<論説>財政規則論争にみるフットボール界のガバナンス : 世紀転換期イングランドにおけるフットボールの社会的意義

Abstract

本稿は、財政規則論争の言説分析を通じて、フットボール界のガバナンスのあり方とそれを支える独自のスポーツの論理を精査し、世紀転換期イングランドにおけるフットボールの社会的意義について考察した。財政規則論争は、フットボール・リーグの運営を象徴する移籍規則と最大給与規則という二つの財政規則をめぐって、一九〇八年から一〇年にかけて争われた論争である。そこでは、フットボール・アソシエイションや選手組合がフリー・トレードの原則に基づいて規則の廃止を主張したのに対して、チャールズ・サトクリフらフットボール・リーグ運営委員がプロ・フットボールもスポーツであると主張することで財政規則を正当化していた。そして、アスレティック・ニュース紙のようなスポーツ・メディアの報道は、観衆の財政規則に対する支持をひきだし統制的なガバナンスの確立を後押しするとともに、論争がフットボール界の枠を超えた社会問題となっていくことを促した。こうしたスポーツの論理に基づく正当化のレトリックとその影響力を拡大するメディアの存在は、フットボール界がコレクティヴィズム的な統制の理念を社会に浸透させる「回路」として機能することを可能としたのである。

This article aims to examine the governance of the world of football through a discourse analysis of the financial disputes of 1908-10 arid to explain the social meaning of football in England at the tum of the 19th to 20th century. It was during the period of the turn of the 19th-20th century that association football was professionalized and grew into a national pastime. The foundation of the Football League made football a form of commercial leisure, which was accompanied by the development of the sports media. Professional football was managed mainly through two financial regulations, the retain and transfer system and the maximum wage system. At the same time, these regulations were criticized by the players' union, rich clubs and the Football Association (FA). This confrontation between the League and the FA broke into a financial dispute in 1908. In the financial dispute, the FA insisted that professional football should be operated entirely as a business venture and managed on the principles of free trade. They argued for the abolition of financial regulation using the rhetoric of free enterprise. In contrast, the League argued that professional football should be considered sport as much as amateur football was. Using the rhetoric of sport, the League advocated financial rules in order to keep football a sport divorced from selfish business interests. They asked for the strict governance of the football world. Ultimately, the dispute came to an end almost as the League wished, which was partly the result of the support of the media and the public. The dispute was not confined to closed meeting rooms. William Pickford, an official of the Football Association Council, and Charles Sutcliffe, a member of the Football League Management Committee, were also engaged in the controversy in columns of The Athletic News and Cyclists Journal in which they justified their positions. They recognized the importance of public support. Actually, many papers supported the League. The sporting papers, like The Athletic News, printed comments critical of the FA and the players' union. In addition, the public showed sympathy with the League. In the world of football, they sided with the employers since they paid the players as spectators or as shareholders of the clubs. Furthermore, they did not simply take the dispute as a confrontation over the manner of governance but rather consumed it as a form of entertainment. That is the reason for the public's approval of the financial regulations which allowed severe restriction of players' right. The League's rhetoric of sport was more persuasive to the public than the FA's rhetoric of business. In the end, the FA and the League compromised permitting the regulations to be maintained with only slight modification. In addition, the claim of Sutcliffe, who took the initiative in the dispute, resembled the ideas of collectivism, which recognized the need for governmental intervention in the market. In this way, the financial dispute in the football world paralleled social change in turn-of-the-century England. Moreover, as the coverage in the media grew overheated, the financial dispute became a social problem. The Times and Manchester Guardian reported the financial dispute as did the sporting papers, and even people who had no special interest in football became involved in the dispute. In summary, the financial dispute was not just a problem about the governance of the world of football; it was a matter that concerned the general idea of governance. Therefore, it can be said that football operated as a kind of "circuit" on which the new idea of governance infiltrated into English society.