England’s identity: fans sing football’s coming home, but what is home?

Jul 8, 2021

4 min

Dr Daniel Fitzpatrick


Sport matters to national identity. The pageantry of flags, emblems and anthems (both official and unofficial) load sport with symbolism and imagery of the nation. One of the key reasons governments spend billions of dollars to host sporting mega events is to build or reinforce a sense of national identity.


However, national identity is fluid, not fixed. Sport offers an arena in which national identity can adapt and change.


In England, where many civic institutions represent Britain as a whole, the men’s national football team is particularly important to English identity. In 1996, the country hosted the European Championships tournament. This coincided with the so-called awakening of English national identity, symbolised by the supplanting of the union flag with the waving of the Saint George’s cross at Wembley football stadium and the singing of a new fans’ anthem, Three Lions (Football’s Coming Home).


In recent years, celebrating Englishness has often been linked to a narrow and exclusive imagery, which is said to marginalise ethnic minorities and those with a more socially liberal perspective, and has been tied to a football culture often associated with hooliganism. Yet now, as England have reached the finals of the Euros for the first time, the team and its manager, Gareth Southgate, have put football at the centre of a debate about English identity for the opposite reason. Is a more proud, inclusive version of Englishness emerging?


Multicultural teams in a globalised world


A recent graphic promoted by the UK’s Museum of Migration shows a stark picture of what England’s starting 11 would look like without immigration over the past two generations. With only three players without a parent or grandparent born overseas, the national team is held up as a microcosm of a diverse, multicultural population (although the absence of England’s significant Asian communities is glaring).

To paraphrase historian Eric Hobsbawm, the imagined community of multicultural England seems more real as a team of eleven named people. As Southgate said before the 2018 World Cup: “In England we have spent a bit of time being a bit lost as to what our modern identity is. I think as a team we represent that modern identity and hopefully people can connect with us.”


In many ways, this is old news. Sport in England and the UK (akin to national identity) has always been a multinational affair, owing to its colonial ties with the countries of the former British Empire. Whether it was Jamaican-born John Barnes scoring against Brazil in 1984, Kevin Pietersen (South African born) winning the Ashes in 2005, or Greg Rusedski (Canadian born), Johanna Konta (Australian born) or, more recently, Emma Raducanu (Canadian born) performing at Wimbledon, British sport has long reflected its colonial history and the tensions and contingencies that brings.


Nor is this issue unique to England or the UK. In 1998, the French World Cup-winning team was both celebrated and attacked by pro- and anti-migrant voices for the multiracial makeup of their “rainbow team”, as a large proportion of its players – including its star Zinedine Zidane – had ethnic backgrounds in former French colonies in Africa and the Caribbean. The imperial legacies of Belgium, Netherlands and Portugal are also evident in the diversity of their respective squads.


Beyond former colonial powers, most national teams are now more ethnically diverse than they were 30 years ago, due to globalisation and the naturalisation of foreign athletes. England’s quarter-final opponents Ukraine have fielded Brazilian born players Júnior Moraes and Marlos this year, and their captain Andriy Yarmolenko was born in Russia. In addition to historical, cultural and linguistic connections, there is a clear performance imperative: teams that embrace ethnic diversity often outperform teams that don’t.


‘Englishness’ and immigration


What is significant about this moment is the wider political context in the UK – particularly the uncertainty over what is “English” national identity and, critically, what should it be.


All this comes amid the fray of polarised debate over the issues of immigration and race in England, and the UK more generally. The prospect of a tighter, points-based system of immigration, which has now been introduced, was one of the key themes of the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum. Had such a system been installed several decades ago, the graphic about the English team’s immigration history may well have been approaching reality. And without the talents of Raheem Sterling, Kalvin Phillips, Kieran Trippier and others, England fans may well have been lamenting another disappointing tournament campaign.


Amid the euphoria of reaching a final, there remains much soul-searching, as well as division, among the English on the key questions of “who are we” and “what exactly do we want to celebrate”?


Fans, quite rightly, are celebrating the achievements of the whole English team, as well as the activism of individual heroes like Sterling and Marcus Rashford. Yet while many fans embrace the diversity of the team, the booing of their own players taking the knee against racism – a gesture that originated in the US – shows that identity politics can still divide, on and off the pitch.


In spite of the positive image of diverse modern England projected by this group of players and manager, it is unrealistic to expect football to navigate the current “culture war” and be able to consolidate a more progressive, inclusive vision of Englishness – at least on its own. Other civic, and possibly political, institutions are needed if England is going to mean more than “the 11 men in white shirts at Wembley”.


Notwithstanding how people identify themselves in terms of their nationality, research shows that both hosting a football tournament and making successful progression through it can have a positive impact on national feelings of happiness and well-being. If England beat Italy at Wembley on Sunday and win Euro 2020, a feel-good factor will inevitably abound, which may be a springboard to unite a country that is still deeply divided.

Connect with:
Dr Daniel Fitzpatrick

Dr Daniel Fitzpatrick

Lecturer, Politics and International Relations

Dr Fitzpatrick's research explores theories of the state, nationalism and identity, and higher education policy and reform.

Political Party SystemsPolitics of Sport and FootballPublic PolicyBritish PoliticsRegulation

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

4 min

Aston University study reveals the illusion of ‘dazzle’ paint on World War I battleships

The Zealandia in wartime dazzle paint. Image: Australian National Maritime Museum on The Commons Geometric ‘dazzle’ camouflage was used on ships in WWI to confuse enemy onlookers as to the direction and speed of the ship Timothy Meese and Samantha Strong reanalysed historic data from 1919 and found that the ‘horizon effect’ is more effective for confusion When viewing a ship at distance, it often appears to be travelling along the horizon, regardless of its actual direction of travel – this is the ‘horizon effect’. A new analysis of 105-year-old data on the effectiveness of ‘dazzle’ camouflage on battleships in World War I by Aston University researchers Professor Tim Meese and Dr Samantha Strong has found that while dazzle had some effect, the ‘horizon effect’ had far more influence when it came to confusing the enemy. During World War I, navies experimented with painting ships with ‘dazzle’ camouflage – geometric shapes and stripes – in an attempt to confuse U-boat captains as to the speed and direction of travel of the ships and make them harder to attack. The separate ‘horizon effect’ is when a person looks at a ship in the distance, and it appears to be travelling along the horizon, regardless of its actual direction of travel. Ships travelling at an angle of up to 25° relative to the horizon appear to be travelling directly along it. Even with those at a greater angle to the horizon, onlookers significantly underestimate the angle. Despite widespread use of dazzle camouflage, it was not until 1919 that a proper, quantitative study was carried out, by MIT naval architecture and marine engineering student Leo Blodgett for his degree thesis. He painted model ships in dazzle patterns and placed them in a mechanical test theatre with a periscope, like those used by U-boat captains, to measure how much onlookers’ estimations of the ships’ direction of travel deviated from their actual direction of travel. Professor Meese and Dr Strong realised that while the data collected by Blodgett was useful, his methods of experimental design fell short of modern standards. He’d found that dazzle camouflage worked, but the Aston University team suspected that dazzle alone was not responsible for the results seen, cleaned the data and designed new analysis to better understand what it really shows. Dr Strong, a senior lecturer at Aston University’s School of Optometry, said: “It's necessary to have a control condition to draw firm conclusions, and Blodgett's report of his own control was too vague to be useful. We ran our own version of the experiment using photographs from his thesis and compared the results across the original dazzle camouflage versions and versions with the camouflage edited out. Our experiment worked well. Both types of ships produced the horizon effect, but the dazzle imposed an additional twist.” If the errors made by the onlookers in the perceived direction of travel of the ship were entirely due to the ‘twist’ on perspective caused by dazzle paintwork, the bow, or front, of the ship, would always be seen to twist away from its true direction. However, Professor Meese and Dr Strong instead showed that when the true direction was pointing away from the observer, the bow was often perceived to twist towards the observer instead. Their detailed analysis showed a small effect of twist from the dazzle camouflage but a much larger one from the horizon effect. Sometimes these effects were in competition, sometimes in harmony. Professor Meese, a professor of vision science at the School of Optometry, said: “We knew already about the twist and horizon effects from contemporary computer-based work with colleagues at Abertay University. The remarkable finding here is that these same two effects, in similar proportions, are clearly evident in participants familiar with the art of camouflage deception, including a lieutenant in a European navy. This adds considerable credibility to our earlier conclusions by showing that the horizon effect – which has nothing to do with dazzle – was not overcome by those best placed to know better. “This is a clear case where visual perception is more powerful than knowledge. In fact, back in the dazzle days, the horizon effect was not identified at all, and Blodgett's measurements of perceptual bias were attributed entirely to the camouflage, deceiving the deceivers.” Professor Meese and Dr Strong say that more work is required to fully understand how dazzle might have increased perceptual uncertainty of direction and speed but also the geometry behind torpedo-aiming tactics that might have supported some countermeasures. Visit https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695241312316 to read the full paper in i-Perception.

1 min

Lab grown meat could be on sale in UK within two years - but what is lab-grown meat?

Meat, dairy and sugar grown in a lab could be on sale in the UK for human consumption for the first time within two years, sooner than expected. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is looking at how it can speed up the approval process for lab-grown foods. Such products are grown from cells in small chemical plants. UK firms have led the way in the field scientifically but feel they have been held back by the current regulations. Aston University has been working on cultivated meat - find out more about what lab-made meat is  made of and how it is created in the podcast Breaking Down Barriers on Spotify   https://open.spotify.com/episode/7bFy1gr2LJCwiRLPAT9Hml For further details contact Nicola Jones, Press and Communications Manager, on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk

4 min

Aston University collaboration to develop injectable paste which could treat bone cancer

A £110k grant from Orthopaedic Research UK is to help to conduct the work Study is a collaboration with The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital Researchers to use gallium-doped bioglass to produce a substance with anticancer and bone regenerative properties. Professor Richard Martin Aston University is collaborating in research to develop an injectable paste which could treat bone cancer. The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital has secured a £110,000 grant from Orthopaedic Research UK to conduct the work. The project will see researchers at the hospital and the University use gallium-doped bioglass to produce a substance with anticancer and bone regenerative properties. If proved effective it could be used to treat patients with primary and metastatic cancer. Gallium is a metallic element that when combined with bioactive glass can kill cancerous cells that remain when a tumour is removed. It also accelerates the regeneration of the bone and prevents bacterial contamination. A recent study led by Aston University found that bioactive glasses doped with the metal have a 99 percent success rate of eliminating cancerous cells. Dr Lucas Souza, research lab manager at the hospital’s Dubrowsky Lab is leading the project. He said : “Advances in treatment of bone cancer have reached a plateau over the past 40 years, in part due to a lack of research studies into treatments and the complexity and challenges that come with treating bone tumours. Innovative and effective therapeutic approaches are needed, and this grant provides vital funds for us to continue our research into the use of gallium-doped bioglass in the treatment of bone cancer.” Professor Richard Martin who is based in Aston University’s College of Engineering and Physical Sciences added: “The injectable paste will function as a drug delivery system for localised delivery of anticancer gallium ions and bisphosphonates whilst regenerating bone. Our hypothesis is that this will promote rapid bone formation and will prevent cancer recurrence by killing residual cancer cells and regulating local osteoclastic activity.” It is hoped the new approach will be particularly useful in reducing cancer recurrence and implant site infections. It is also thought that it will reduce implant failure rates in cases of bone tumours where large resections for complete tumour removal is either not possible, or not recommended. This could include incidents when growths are located too close to vital organs or when major surgery will inflict more harm than benefit. It could also be used in combination with minimally invasive treatments such as cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation to manage metastatic bone lesions. Dr Souza added: “The proposed biomaterial has the potential to drastically improve treatment outcomes of bone tumour patients by reducing cancer recurrence, implant-site infection rates, and implant failure rates leading to reduced time in hospital beds, less use of antibiotics, and fewer revision surgeries. Taken together, these benefits could improve survival rates, functionality and quality of life of bone cancer patients.” Other members of the team include the hospital’s Professor Adrian Gardner, director of research and development and Mr Jonathan Stevenson, orthopaedic oncology and arthroplasty consultant, Dr Eirini Theodosiou from Aston University and Professor Joao Lopes from the Brazilian Aeronautics Institute of Technology. ENDS About the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is one of the largest specialist orthopaedic units in Europe, offering planned orthopaedic surgery to people locally, nationally, and internationally. The Trust is an accredited Veteran Aware organisation and a Disability Confident Leader. Ranked 8th in the 2024 UK Inclusive Top 50 Employers list, the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital is the highest-ranking NHS organisation for its commitment to diversity and inclusion. The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital has a vibrant research portfolio of clinical trials, observational studies and laboratory studies exploring new treatment options, new approaches in rehabilitation and therapy, and new medical devices. This research is delivered by our researchers and clinicians spread across the Knowledge Hub, our home for education and research, and the Dubrowsky Regenerative Medicine Laboratory, a state-of-the-art lab opened in 2019. About Aston University For over a century, Aston University’s enduring purpose has been to make our world a better place through education, research and innovation, by enabling our students to succeed in work and life, and by supporting our communities to thrive economically, socially and culturally. Aston University’s history has been intertwined with the history of Birmingham, a remarkable city that once was the heartland of the Industrial Revolution and the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. Born out of the First Industrial Revolution, Aston University has a proud and distinct heritage dating back to our formation as the School of Metallurgy in 1875, the first UK College of Technology in 1951, gaining university status by Royal Charter in 1966, and becoming The Guardian University of the Year in 2020. Building on our outstanding past, we are now defining our place and role in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (and beyond) within a rapidly changing world. For media inquiries in relation to this release, contact Nicola Jones, Press & Communications Manager on 07941194168 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk

View all posts