A folly to forget the fan for all seasons

O VER THE past 30 or 40 years English football fans appear to have changed in a far more fundamental fashion than English football itself. While the game has clung doggedly to most of its traditional virtues, those watching it have been transformed from swaying masses of everyday men into an audience that is not only more comfortably accommodated but is likely to be younger, richer, more professional and to contain a much higher proportion of women.

We shouldn't be amazed at this. The same thing could be said of most pubs. Such is progress, and when you take into consideration the advances made by the male deodorant industry in the same period, football crowds are undoubtedly sweeter and more wholesome to be among. Mind you, another survey conducted by a travel company revealed last week that 40 per cent of the men would rather go on holiday with Eric Cantona than with the supermodels Cindy Crawford or Claudia Schiffer. We may be dealing with more profound changes in male football watchers than we can imagine.

One aspect of the game, however, that seems to have stood solidly against the developing world is the relationship between the clubs and their followers. Over three-quarters of those interviewed thought that success for their clubs far outweighed the importance of success for their national team.

I fancy that this reaction would not be so overwhelming in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, but it supports my view that the importance of England's standing in international football is not as vital to the game as many think. It has an importance, obviously, but as a measure of the health of the English football its value is diminished by the difficulties that face anyone attempting to translate our domestic strengths into international football. Terry Venables may yet manage it but no one should underestimate what a massive problem it presents.

While it is true that the technical deficiencies of our players can be exposed just as cruelly at club level, the strength of the game remains steadfastly in the hands of the clubs. Their awareness of this led to the formation of the Premier League, which will increase in power and influence and will lead English football to the highest accomplishments, with imported players having a crucial role.

While they have been equipping themselves for this vital role, clubs have caused alarm by the fierce way in which they have sharpened their commercial approach. Top fixtures have been shuffled across four days to give television greater access and prepare the way to take maximum advantage of pay TV, admission prices have rocketed over the past couple of seasons and the marketing of club merchandise has created an unmerciful attack on the pockets of club devotees.

This hardening of attitude to those upon whose loyalty they depend has been accompanied by a sensitivity that has led to a rash of local reporters being banned from clubs for daring to criticise activities both on and off the field. Brighton have withdrawn reporting facilities from the Evening Argus. Newcastle United banned the Newcastle Journal because of what they considered to be the caustic style of their correspondent.

At Sheffield United, the freelance Alan Biggs was banned by the chairman Reg Brealey. Thankfully, United's manager, Dave Bassett, held a press conference in the car park so Biggs could attend and a week later the chairman was gone and the freelance allowed back. Carlisle's owner, Michael Knighton, recently banned the local paper and set up his own, the Borders on Sunday. It lasted four weeks. Perhaps the football reporting was not objective enough. The redoubtable Karren Brady at Birmingham City has banned the Birmingham Post and the local BBC station and threatened a boycott of the Birmingham Evening Mail.

These outbursts are usually self-defeating. The journalists merely sneak into the crowd and their reports carry an added piquancy to a sympathetic readership. Clubs make a big error if they attempt to control their local media but it is not a new phenomenon. I was a victim of it myself in the far distant past.

One of the changes in the fabric of our football life yet to be appreciated is that the growth of television and radio has provided the game with much greater exposure nationally but has tended to fragment the local coverage. The big provincial evening papers used to be the dominating presence but, in most cases, those newspapers have smaller readerships and less space to devote, but they are still important to the clubs.

Whatever survey you read, the lack of proper communication with fans is invariably an important item. Supporters want to know what is going on and they would prefer to hear from an independent source they trust. The local newspaper should fulfil that role but it is becoming more difficult as clubs become more concerned with marketability.

The football fan might have changed into a younger, more affluent figure, but that also makes him or her a more discerning customer. I trust clubs won't make the mistake of neglecting them like they did their long-suffering and long-forgotten forebears.

P RINCE Naseem Hamed is bound for the upper reach- es of boxing glory and we wish he could carry with him our unconditional goodwill. Unfortunately, Prince Charming he isn't. His destruction of Steve Robinson to take the WBO featherweight title last weekend was utterly convincing but the manner of it is to be regretted. A good and honest champion was deposed in the most despicable way.

It began weeks before Robinson climbed into what we can only call the circus ring. Since he became champion, Robinson has been an asset to the good name of boxing. He made seven successful defences in just over two years and was on honeymoon when he was ordered to fight Hamed, who had been abruptly raised from the super- bantamweight to the featherweight division by the WBO despite having never fought at that weight.

It was obviously nothing to do with the fact that looming in the super- bantamweights was the lethal Mexican Marco Antonio Barrera, who is unbeaten in 36 fights. Robinson, meanwhile, had four weeks to prepare for the fight, which was half his normal preparation schedule. Added to which, he was fighting for a fee not compatible with the importance of the fight. His challenger received about four times as much.

His discomfort was compounded when he faced the ugly taunting that is part of Hamed's game-plan. Robinson is a straightforward man and his explanation to his camp for not sticking to his planned tactics was that he was transfixed by what was issuing from his opponent's mouth. You'll always get good excuses from losers but no one who saw that fight could have been happy at Hamed's antics, which I believe they call showboating.

It would please Hamed's admirers if in future he let his talent speak for him. Perhaps he could think about it on a showboat to China.