Tottenham, Washington and Word Re-appropriation

The Clarke Carlisle-led documentary that aired on BBC Three tonight posed the question Is Football Racist?, and in attempting to answer this question it looked at areas of the game where racism is perhaps not so obvious. Throughout the programme Carlisle was presented with theories of sub-conscious, covert, passive racism - to use just three of the descriptions used - and in doing so touched on the subject of ethnic stereotypes used in judging athletes (a topic I touched on in a previous post about Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III and their relative evaluations).  However, the most fascinating part of the documentary for me was the debate about the use of the word "yid" by fans of Tottenham Hotspur - a topic that I have much familiarity with - as it reminded me of the ongoing debate surrounding the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins.

There are differences, of course. Tottenham have never officially endorsed the use of the Y-word, unlike the name Redskins which is the key theme of Washington's branding and identity. Concurrent with that is the fact that Tottenham's use of the term came as an attempt of re-appropriating what was widely known to be a racial slur, constantly aimed at the club's supporters due to the team's large Jewish following. The idea of re-appropriating a new, positive meaning or image for the word is a defence often used by those in support of Washington's continued use of their name. The problem with this, as David Baddiel, a prominent Jewish comedian, points out in the documentary, is that in both cases the term is being used by demographics in which the appropriate group is in the minority. It's all well and good claiming to be "taking the word back", but what gives a non-Jewish Tottenham fan or a non-Native American Redskins fan the right to do so? It is easy to claim solidarity when it suits, but I'm sure that many of these fans wouldn't align themselves with Jewish or Native Americans on other issues in different walks of life. Furthermore, many would point to the prevalence of the N-word in hip-hop culture as an example of re-appropriation. This is forgetting that some of the most prominent African Americans comedians, with huge cultural impact, in Richard Pryor and Chris Rock have both publicly denounced its use in the past, amongst others. The simple truth is that by keeping the word alive and in people's minds, you are never going to rid it of its negative connotations.

Tottenham have taken steps to try and eradicate the use of the term, through short films and notices in the match-day programme, and seem to believe that if you educate the fans enough on the true nature of the term that it will eventually be dropped. However, Washington appear unwilling to negotiate on their use of their nickname. This is particularly disappointing as there are several instances throughout American sport where institutions have been able to be somewhat progressive on this issue without altering the team's identity: Miami (Ohio) University changed their athletic teams' nickname from Redskins to RedHawks, as well as other examples where universities have agreements and/or permission from the tribes they take their name from, which is the case with the Florida State Seminoles, the Illinois Fighting Illini and the Central Michigan Chippewas, among others. It will never be easy to force through cultural change, but in standing out on an issue and being progressive the process can leap forward several steps.

I Adore Mi Armour

Tottenham unveiled their new kits for the forthcoming season today, and they can be seen below.

With apologies to Hannover 96, this marks the first instance of Under Armour as the kit provider for a major football team, a new foray into a potentially lucrative market for the American company. For Tottenham, the opportunity to become the flagship team of one of the fastest growing sports apparel companies in the world was not one to be scoffed at.

It is encouraging for the club to see the way in which Under Armour utilised many of the techniques par for the course in American sports in their build-up and release of the kit, from the myriad of social networks on which the unveiling could be accessed and followed to the extravagant kick-off event being held at White Hart Lane on Saturday - more details of which can be found here. I don't remember a kit unveiling with such pomp and circumstance in English football before, let alone at Tottenham. Under Armour CEO and President Kevin Plank was at today's unveiling, a hint that Spurs are not about to become a side interest for the company, they mean business. 


I have held the belief for a long time that English sport lags behind its American counterpart in terms of marketing and fan interaction, this move represents a small but significant move in the right direction. Again, Plank's presence alludes to a closer relationship than is usually seen between club and supplier, and hopefully this will be the first in a number of moves rolled out over the season.

As for the kits themselves? The full picture set can be seen here. Overall a good look. Distinctive without being busy. I personally don't care for the collar on the home shirt, feels a bit too close to last season's effort - a v-neck like on the away shirt would have improved the look. In fact I have no complaints about the away shirt at all. The away goalkeeper's kit is a huge improvement on the previous designs under Puma, a clean, retro feel that would go great with Hugo Lloris' haircut for a 60's feel, let's hope. I would have thought it would go better with the home kit, but the home goalkeeper's shirt is not too shabby either. As I said earlier, distinctive from previous shirts and other manufacturer's designs across the league, but without sacrificing a clean look.

A New Era

Andre Villas-Boas has been charge barely 36 hours and yet already the press are talking him down. About how much he has to prove after indisputably failing at Chelsea, that he has much to learn and that his appointment by Tottenham is a gamble. However, Phil McNulty of BBC Sport gave the game away somewhat when, in his article, he spoke about how Villas-Boas alienated the press while he was at Chelsea. My favourite quote in particular is this line, after a Chelsea Champions League victory:

"It is unfortunate for you guys in the media because you have to report on a brilliant win for Chelsea and we qualify first in the group. It is difficult for everybody and today this is difficult for you."

Does that not sound like something Jose Mourinho would have uttered? Followed by newspapers eating it up and pining about how much they miss "The Special One".

The biggest adjustment Spurs fans are going to have to make over the coming year is not one of playing style, or personnel, but of perception. Harry Redknapp, the tabloids' golden boy, has gone - and who is Daniel Levy to sack him? Scour the many articles after his departure and you'll see the same refrain, essentially that two fourth place finishes were somehow not good enough. Any spurs fan familiar with the situation will correct you on that. Redknapp made his position at the club untenable through his inability to keep quiet.

The media circus surrounding the England job was followed by despair when the "People's Choice" was overlooked for someone with, to put it bluntly, a more accomplished background. The fact is, Tottenham threw away what should have been their best season since the establishment of the Premier League twenty years ago. Third in the league in January with an apparently insurmountable lead over their closest rivals in 4th. England job or not, what followed was a catastrophic run of results that would put many a man on the hot seat. In fact, at the very same time, Liverpool were undergoing a similarly horrendous period, and they ended up sacking club legend Kenny Dalglish. If it's not good enough for "King Kenny", then why should Redknapp, a man whose loyalty has been proved again and again to be to himself, be spared?

All this was before his ill-timed comments about his contract. Unhappy at how slowly negotiations were progressing, Redknapp did what Redknapp does best and moaned to his mates in the media (probably out of a car window) while the chairman was on leave after the death of his mother. Levy and Redknapp were already on thin ice, this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Already, in the few hours that Villas-Boas has been in charge, you can feel the tone towards Tottenham beginning to change. Media darlings last season, with a quote-a-minute manager, now arguably looking more stable, but with a young, self-confident manager who does not care much for how the British media go about their business. 

Already you can feel it, reading between the lines, and I fear it is a mood that will be prevalent throughout the coming campaign. I worry what effect this may have on the supporters who take tabloid stories as gospel, who will believe what they are told and will become alarmed at the first sign of a "crisis". All I ask of them is that you follow these instructions: