"Myth of Soccer as a 'Family' Game"

[beachesl]

http://www.wsc.dircon.co.uk/21csoc/familygame.html

-----------------------

21st century soccer

the myth of soccer as a 'family' game - by ian plenderleith

DC United recently launched a "Good Sport" programme to improve match day behaviour in and around the stadium. Two of its three aims are commendable, as they pinpoint drunk driving and stadium staff training as areas for improvement. There is a problem, however, with aim number three, which is a pledge to maintain, in the words of DC's general manager Stephen Zack, "a fun, family atmosphere" at DC's RFK Stadium.

I can't think of anything worse than attending a soccer match with a "fun, family atmosphere". If I wanted that I'd take my wife and kids for a morning at Gymboree and then for an afternoon at the circus with Coco the Clown. When I head for RFK I leave them behind, and it's an arrangement that both sides of the family are happy with.

Yet for years the game's marketing experts in a number of countries, including traditional soccer strongholds like the UK, have persisted in evoking the wholesome 'family' concept as a vague but ideal demographic. As if the best thing for the game would be seats full of toddlers eating cotton candy while their Mums exchange tips on the best places for quality daycare.

This would only work if the performers on the pitch were dressed in animal costumes while falling over deliberately and kicking soccers into the crowd (actually, that's a fair description of the DC United side from 2001 to 2002). And it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that FIFA will one day enact a Disney World Cup between teams of Mulans, Mermaids and Mickey Mice as a sure-fire merchandising gold mine. Until then, soccer remains an extremely competitive game between twenty-two young men at the peak of fitness. It is no more family entertainment than a night at the opera.

This is not to say that families of all shapes and sizes should not come to games. My objection is that they are the focus of misguided marketing, and that because they choose to come, other fans - let's call them soccer's traditional base, namely people who are there because they care about the team and the game - are being expected under programmes like 'Good Sport' to modify their behavior and act in a family-friendly way to promote an apparently 'fun' atmosphere.

A whole section of DC United's official website is devoted to celebrating the passion of DC United's fans. These are the people who turn up in all weathers, regardless of how the team is playing, to tailgate, sing, drum, rejoice and, let's face it, shout abuse at referees, opponents and, under severe provocation, their own players too. Like DC's own foul-mouthed coach, Ray "greating" Hudson, I have often sworn in anger. I doubt anyone can really hear me, because my profanity is drowned in the swell of noise around me.

It's true that I would not necessarily want my daughters, aged seven and four, to see me jumping up and down and cursing just because a couple of players have failed to live up to the high standards I've set for them. This is why I leave them at home. Yet neither do I think they would be seriously harmed by it, even if they were not already long since pre-occupied with running up and down the empty rows of seats (plenty of those at RFK these days), pestering me for more fries, or screaming for a free t-shirt being catapulted from the touchline.

The slung shot freebies, by the way, are the sort of family activity that could well be left for half time, as could moms standing in the aisles taking pictures of their kids, or the purchase of half a dozen sodas. By all means allow these peripheral activities to happen, if they must, but a game is only ninety minutes long, and while it's on it deserves our full attention. Things happen quickly, and I don't want to miss a major incident, or even a minor one, because my view's been blocked by an important family moment.

In the UK, some clubs have encouraged families to come to games by opening up Family Enclosures, where parents can take their kids to escape the match day rantings of the British Alpha Male. This is a fine alternative as it offers sensitive parents the option of protecting their children from the realities of adult language, and leaves the rest of us to create our own atmosphere. It's significant, though, just how small a portion of the stadium is dedicated to families, and how few spectators choose to sit there.

Given the high divorce rates in western society, maybe a better idea would be to create a Dysfunctional Family Enclosure. This is where my Dad and I would have been sent at Lincoln City in the early 1970s. Attending a home game against Exeter at the age of seven, I was so frustrated by the home team's ineptness that I stood up and yelled, "Come on Lincoln, you useless twats!" A stunned silence settled across the rows of pipe-smoking pensioners around us who could remember the days when kids like me were ducked in the village pond.

My Dad, who is not the strictest of Scottish Calvinists, laughed quietly up his sleeve, and then repeated the story for years to come. It takes all sorts of families to make up a crowd.

[Richard]

Maybe you should have been dunked in the village pond!

[Guest HamiltonSteelers]

Brilliant article.

I agree that the pandering to the casual fan in exchange for the hardcore fans is a little discerning. There is nothing better than a game with atmosphere. A game can be crap, but if theres enough drama to have the whole crowd react, then everything is working fine.

If the game isn't the main attraction, then there is something wrong with the product. If you need to be entertained by free t-shirts and the PA guy to yell, "c'mon fans, I can't hear you", then there is something wrong with the product. Artificially inducing the crowd to do things will not create much repeat business since you went for the purpose of the game and left forgetting much of it.

It's all about where the money is now, and not where it is going to be next year or in ten years. A teenager isn't going to deem a product as something serious or adult if it is presented like a talent show for 8-yr olds. I went to soccer and jr. hockey games because they were serious. Watch the field. Check your ticket stub to see if you won a prize, but the game always came first.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I guess I always liked sport, but I remember my dad taking me to see the Canucks before they were NHL and we watched the game. I loved the atmosphere, the noise, and visual spectacle. Even later, as a teen, when we went to see the Whitecaps, the only real entertainment apart from the game was fan cheering (some organized, maybe a bit phoney even), and those half times with little tikes running after a ball (something that now irritates me, unless they are four year olds).

What about all of us types of kids, who loved sport, and never were at all attracted by all that BS? Who caters to those of us out there? It should be enough that kids look to meeting a star player or cheering a goal, and if none are to be had, to at least enjoy the intensity of people around them who really do care about the game.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Whilst we're talking about family atmosphere and hockey, I remember seeing Cliff Ronning score 5 against the Victoria Cougars. He would have had another couple but the ice of the Queen's Park Arena wasn't too good as it was covered in blood after Ewen and Berube destroyed three guys each. Now that was family entertainment! What a line that was...

[Cheeta]

Rant alert.

This is a great topic.

Being part of the great unwashed LCD (lowest common denominator) I myself learnt about "community" in the upper decks of old Winnipeg Arena and the northern end of Winnipeg Stadium's east side. We may have been dirt poor but the Old Toothless Cat had enough drinking buddies (and boy did he) that he always managed to scam free tickets. As far as sport went, we where living well beyond our means, cheap seats or no.

Great stuff. I don't think I could relate or recreate the passion displayed by the drunk, foul mouthed, near-hooligan crowds which seemingly marshelled where ever we sat. Let me tell you, it was no place for a pre-teen lad, never mind a teenager. That style of crowd is long gone for the most part but if it wasn't I sure as Hell wouldn't be taking my daughter there. Maybe I'm cheating her out of something. I think I definately am, I don't know. But what ever it is, it is a character building experience that much is sure.

And if sport is the weapon of choice in the age of the city state at least it's something that encourages people to be passionate about their community at large. Wow. What a realization.

You know what? I think the attraction (besides the sometimes mob hysteria) was the impression that we where part of the team, even up in the stands. That gave US an attachment. A feeling of being part of a larger community.

And is that so bad? Feeling part of a larger community through sport. One that goes beyond your suburban neighbourhood and the kids who hang at the mall. The players on the field may just be employees, athletic mercenaries, but that 12th man up in the grandstands is all city.

And you'll never get that sort of feeling at a daycare. Never. It's something you have to inherite.

P.S. Dysfunctional Family Zone. I love that. That would make a great banner for the Voyageur section at our home matchs. Great stuff.

[beachesl]

Heard at an EFC game last year at Foote Stadium:

loud-mouthed profane hooligan (me): {singing melodiously} "...you're a bastard, referee."

soccer mom, three rows back: "Watch your mouth please, there are children here!"

l-m p h: "They probably use worse language than me Madame, let them sing. Show me the keys to your child-proof television lock, and then I'll shut up Madam. In the mean time....'Who's ya father...' ".

[Cheeta]

Maybe segregation is the answer.

It happens more or less naturally amongst the regular fans anyway, it’s just the rare-occasion fan that ends up in the wrong section as it were, from time to time.

Maybe someone could come up with a section rating system, like for movies or alert codes used by Homeland Security. Yeah, that’s the answer.

“Hello. Just inquiring to see what’s left for tomorrow’s match? Section R? What’s the code? RED!! That’s it, huh? Thank you. Sorry kids, but it looks like the library again.”

[Bxl Boy]

Yes, great article

And I'll quote someone else on the board, as I couldn't have said it better :

“If the game isn't the main attraction, then there is something wrong with the product. If you need to be entertained by free t-shirts and the PA guy to yell, "c'mon fans, I can't hear you", then there is something wrong with the product. Artificially inducing the crowd to do things will not create much repeat business since you went for the purpose of the game and left forgetting much of it.”

[Soju]

I think it's clever to at least keep up the appearance of sport as a "family activity", because afterall being a "family activity" means it's healthy and good for society - so being totally obsessed with it can't be that bad.

[Cooks]

EDIT: having just typed this, I realized that it is awfully long.

Excellent article, excellent topic.

Pander to the kiddie set and the traditionalists stay away. Exclude your core and you are sure to fail.

Atmosphere is everything. In the absense of pro footy in Calgary, I can, at least, still go to the Stampeders games where I can scream like a lunatic and enjoy the camaraderie of those who follow suit.

Someone mentioned hockey, so I'll also use that analogy (and spin it a little). I was lucky enough to be in attendance (Pop had season tickets) in the Stampede Corral the year the Flames first came to Calgary. It had insane atmosphere. The building was small and everyone in attendance had done everything short of selling their own Grandmothers to occupy a seat there. The only "entertainment" was the product on the ice and a lone organist. The real entertainment came from the crowd. People screamed, cursed, cheered, laughed, and cried. When you are an eleven-year-old boy, there is nothing else like it in the world. I'll never forget the characters, like the guy that my Dad had nicknamed "Leather Lungs," who never failed to give it to the ref with both barrels. If you sat anywhere in the Corral (or lived in the neighbouring community) you couldn't fail to hear ol' LL. Sometimes the language of the crowd could curl your hair, but it didn't matter. They were passionate, they were vocal, and they had every right to be there. There was no pandering to the kids and moms. In a hockey starved town with a new NHL team in a tiny venue, no seat would possibly be wasted on someone who didn't give 100% attention to the action.

Things changed. Sure, the venue changed, but the Saddledome rocked for years with great crowds. The big change came when they started to cater to the big business crowd. They wiped out their core by pricing them out of the market. Gone were the blue-collar crazies who helped keep up the fever pitch in the building. In were the monied folk who were there for the prestige of owning tickets. Sure, there were many who were very passionate about the game, but there were many who were there just to keep up appearances. I can't tell you the number of wives that I saw who brought knitting or books to read during the games. Some people were too busy making business deals to watch the action and would only clap when they realized that something good had happened. The atmosphere was gone. It was like watching a game inside a morgue.

When the Flames recently made their playoff run, things changed again. The die-hards, starved and realizing that this may be the only chance to see playoff hockey in Calgary for a long while, reached deep into their tattered pockets and spent the milk money on tickets. They reoccupied the seats of the stiffs and the building became electric again. The only reason that the Saddledome shook to its foundations was because the core had regained the place that was rightfully theirs. It was temporary, but it gave a glimpse of what could be.

I loved drumming and chanting at Calgary A-League matches. When people joined us, the atmosphere picked up, as did the play on the field. Due to gaffes in marketing and venue, we couldn't build the core. The kiddie set is too fluid and couldn't sustain the clubs.

All hail the core.

If I had the money, they would be the first and only group I'd go after. If they brought their kids, great! Let them experience what I did when I was eleven.

[Mark Bick]

I'm glad you took the effort Cooks.

[Mark Bick]

I'm glad you took the effort Cooks.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Cooks post is one good reason why soccer stadiums should not be too small for a team to sell-out, as a full stadium usually will price out certain social stratas and fan types (not just working class, but students, young players). Having more seats than you would normally need means there is room for a rowdy section in there, and they can go ahead without feeling they have to watch who is around them.

The first time I took my son to a game in England, to get a bit of atmosphere, was last summer, QPR home to Derby (Bircham injured, Pesch came on as a sub in the visitor's win). Mostly young to middle aged men like me, plenty of anger at the team and the ref as they played crap. I was suprised though that the odd person swearing would then turn to me and apologize, since they'd done so in front of a 5 year old. Think that in England now a fan can be expelled for such language during a game, so they are a bit wary about it. Too bad really, I too was happy to see my kid on edge for the noise and atmosphere, including you f-king wanker to the ref.

Re segregation, I noticed that the Whitecaps have a few non-drinking sections, though most allow a beer in the stands. Very progressive I thought, in Spain you can't get alcohol in a stadium any more.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Cooks post is one good reason why soccer stadiums should not be too small for a team to sell-out, as a full stadium usually will price out certain social stratas and fan types (not just working class, but students, young players). Having more seats than you would normally need means there is room for a rowdy section in there, and they can go ahead without feeling they have to watch who is around them.

The first time I took my son to a game in England, to get a bit of atmosphere, was last summer, QPR home to Derby (Bircham injured, Pesch came on as a sub in the visitor's win). Mostly young to middle aged men like me, plenty of anger at the team and the ref as they played crap. I was suprised though that the odd person swearing would then turn to me and apologize, since they'd done so in front of a 5 year old. Think that in England now a fan can be expelled for such language during a game, so they are a bit wary about it. Too bad really, I too was happy to see my kid on edge for the noise and atmosphere, including you f-king wanker to the ref.

Re segregation, I noticed that the Whitecaps have a few non-drinking sections, though most allow a beer in the stands. Very progressive I thought, in Spain you can't get alcohol in a stadium any more.

[beachesl]

Time to talk about standing?

Georgina Turner, Guardian Unlimited

Friday April 15, 2005

"My lovely son Kevin did not die because of standing on terraces, he died because of the lack of control and care by South Yorkshire Police. I believe terraces are safe without perimeter fences. Standing never killed anybody, cages and treating people like animals did." Anne Williams, chair of Hillsborough Justice Campaign, mother of 15-year-old Kevin, who died in pen three.

Such is the legacy of Hillsborough that today, 16 years on, football will again bow its head in a solemn prayer for the 96 lives lost, and rue the preventable chaos in which they were extinguished. The disaster is at once English football's saddest memory, its biggest shame - and, even before the last petal wilted on the Kop, it became its hardest lesson learned.

The scale of Hillsborough led Margaret Thatcher to immediately commission Lord Justice Taylor to explore what had happened. His and media investigations pointed to massive failures by staff at the club and, in particular, South Yorkshire Police, whose delayed reaction and confused response to the crushes in pens three and four doubtless cost lives that day. The perimeter fencing, deemed unsafe three years earlier, had held many to their deaths.

But, having pointed the official finger of blame in the same direction as thousands of others in his interim report, Taylor's final report quickly retracted it, focussing instead on introducing all-seater stadia as a means of preventing a repeat of the tragedy.

In the intervening years, of course, this has been successfully introduced in the top two flights, and we have breathed a grateful sigh of relief to see no such recurrence. But now, questions are being asked as to how much this has to do with seating itself, and whether some standing could not safely be reintroduced.

This is no new idea, and the question was discussed everywhere except in the corridors of the Football Licensing Authority - who are charged with enforcing the rules on seating - four years ago. But in July last year, in response to increasing conflict between clubs and fans over persistent standing, a group of West Ham fans started the Stand Up Sit Down campaign. It has grown into a 3000-strong group, and their petition - calling for a choice between sitting down and standing at games - has been signed by some 2000 more, and includes supporters from 130 clubs.

This still represents a minority among the nation's football supporters, but the petition's founder Peter Caton is confident that his is a sentiment shared by many more - and the response to recent leafleting and protests has encouraged him.

"We've been to games and seen how many people stand all through the game," he says. "It's causing unnecessary conflict between staff and stewards at the club and fans, and we feel that if a controlled area could be dedicated to fans who prefer to stand, then that would actually improve safety.

"Recently I've been handing out leaflets at grounds, and we held a yellow-card protest at White Hart Lane the other week, and the jump in our membership afterwards was incredible."

The success of the protests has so far been immaterial, however: the biggest stumbling block is opening the subject up for debate, something the FLA has consistently prevented. Off the record, Caton says, several Premiership clubs have agreed with his campaign, but publicly, they refuse to break with the FLA's word on the subject. The lack of discussion has left fans suspicious of the FLA's motives.

"They don't want to talk about it because it will throw light on how weak their arguments are," says Caton. "They accept that I will jump up and down when a goal is scored, they accept that this is the most dangerous time in the game, and yet they want to stop me standing still the rest of the time.

"Of course Hillsborough is an incredibly emotive incident, but if you can look at it rationally, standing did not cause what happened. It makes me wonder if safety is the real issue here.

"First, if it is, then why aren't the FLA stopping clubs extending their grounds with these very tall, very steep tiers? They pose a far higher safety risk - but of course, they make everyone extra money.

"Second, I can - in fact I'm often forced to - stand on a bus or a train, which figures show is far more likely to injure or kill me. I just can't understand the discrepancy.

"Third, we've already seen that the threat of banning people who stand, or ground closures, doesn't work - not least because they can't afford to enforce it.

"So people will keep on standing, even in parts of the ground where it does pose a risk, and they will keep ruining the game for people behind them who would like to sit down. If the FLA really was concerned for safety, it would be working on a way to find somewhere appropriate for these fans to stand."

Neil Masterman is a Leeds season-ticket holder and persistent stander. In an effort to persuade fans to sit down in the Kop end, the Elland Road club has introduced a "Use it or lose it" campaign. He is also suspicious as to why he is being forced out of the ground.

"I know I risk losing my ticket because I've told them that I do stand, I do break ground regulations," he says. "It's so frustrating though, because there's no opportunity to explain why we stand, and talk about ways to do that safely.

"I think there is an underlying attempt to edge the average working class football fan out of the game. Us lot that want cheap standing tickets are worth less to them than a family who will buy lots of merchandise, or corporate clients who will throw money at the club. Never mind that we sing our hearts out."

In truth this might be a conspiracy theory too far, but with ever more awkward kick-off times, increasingly frequent kit-changes, and lower and lower away allocations, it's clear that the supporter features a fair way down football's list of priorities.

And, Masterman says, the FLA is focussing on the wrong issue. Tickets allocated to away fans are becoming fewer and fewer, sometimes as a punishment for persistent standing - Manchester United have seen their away allocations at Middlesbrough and Charlton slashed for that reason. What the FLA don't realise, however, is that the risk this creates is far greater.

"It means fans will just go and buy tickets in the other end. We've had to do it all season, even at games like Leicester, where you can expect a bit of aggro - and with years of segregation in place, that's what poses a bigger risk in my book," he explains. "It's a ridiculous situation."

Masterman also feels that the FLA are using outdated images of English hooliganism to dictate crowd control measures in what is now a very different environment.

"Police operations are far more sophisticated nowadays," he says, "and any incidences of violence are usually miles away from the ground.

"Besides, I don't like the implication that just because I want to stand I must be a hooligan."

The FLA might scoff at the mere suggestion, but chief executive John de Quidt's comments suggest the organisation does not necessarily equate football supporters with the average law-abiding citizen. Why were restricted standing areas, which work well in Germany, dismissed as a possibility here after an FLA fact-finding mission to Hamburg? Why is it safe, according to the Gaelic Athletic Association to have a standing terrace at Croke Park? A key factor, of course, is that the changes needed within a ground to incorporate the areas present a sizeable investment for clubs. That aside, however, the FLA's stance is revealing.

"It's a question of culture, the way the fans behave here compared to the way they do there," says de Quidt. "It tends to be a defined sort of crowd that we get at football games here." No mention, strangely, of the German fans who went on the rampage little more than a fortnight ago in Slovenia, smashing cars, throwing flares, and clashing with policemen.

"Standing would change the whole character of football crowds these days," he went on. "You're likely to lose the women and older people who tend to be a civilising force on the crowd, and be left with masses of testosterone-fuelled young men."

Sweeping generalisations and condescension aside, there's no doubting that a proportion of the female and older crowd will prefer to sit down, but they'll doubtless also be joined by more than a few men. De Quidt is clearly positioning the male football fan within a context of hooliganism - which has demonstrably receded in this country. What remains is missile throwing, of course, though the FLA insist that seating is a preventative measure.

With all the incidents we've seen even this season, that clearly isn't the case, and in fact the culprit when a bottle struck Arsene Wenger when Arsenal played Sheffield United in the FA Cup last month was a 14-year-old girl. It is also inconsistent to assume that someone unruly enough to want to throw something onto the pitch would be too cowardly to defy ground regulations and simply stand to launch it.

The FLA was born of the Taylor report, it is their job to see that the recommendations made are adhered to, and for that you cannot fault them. What is worrying, though, is that while Lord Taylor stated that "standing accommodation is not intrinsically unsafe", de Quidt's fundamental argument against opening discussion on standing areas is that "standing, by definition, is always going to be unsafe". We should not be comfortable with the fact that de Quidt and his organisation are sticking stubbornly to this opening gambit before closing their ears to further discussion.

Ultimately, though, John de Quidt and the FLA have the easier battle to fight. "I'm not prepared to wait for another disaster before people accept that standing is not safe, are you?" asks the chief executive, with the ease of a man who has said the same a million times before. No doubt a silence has followed just as often.

It is incredibly difficult to emerge from this exchange of fire clutching one argument having confidently kicked the other into touch. The fact that a lot of the FLA's reasoning against the notion of standing is fallible does not in itself make the reintroduction of standing right or wrong.

We must also consider that though the memory of Hillsborough grows older, it has yet to fade, continuing to make many people uncomfortable with the idea of standing. But what must not happen is that the people with the power to effect change use those horrific memories in the place of real argument. That they do not use the trepidation with which people approach what happened at Hillsborough to prevent discussions on change (which might yet establish the standers as a minority) - it is an insult to the memory of those that died to use their fate in such a way. If there really are fans who would prefer to stand, they must be allowed a voice. And somebody must listen.

What the Premier League says

"The provision of all-seater stadia in the top two divisions of English football is government policy. In addition both Uefa and Fifa require all-seater stadia for their competitions. Premier League clubs have invested over £1.5bn in their stadia over the past 13 years and we believe we have the finest and safest set of club stadia in world football. This combined with effective and professional stewarding and intelligence led policing, has seen public disorder all but eliminated from Premier League grounds. I would be surprised if government did anything that might compromise that safety record."

What the clubs say

We asked all 20 Premiership clubs whether they would like to see the idea discussed, and whether they believed their fans would be interested. Half of them - Bolton, Charlton, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Everton, Fulham Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Middlesbrough, and Newcastle - did not respond. Three - Arsenal, Blackburn, and Tottenham Hotspur - chose simply to send us the Premier League's statement (above). Of those that did offer us their views (Aston Villa, Birmingham, Norwich, Portsmouth, Southampton and West Bromwich Albion), most were positive. Their comments are shown below.

Aston Villa

If this is something that is going to be the future of football, and it had the backing or the relevant authorities, then it is certainly something we would look at. If it's done through the proper channels, I don't see any reason for clubs not to look at it. There are lots of factors involved in what the fans would make of it, but it would be likely to lower ticket prices, and any fan in their right mind would welcome that.

Birmingham

If the relevant authorities were happy to consider the proposals then Birmingham City would also be happy to look at the possibility. Looking further ahead the benefits could mean that we, Birmingham City FC with a limited capacity crowd, could offer more people access to see our Premiership games and offer cheaper ticket prices for standing. We are sure some of our supporters would love to see a standing area as long as it is safe and can be controlled.

Norwich

We would certainly welcome any sensible discussion, by the relevant authorities, re-addressing the whole question of safe standing. We do have a number of supporters who prefer to stand, but at the moment we obviously try and adhere to regulations. We always try and make a point of talking to our fans about this sort of thing, and we held a consultation earlier in the season where we talked about the question of standing. We take that very seriously and we'd continue to press for standing if indeed legislation was to change. Any changes we made would be after a thorough national review involving the relevant authorities, and subsequently involving full consultation with supporters.

Portsmouth

We adhere to the law, and the law is that all stadiums have to be all-seater. I don't know whether football would be interested in that kind of thing. We're in the throes of preparing for a new stadium, and that, at this moment in time, is designated as an all-seater stadium, so we're going ahead with that. It would be very difficult at this stage to go back on that and put in facilities for people to stand.

Southampton

We have long campaigned for an open debate on this subject and we were one of the first clubs to do so. We would welcome any sensible discussion involving all the relevant authorities to reinvestigate the issue of safe standing at matches.

West Bromwich Albion

The club has invested heavily in converting The Hawthorns into an all-seater stadium which we believe has made the ground a much safer place to watch football. Should the government decide to change its policy on this issue, we would reconsider our own position, but we don't envisage this being the case.

[beachesl]

Look-alikes....

---

Sergio Sanchez - Bictoria Beckham

...sorry, they don't look alike at all. Only if things are going Real bad.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Beckham slapped me, claims Espanyol player

MADRID, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Espanyol defender Sergio Sanchez has accused Real Madrid midfielder David Beckham of insulting him and slapping him after their Primera Liga match on Sunday which Real lost 1-0.

'The game was very tense. I was stretching on the sidelines when Beckham came to take a corner and by chance I started coughing as he struck the corner,' Sanchez told radio station Punto Radio.

'He took the episode badly and began to insult me. After the game as I returned to the changing rooms he appeared to be waiting for me, started insulting me again, and slapped me.

'I still don't understand it. Maybe it was because he was wound up.'

Real lost their third game in a week on Sunday, including their midweek Champions League visit to Lyon, and ended the match with nine men after defender Sergio Ramos and Brazilian forward Julio Baptista were both sent off.

After three league games they lie in 15th place in La Liga with three points.

[beachesl]

Look-alikes....

---

Rebecca Loos -------- Bictoria Beckham

...sorry, they don't look alike at all. Only if you are Real drunk (a good excuse anyway).

Sergio Sanchez - Bictoria Beckham

...sorry, they don't look alike at all. Only if things are going Real bad.

[Guest HamiltonSteelers]

I have often found myself standing at the games. For singing purposes, you get more power and volume from standing vs. sitting. I will move to the back of the stand in an effort to make sure I'm not in anyone's way.

For being a vocal force at a match, standing is the only way to go.

And thankfully, there's never been enough of a crowd to force us to sit as is.