Football clubs undergo constant change: high levels of player and staff turnover are the norm, and more far-reaching alterations such as name changes and ground relocations not uncommon. Yet we have little difficulty in accepting that a club can persist and retain its identity through such changes. Just as each of us remains numerically the same person we were ten years ago even though almost every cell in our body has been replaced, Preston North End remain the same club that won the double in 1889 even though no person associated with the club at that time (indeed, no person on the planet at that time) is alive today.
There are some changes, however, which a club seems unable to undergo without being considered a numerically different club. Few people would consider MK Dons to be the same club as the original Wimbledon FC, despite the two being inextricably linked. What about AFC Wimbledon: is it right to identify them as the same club as Wimbledon FC, or a new club in their own right? The trophies won by WFC reside in neither club’s cabinet, but were given by MK Dons to the borough of Merton where the club had been based. Whichever way our intuitions lead on this question, what is clear is that arriving at a clear answer is far from straightforward. 3
The problem of how to determine whether something has retained its identity through time is best represented in philosophy by the Ship of Theseus paradox. The original source of this paradox is unclear, but a version of it is known to date back to the time of Heraclitus – around 500BC. Theseus’ ship, the story runs, was preserved in Athens for centuries after being used for his trip to Crete, undergoing replacement of its planks when these were found to be decaying. Eventually, so much preservative work had been done to the ship that every single one of its original planks had been replaced. Is it still correct to refer to this ship as being Theseus’ ship? And if not, at what point did it stop being Theseus’ ship?
The problem becomes even more puzzling if we alter it slightly. Suppose that instead of replacing the decaying planks, the decision was taken to dismantle the ship and store all of its planks in a warehouse. Some time later, a skilled ship-builder uses these planks to reconstruct the boat to look exactly as it did before. Is this still Theseus’ ship? Our inclination is probably that it is: if I take my watch apart and then put the pieces back together, it would seem odd if I claimed to have a new watch. Yet consider this: what if both scenarios (replacement and restoration) were true at once? That is, the original planks were replaced one by one so that the ship continued to stand in the harbour, but these planks were moved to the warehouse and – upon replacement of the final original plank – used to rebuild the ship. Here we have two separate ships both with seemingly compelling claims to be Theseus’ ship, but it clearly makes no sense to say that they are both Theseus’ ship (otherwise the same ship could be in two places at once).
The point is that, while we may think we have a strong grasp of what makes something retain its identity through change, if we hold our intuitions up to scrutiny then our certainty begins to waver. But this is just a fanciful thought experiment; back in the real world, it might be argued, there is never any such confusion. When it comes to football clubs, perhaps we can find something solid to identify as the essential property which a club must hold onto in order to retain its identity.
One explanation which immediately presents itself is that football clubs are legal entities: so long as, in the eyes of the law, this legal entity remains the same, we can be safe in the knowledge that it remains also the same club. Yet in practice, we do not always follow this convention. As mentioned previously, MK Dons are generally not considered the same club as Wimbledon FC, but initially at least they were technically one and the same business. The board caved in to pressure to change this in 2007, but the club maintains that it was founded in 2004, indicating that it was the location change that signalled the break with Wimbledon, rather than the legal change. On the flip side, Middlesbrough were forced to become a new legal entity in 1986, but the notion that pre-1986 Boro and post-1986 Boro are two different clubs seems wide of the mark.
This question of whether a new legal entity equates to a new club is also the topic of live debate in the wake of Rangers’ recent problems. The Rangers competing in the Scottish Third Division this season are, as the often-used name ‘Newco Rangers’ implies, a different company from the Rangers that took part in last year’s SPL. Does this mean they are a new club? As explained in this excellent article on a similar subject, opinion on this question is split between ‘Survivalists’ who argue that it remains the same club and ‘Extinctionists’ who insist that it does not. Middlesbrough owner Steve Gibson, who helped his club through the 1986 crisis, indicated that he was in the former camp. “It’s a bit like your local pub”, he claimed, “the landlady changes and the name above the door changes but it’s still your local pub…Rangers Football Club will go on just as in the past and that’s the most important thing”.
Whether a club is the same legal entity, therefore, does not give us an easy way of deciding whether it truly remains the same club. Might there be some other essential component which ultimately decides ‘sameness’? The club name, for instance: surely something so central to the club’s identity cannot be changed and the club still be considered the same? History shows us, however, that such changes are far from rare: some fans of Gravesend & Northfleet might have been discontented by the 2007 name change to Ebbsfleet United, but the idea that this was the formation of a different club rather than a cosmetic change seems mistaken. Similarly, Barry Hearn’s proposal to rename Leyton Orient as London Orient may have been met with scorn, but the club have in fact undergone five name changes in its history while nevertheless retaining its identity.
What about location, then? Might this be the key to a club’s identity through time, the one ingredient which cannot be changed without conceding the right to call a club ‘the same’? Obviously, some allowances will have to be made: moving from an old ground to a new all-seater within the town’s boundaries is no threat to the club’s identity. Similarly, it seems that even moves further afield can be tolerated so long as they are temporary: Brighton and Rotherham are just two examples of a club surviving through a spell playing in a different town or city.
Permanent moves which take a club far out of its support base, however, do seem to result in the collapse of the idea that the ‘same club’ has persisted through the move. Not only do MK Dons provide an example of this, but also Livingston, whose introduction into the Scottish league system resulted from Meadowbank Thistle’s relocation 19 miles to the west. Livingston’s Wikipedia entry paints them as a continuation of Thistle, but this is highly debatable and the opposing view – that they are a new ‘franchise club’ created in 1995 – is commonly held. In the US, of course, this kind of franchise approach in which relocations are frequent is generally accepted (although this interesting piece from The Two Unfortunates shows that fan opposition to these moves does sometimes occur). However, in these cases there is no delusion that the ‘same club’ persists even as the franchise is moved across the country: a new fanbase forms around the relocated franchise, and to all intents and purposes a new identity. Location, then, does seem to be an essential, unchangeable property which must be retained if a club is to be considered the same – at least in some cases, and within certain limits.
All of this debate might be seen to have little practical import: call it the same club or call it a different club, it might be argued, it’s just a language choice which can be valid either way. Yet the problem gains practical significance when, as in the example of Theseus’ ship, there are two entities competing for the right to be considered ‘the same’ as some previous entity. And this is precisely what occurred after the demise of Scarborough FC, wound up in 2007 over unpaid debts. While the Seadog Trust created a phoenix club in the form of Scarborough Athletic, the old SFC centre of excellence continued to operate with many of the same staff under the name Scarborough Town. The following year, to complicate matters yet further, Town started a senior team and set themselves in direct competition with Athletic.
Objectively speaking, Town might seem to have the stronger claim to be the ‘same club’ as Scarborough FC: not only can they point to a chain linking their youth setup to that of the old club, they also play their games in the town of Scarborough itself, unlike Athletic who currently ground-share with Bridlington Town, 17 miles down the coast. Therefore, Town seem to fulfil more of the criteria for ‘sameness’ than Athletic, including what was identified as perhaps the key factor – location. However, Athletic attract larger attendances, and are considered by most to be the true successors to the original Scarborough FC. What does all of this tell us about identity through time? Perhaps this: that any strict criteria we try to apply when deciding whether something is truly ‘the same’ will always potentially run into counter-examples. Instead, we should accept that ‘sameness’ is often a normative concept, so that whether something should be accepted as ‘the same’ depends largely on whether most people consider it to be so.
Follow @virilegames
Notes:
- It might be objected that in one sense, I am not the same as I was ten years ago; for instance, my personality may have altered significantly in this time, and similarly Preston are not entirely the same as they were over a century ago. This is due to an ambiguity in the word ‘same’, however; it can be used to mean that something is qualitatively identical (i.e. identical in every quality) or numerically identical (i.e. the same numerical thing). I can own ‘the same car’ as my neighbour in the qualitative sense, but not in the numerical sense, at least if we both want to be able to drive to work. It is in the qualitative sense that Preston are ‘not the same club’; numerically, they are the same club, which is why the 1889 double is still listed under the current club’s achievements. ↩
- It might be objected that in one sense, I am not the same as I was ten years ago; for instance, my personality may have altered significantly in this time, and similarly Preston are not entirely the same as they were over a century ago. This is due to an ambiguity in the word ‘same’, however; it can be used to mean that something is qualitatively identical (i.e. identical in every quality) or numerically identical (i.e. the same numerical thing). I can own ‘the same car’ as my neighbour in the qualitative sense, but not in the numerical sense, at least if we both want to be able to drive to work. It is in the qualitative sense that Preston are ‘not the same club’; numerically, they are the same club, which is why the 1889 double is still listed under the current club’s achievements. ↩
- It might be objected that in one sense, I am not the same as I was ten years ago; for instance, my personality may have altered significantly in this time, and similarly Preston are not entirely the same as they were over a century ago. This is due to an ambiguity in the word ‘same’, however; it can be used to mean that something is qualitatively identical (i.e. identical in every quality) or numerically identical (i.e. the same numerical thing). I can own ‘the same car’ as my neighbour in the qualitative sense, but not in the numerical sense, at least if we both want to be able to drive to work. It is in the qualitative sense that Preston are ‘not the same club’; numerically, they are the same club, which is why the 1889 double is still listed under the current club’s achievements. ↩
A very interesting and thought provoking article which maybe deserves to be allowed time to sink in before providing any response , but anyway….
My own thoughts on football clubs and identity is that the technical aspects of the club – i.e the administrative structure, the staff, buildings, management structures etc are rather separate from the symbolic aspects which is where identity resides.
The symbolic aspects are things like the colour of the shirt, the crest, shared memories of past glories and defeats, shared heroes and villains. Just like a nation states identity is based on a shared set of mythological memories and meanings; 1966 and all that, Winston Churchill and the NHS
Which I mean to say is that in the MK dons case whilst the infrastructure of the club re-located to Milton Keynes, the memories – stored in the heads of fans – remained in the London borough of Merton.
In terms of Theseus’ ship what happened was the creation of two ships from what was the one, Wimbledon FC. On one hand you have the ship in MK which was technically the same as Wimbledon FC, but you also got a ship which was re-built in Merton, with each timber being formed out of the collective memories of the supporters.
Because of the importance of symbolism it is the Merton ship, AFC Wimbledon which is regarded by most as the continuation of the original club. Perhaps if the same fanbase had continued to support the club travelling to MK and even if they had been joined by new MK fans then there would have been a continuity with the clubs identity.
I think the arguments over the use of the eagle in the crest, and the ‘drop the dons’ campaign are arguments over the symbolism, with all symbols being regarded as belonging to the supporters who invested them with meaning in the first place rather than necessarily belonging to the club which technically is the same. It’s notable that now MK have changed their badge again to remove the eagle, and do not play in the old Wimbledon FC colours.
By divesting itself of most of these symbols MK are effectively renouncing any claims to the Wimbledon identity – in fact their badge now includes the roman numerals MMIV, 2004 which is seen as year zero for the club. The club can now move forward and build an identity of its own with its own supporters creating meaning for their new symbols and creating new memories and heroes. Had MK kept the symbols such as the colours and the eagle well the issue would be very, very messy indeed and would, due to their importance in defining identity, would have seen an ongoing campaign over ownership of them.
Sorry to clog up the comments on this, but one final thought!
Maybe what we’re thinking here is like a shrub, imagine it’s sat in a park and one day the powers that be choose to dig it up and haul it off to another location in a place far away. Now, unhappy at losing his shrub which he has lovingly tended, the park keeper takes a cutting from the shrub as it is being removed and plants it almost exactly in the spot left empty. After a few years, and a lot of TLC, the cutting comes to resemble the shrub which was removed.
Which is the original?
In this case, both are the original shrub, but the important thing is context. The cutting, which was still part of the original, though looking different at first, eventually catches up with the shrub on the other side of town, but it can claim to be in it’s original context therefore can it claim to be more original than the original? The Park-keeper certainly thinks so, despite nursing some wounds at the trauma of his shrub being uprooted in the first place.
The shrub on the other side of town, though being technically the same shrub also invariably takes on a new identity in its new surroundings, maybe the soil is different, or the wind blows in a different way, but over time it will resemble less and less the shrub it once was.
Not sure if this makes sense?
I think this sentence of yours is particularly interesting: ‘Perhaps if the same fanbase had continued to support the club travelling to MK …there would have been a continuity with the clubs identity’.
My feeling is that you’re probably right, which indicates that ultimately it’s ‘continuity of fans’ which determines whether a club remains the same or not. The symbolic stuff like the crest, and even the location, can be changed without the club losing its identity, so long as the fans continue to treat it as the same club. This is why the Scarborough case is perhaps more problematic than the MK Dons/AFCW one: there’s been a genuine split in which of the two clubs the former SFC fans choose to follow, which leads to genuine difficulty deciding which (if either) retains the identity of SFC. If just Scarborough Athletic had been set up, it would be far easier to view them as a simple ‘phoenix club’ like FC Halifax Town or Chester FC. But the presence of Scarborough Town means that it’s not that simple – which seems to indicate that whether A is identical with B can sometimes depend on the existence of C. But this makes it seemingly impossible to decide whether any A is ever identical with any B, because in theory there might always be some C whose existence we don’t know about, which has a stronger claim for ‘sameness’ with B.
I’m no fan of their music but I just read a new variation on the Theseus’ Ship/Trigger’s broom paradox: The original line up of Sugababes who have all left the group at different points over the years have formed a new group, and Sugababes now doesn’t contain any original members. So who are the real Sugababes?!
I think the paradox is at one remove really complicated, and also really simple. Sure, when you get into the philosophical nuts and bolts of identity, you find it very difficult to posit what something ‘is’ let alone whether it is the same as something else, or merely similar.
The way we resolve this is through shared and reasonably settled ‘knowledge’ about identity. Whilst you can posit that such is the rate of cellular regeneration that I’m not me from one day to the next, but whilst I hold myself to be me, and critically everyone for whom that statement has meaning agrees, then I’m me. If everyone else takes a different view as to who I am from me, then that is a problem beloved of fiction writers.
Which is to say that in footballing terms, whilst a club has many different components of identity, when the people who held that the club’s identity was x and gave that identity force and meaning change their view, then those of us who had less involvement in the construction of common knowledge should change our view accordingly.
The club’s badge, players, stadium, colours and name might change, but as long as the people who considered it to have x identity before any change hold that any change isn’t material, then we can continue to hold that the identity of x is unchanged.
At its heart here is some kind of democratic dimension to knowledge formation. To take the Scarborough Town example, it seems to me (and correct me if I’m wrong here) that many more people hold SAFC as a continuation than STFC (just as they did with Enfield Town prior to this back in 2000) and so those of us for whom it really doesn’t matter that much should take note of the fact that more people who gave Scarborough FC its continent identity have transferred identification to SAFC; if no-one can can be said to objectively correct, a wisdom of crowds approach seems much the better approach.
Which is to say very simply then – the issue of what is the real club is simply resolved by reference to where most people are who gave Wimbledon FC its identity, and the answer to that is AFC Wimbledon, but some considerable distance.
The reference to the replacement of cells within the body is interesting – we recognise that there is a constant, DNA, which regenerates you – who you are does not change.
If a piece of you is cut out, chances are the wound will heal over, albeit with scar tissue. The piece removed was a part of you but will never again resemble the whole you.
Fans are the DNA of a club. They can, if a piece is lost, heal or regenerate the club. That piece, although of the club, can never resemble the original, although it can of course be transplanted into another body.
Interesting and articulate article and comments.
Simplified – I asked Dickie Guy and he told me AFC Wimbledon is the continuation. Game over.
Longer version, the people that tended the shrub, visited the shrub, paid for its upkeep and loved it all still revere in the same way the one grown from the cutting.
It’s all about collective memories – a club is its fans. The ghosts of those that cheered it before with a definable thread of continuity. Moreover – those that did follow to MK were employees. Those who had previously helped pay those wages didn’t. In short, when it came down to choice, thousands decided what ship was the same and what was new.
Ultimately AFC Wimbledon seek to be “Wimbledon’s” football club and to continue representing the area the original club played in and for in 1889. MK Cons seek to do no such thing and that, along with their “2004″ , tells me there is only one claim to the title “Wimbledon” (and let’s not lose sight of the obvious, only one club actually bears that name).
It’s just like when the last original member of the Sugababes left the band. Were they really the Sugababes after that point? I still haven’t decided.