In his latest column for Spiked Online, self-confessed
Chelsea-hater Duleep Allirajah asks that rival fans hate us for all
the right and irrational reasons.
Now lets get just one thing straight: I hate Chelsea. Why?
Probably because all the irritating wannabe bovver boys at my south
London school supported Chelsea. Admittedly its not a particularly
rational explanation but then football allegiances are never very
rational. I support Chelsea because of their excellent business
plan. It doesnt really work like that, does it?
But while I dislike Chelsea for largely parochial reasons, I am
also growing rather sick of the increasingly vocal breed of nouveau
Chelsea-haters. A cursory scan of football websites and message
boards will reveal countless anti-Chelsea screeds. Chelsea are the
equivalent of a man who has never given his wife a bunch of
flowers, and who goes down the pub with his mates on Valentines
Day. Chelsea are the death of footballing romance, writes Paul
Tomkins on the Football365 website. If Chelsea are not being
accused of buying success, then its tapping up other clubs
players, or playing unattractive football, or making the
Premiership predictable and dull.
But it isnt just embittered rival fans who resent Chelseas newly
acquired riches. FIFA president Sepp Blatter recently complained
about individuals with little or no history of interest in the
game, who have happened upon football as a means of serving some
hidden agenda
and proceed to throw pornographic amounts of money at
it. Blatter warned that this new money could suffocate a sport
that has 1.3billion active followers around the world. He didnt
name any names but you dont need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out
which particular oligarch he was referring to.
It was inevitable that Chelseas wealth would breed resentment. The
only surprise is that its taken so long to develop. When Roman
Abramovich first bought the club, the predominant complaint was
that he was a foreign tycoon, probably with dodgy Russian mafia
connections, who would treat Chelsea as a plaything which would
eventually be discarded. Chelsea were initially shielded from the
full force of rival fans rouble-envy mainly because they were not
Manchester United. In fact, Chelseas ascendance last season was
positively welcomed because they were undermining the hegemony of
Manchester United who, for the last decade, had been universally
loathed for their wealth and success.
Sections of the press did start to turn against Chelsea last year
after a series of tapping allegations involving Peter Kenyon, but
it took longer for ordinary fans to turn Chelsea-phobic. When they
secured the title in April, journalist David Hills complained that
the antipathy towards Chelsea that existed among the Guardians
football writers was still not shared by its readership. In
February we ran a poll to see whether we were right to feel this
way, asking Football Unlimited readers if Chelsea were now more
hated than Man United, wrote Hills. It was close for a while, but
13,245 votes later, the split was 15 per cent Chelsea, 52 per cent
United.
However, now that it is clear that United are a declining power,
the green-eyed Anyone But United sentiment does appear to be
transferring to Chelsea. But, whereas United were seen as the
embodiment of the corporate takeover of football the giant
supermarket that was squeezing the life out of the little
high-street greengrocer the hatred of Chelsea is slightly
different. Sepp Blatters reference to new money is particularly
telling. It chimes with the sentiments of rival fans who chant
Chelsea have got no history. United were hated for their
relentless success, their arrogance and their glory-hunting fans
who, heaven forbid, werent local, but nobody questioned their
status as a big club. United, like Liverpool before them, were
seen as part of English footballs aristocracy.
Chelsea, however, are seen as vulgar nouveau-riche upstarts. It is
bad enough that Chelsea have come into new money but what is worse
is their loadsamoney look at my wad attitude and utter lack of
respect for footballs time-honoured conventions. Whether it is
Jose Mourinho publicly criticising referee Anders Frisk (and
driving the bronzed prima donna into retirement) or Peter Kenyon
tapping up Ashley Cole so indiscreetly, Chelsea are seen to be
thumbing their noses at the football establishment.
Im not suggesting that we should all worship at the feet of Jose
Mourinho or wax our pecs in tribute to his smooth-chested players
just that we should detest Chelsea for the right reasons.
Deep-seated hatred of their west London postcode; irrational
prejudice against any team that plays in royal blue; allergic
reaction to hearing their irritating anthem Blue is the colour;
or simple honest loathing of a club whose celebrity fans include
those public school mockneys Johnny Vaughan and David Baddiel
these are all perfectly honourable reasons for despising
Chelsea.
However, the charge that Chelsea have no history i.e., they are
not part of footballs old boys network is a pathetic reason. So
what if there are fewer ancestral portraits hanging in their
boardroom or that their trophy cabinet is relatively bare? What has
history got to do with anything? Having an illustrious history does
not mean your club has a God-given right to sit at the top table
ask Sheffield Wednesday. Hatred of Chelsea is not intrinsically
objectionable but theres no excuse for old-fashioned
snobbery.
