Riot Van

Every football journalist seems to have become a sociologist all of a sudden and don't seem to be tiring of telling us how footballers behaviour on the pitch influences society, especially this week when we can see precisely where their pernicious influence leads.  Forget social inequality, lack of social mobility, government cutting services for young people, rampant consumerism meaning one can only be if one has; forget all that.  Footballers arguing with referees on a Saturday afternoon leads to rioting in the streets.

Is this not self-evidently rubbish?  Does it even need taking down?  If you listen to politicians there is "no excuse" for the rioting.  Any attempt to explain the rioting is considered an attempt to condone the rioting.  We can't say that poverty or lack of opportunity causes the conditions for riots, but every time a piece of on-pitch indiscipline is mentioned it has to prefaced with, "in the light of the events of the last week..." and it is taken as a piece of common-sense.

This is a good time to re-link to this piece, research showing footballers aren't role-models:

Their conduct on and off the pitch may sometimes cause parents to fret, but it seems the notion that footballers such as Wayne Rooney and David Beckham are role models for children is a myth.Far from looking to star players as role models, research has suggested that youngsters are more likely to take behavioural cues from family friends or teachers.Simon Brownhill, an education expert at the University of Derby, said children aged eight or below were unable to grasp the concept of role models.In a survey of 178 men working in nurseries and primary schools, Brownhill found that footballers such as Rooney and others from the Premier League's elite, thought to be idolised by many children, actually have little influence. "The results from this study suggest that children aged eight or younger are still finding their feet in the world and do not have a clear understanding of what a role model is," he said.

So yes, it's all very nice for sports journalists' sense of self-importance to link footballers with rioting, makes them feel relevant, but can we not get a sense of perspective.  Joey Barton falling over under a very weak slap from Gervinho does not lead to rioting.

(as an aside, and it's only because of the stupidity of their arguments that I'm mentioning this as a counter-argument) the riots came just before the start of the season.  After a summer of no football. That's a causal link isn't it.  Might as well blame the boredom created by the off-season.  Might as well blame the example of politicians with their expenses being an example of grabbing whatever you can without restraint or entitlement, or bankers.  And yes, these examples are crass and simplistic - but not as stupid as footballers causing riots)