For most Premier League clubs, finishing fourth represents a holy grail, competing among the traditional elite for the prestige of Champions League football. In both a political and a sporting sense, Britain’s horizon remains beyond the Channel.
Football has contributed to the evolution of the EU as a legal order. Every football fan knows the name of Jean-Marc Bosman, whose case led the European Court of Justice to rule that nationals of any EU member state have the right to move to another member state in order to pursue an economic activity – including professional sport. I would challenge a fan of any Premier League club – or, indeed, any professional club within the UK – to honestly claim that their team has not benefited from the transfer a player who would not have been signed without EU laws on freedom of movement. Yes, not every foreign signing is a gem, but poor scouting is hardly the system’s fault. The current system by which non-EU players acquire work permits is designed to ensure that only seasoned internationals make their way to the UK. Riyad Mahrez, a French national who now represents Algeria, was uncapped at international level when he moved to Leicester City in January 2014. Post-Brexit Leicester wouldn’t have had a chance of signing Mahrez, one of the stars of the 2015-16 Premier League season.
Tottenham Hotspur are an example of what a post-Brexit Premier League club might look like. Their first-choice line-up this season contains five British players, supplemented by five regular internationals for competitive European teams: Hugo Lloris (France), Jan Vertonghen, Toby Alderweireld and Mousa Dembélé (Belgium), and Christian Eriksen (Denmark). Not even the most draconian work permit regulation would prevent this top-class cohort from playing in the UK. Yet Tottenham’s success, as well as that of Leicester, owes much to the collapse of José Mourinho’s personality cult at Chelsea, the inconsistent transfer policy of both Manchester clubs, and Arsenal’s perennial wobbliness. Footballing Brexiters might dream of a Premier League of Tottenhams, but few clubs would be able to replicate the cohesion, drive, and tactical awareness of Mauricio Pochettino’s side, even with the same demographic. In any case, young British talent does not flourish in a vacuum, and their success relies on the influence of older pros, coaches and managers from a variety of backgrounds. Spurs’ 22-year-old defensive midfielder Eric Dier, who spent his teenage years in Portugal while representing England at youth level, and has thus progressed through the ranks of two systems in parallel, is a case in point.
Freedom of movement is, of course, a two-way street, and British players and managers have the same opportunity to work in other EU countries that their continental counterparts have in the UK. Why so few of them take advantage of this possibility probably derives from a combination of the mollycoddling and high salaries offered by Premier League clubs, as well as British monolingualism. But the reality remains that even a season-long loan in another European country can offer a young British player countless developmental opportunities, and acquaint them with other footballing cultures in a way that can only advantage both the UK’s club teams in European competitions and the underperforming Home Nations.
Part of the problem in assessing a possible Brexit’s impact on British football is that the current government has not clarified its preferred status for the UK’s relationship to the EU if Brits vote to leave in June. Although it’s possible that a deal which allows for the free movement of sportspeople might be struck, the status of the Premier League is unlikely to be at the top of the priority list of whichever British prime minister heads up these negotiations. Given such uncertainty, a vote to leave the EU is a vote to surround British football with risk. Just as importantly, it’s a vote to deepen our sense of isolation at a time when British football desperately needs to exchange personnel and ideas with the continent in order to recover from its current malaise.
