Why do fans think that football was better before?
We often hear people say, „Football was better in the old days.“
In media-covered team sports like football, we see fewer and fewer „creative“ players, fewer players truly free on the pitch. The result: less dribbling, less improvisation, less of that „beauty of the game“ that we used to associate with creativity and a certain kind of freedom.
Indeed, nowadays, matches place much more emphasis on tactics. A huge amount of time is spent on studying the game plan, optimizing positioning and optimizing physical preparation thanks to advanced data analytics. Statistics, figures, and mathematics are the key factors of decision-making at most levels. Teams are surrounded by doctors, physiotherapists, analysts, and specialized coaches in order to be as efficient as possible and to optimize every detail. Players are pushed to their limits, and their physical abilities are developed like never before.
Nowadays, matches place much more emphasis on tactics. A huge amount of time is spent on studying the game plan, optimizing positioning and optimizing physical preparation thanks to advanced data analytics.
More importance is given to players athleticism — although technique is still present — but much less to individual expression, to pure creativity and freedom.
This is why nowadays many fans say that „football was better before“.
And what’s interesting is that football remains the most watched sport in the world. Consequently, it’s also the one with the most money in circulation, and therefore inevitably follows similar patterns to other major capitalist industries.
Football inevitably follows similar patterns to other major capitalist industries.
Algorithmic Capitalism at the expense of beauty
Ultimately, football today isn’t so different from the world around us: from our political, economic, and social realities. There has to be a winner. You have to prove you’re better than the other guy. You have to defend yourself on the pitch. Each of these realities being subject to and propelled by algorithms. It’s the spirit of liberalism and capitalism, but it’s also the spirit of competition, and therefore, in a way, the very essence of sport.
„In the digital age, the algorithm has become a primary instrument of control and surveillance. It structures our attention, commodifies our behavior, and directs digital capitalism.“
— Christian Fuchs, Digital Capitalism (Routledge, 2022)
And when we trace the history of sport — going back to ancient Greece — we realize that it was also considered something beautiful, artistic, almost magical. A bit like a cult. (Obviously, this wasn’t the only function of sport at that time; no fantasy here.)
This makes me think about the pursuit of beauty, which I believe is also lamented by many people in other fields. For example, in art or architecture: it’s often said that today’s buildings, even if they are more modern, more efficient, more practical, no longer have the same aesthetic focus. Everything is designed for speed, functionality, and efficiency. There’s much less attention to detail, much less work on beauty itself.
In fact, everything is governed by money and algorithms.
And I find that many people agree with this observation. It’s a fairly popular, even majority, opinion. Yet, these same people are sometimes able to justify the way our society functions, to justify the world we live in: a world where competition is omnipresent, where capitalism is imposed by force, and where innovation is dictated by profit. A world that leads us to adopt an excessive attitude, where we must always outdo others, exceed our capabilities at the expense of our bodies and minds, push beyond our limits.
“We live in a world of communication, everyone gets information about everyone else. There is universal comparison and you don’t just compare yourself with the people next door, you compare yourself to people all over the world and with what is being presented as the decent, proper and dignified life. It’s the crime of humiliation.”
— Zygmunt Bauman, interview for The Guardian, 2003
And this discourse perpetuates the myth that the pursuit of profit is the only way to achieve progress and improve our society. We are told: “Why are you complaining that someone else has more money than you? If you can’t achieve it, it’s because you haven’t tried hard enough. You haven’t had the drive and determination to bring your ideas to fruition.”
All of this is deeply contradictory.
Is there a „things were better before“ syndrome among football fans?
At first, I was tempted to say yes. But in reality, no. Fans do say „things were better before,“ they agree that something has changed, that some sparkle has been lost… and yet, they are unable to recognize that the neo-liberal capitalist system reproduces the exact same destruction process that we see in football everywhere else. All of this is symptomatic.
It is the destruction of the expression of freedom, that freedom which was expressed through the game, through the player himself, through creativity. It is also the destruction of human cohesion, of cooperation, in favor of unbridled competition, without any checks and balances, without limits.
Fans agree that something has changed, that some sparkle has been lost… and yet, they are unable to recognize that the neo-liberal capitalist system reproduces the exact same destruction process that we see in football everywhere else.
Please note, my point is not to condemn competition itself.
Rather, I criticize the way competition encroaches on creativity. When competition no longer encourages creation for its own sake, but rather creation to crush opponents or competitors, it becomes pernicious. A football club owner no longer seeks to win for the beauty of the game, to thrill spectators and fans, but to increase the value of an asset portfolio.
The same applies to shareholders or CEOs: the primary motivation behind their decisions is not to create something new or revolutionary, but rather to seek profit in order to continue to exist… while causing the demise of others.
“It is creative apperception more than anything else that makes the individual feel that life is worth living.”
— Donald Winnicott, Playing and Reality, chapter 5, “Creativity and Its Origins”, 1971.
What happens then to the health and well-being of the players?
When institutions decide to increase the number of matches and games to boost their revenue through television rights, players find themselves performing relentlessly, pushing their bodies to their limits. This leads to more injuries, more psychological distress… and, consequently, poorer performances and a less exciting spectacle.
Progress is rapid, yes. Training techniques, tactics, and physical preparation are developing at an exponential rate, allowing for a better understanding of the game and its continuous improvement.
But paradoxically, this same progress weakens those who inspire us: the players, the primary actors in this game.
The observation is the same in Western society. Productivity gains have been immense in recent years. One might think that well-being has only increased since we work less than before. And yet, we are witnessing waves of depression, a loss of meaning, and waves of workers affected by mental and psychological disorders.
Competition, supposedly bringing innovation and diversity, certainly brings a lot of innovation… but very little diversity. Excessive competition in a system that rewards financial speculation imposes profit as the driving force of creativity and produces uniformity.
This isn’t about saying, „Let’s put an end to capitalism and competition.“ It seems to me that, at present, it is impossible for us to collectively escape capitalism. However, questioning the current iteration of capitalism and its production of uniformity, its lack of originality, its restriction of self-expression, its restriction of creativity for the sake of creativity, the borders it puts on our imagination and thus its replacement of beauty and art by efficient, profitable, marketable products and asking whether it is possible to transcend it for the rebirth of imagination and for the common good seems more than necessary.