Foul-weather fandom

ABSTRACT

A familiar debate in the philosophy of sport concerns the question of whether fans should seek to be partisans (those who support particular teams or individuals) or whether they should instead adopt the impartial attitude of the purist . More recently, Kyle Fruh et al. have argued in defense of fair-weather fandom, which they understand as a form of fandom that involves adopting temporary allegiances in response to non-sporting considerations. This paper will add a new form of fandom to this discussion: the foul-weather fan. While fair-weather fans adopt temporary allegiances or strengthen existing allegiances for teams when things are going well, foul-weather fans do so when things are going badly. We will argue that foul-weather fandom can be both instrumentally valuable, as it helps to protect valuable sporting institutions, and non-instrumentally valuable, as these fans display concern, empathy, or support for sporting individuals or teams that are going through tough times. We finish by discussing how a specific form of foul-weather fandom may be associated with a distinctive moral danger in putting people in positions where they may become complicit in a club’s immorality.

KEYWORDS:

• Fandom
• purist
• partisan
• fair-weather fandom
• foul-weather fandom

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in attention in the philosophy of sport on the ethics of sports fandom. This literature has developed to address several interesting and important issues such as whether it is permissible to be a fan of a sport that is causing significant damage to the health of athletes (Kadlac 2022, Ch.5; Sailors 2015; Tarver 2020; Tyler 2021) and how fans should respond to immoral behaviour associated with the sport, athlete or club they are a fan of (Archer 2021; Archer and Matheson 2019; Archer and Wojtowicz 2023), in particular when these are being used as part of a sportswashing project (Fruh, Archer, and Wojtowicz 2023).

The question that seems to have received the most scholarly attention is the question of whether it is ethical to be a partisan sports fan or whether another form of fandom is preferable. Philosophers working on this topic have defended the virtues of being a partisan (Dixon 2001; 2016, Davis 2019; Kadlac 2022), a purist (Feezell 2013, Ch. 4; Mumford 2011), a fair-weather fan (Fruh et al. 2021) and argued that none of these forms of fandom are superior to the others (Russell 2012). This discussion matters, as it aims to tell us what kind of fandom we ought to cultivate in ourselves and others.

In this paper, we will explore a form of fandom that has not yet been explored in the philosophy of sport literature: foul-weather fandom. While fair-weather fans adopt temporary allegiances for teams when things are going well, foul-weather fans adopt temporary allegiances, or strengthen existing allegiances, when things are going badly. Our first aim of this paper is to argue that this category of fandom should be included in our taxonomy of fandom and to explore the implications of doing so. Our second aim is to argue that this form of fandom has distinctive value. Foul-weather fandom can be instrumentally valuable for protecting valuable sporting institutions, such as sporting clubs threatened with bankruptcy or liquidation. Moreover, foul-weather fandom also has non-instrumental value, as foul-weather fans display concern, empathy, or support for sporting individuals or teams that are going through tough times. We take this concern and empathy to be valuable for its own sake, in addition to the valuable ends that it promotes.

Our discussion will proceed as follows. First, in Section One, we will explain the concept of the fair-weather fan. We will then, in Section Two, explain the foul-weather fan as the mirror image of the fair-weather fan and make the case for our claim that we should make room for this form of fandom in our taxonomy of the various forms that fandom can take. In Section Three, we explain the distinctive value of this form of fandom. We finish, in Section Four, by discussing how a specific form of foul-weather fandom may be associated with a distinctive moral danger in putting people in a position where they may become complicit in a club’s immorality.

Fair-weather fandom

The philosophical discussion of sports fandom has tended to focus on two kinds of fans. First there are partisan fans, these are fans who support a particular team or athlete (Dixon 2001, 2016).¹ These fans have a strong attachment to a particular team or athlete and watch sport from a point of view of competitive interest. Their primary desire in watching sport is to see their team win rather than to see an excellent contest.

Purists on the other hand, are those who love the sport but do not form allegiances to particular teams or individuals (Mumford 2011). A purist will simply want to see sporting excellence being displayed.² They will only care about the result of the match insofar as it does justice to the sporting contest. They may, for example, want the team that has played best or most beautifully to win, or they may simply want no team to win through cheating or foul play.

A familiar form of fandom that does not fit neatly into either category is that of the fair-weather fan. These fans do support a particular team or athlete but lack the loyalty of the hardcore partisan fan (Dixon 2001). While partisans are dedicated to supporting their team, even when they are on a losing streak or playing horribly, fair-weather fans will come to support their team when they are winning but will stay away when the team is not successful.³ They are someone whose allegiance will quickly change to that of whoever is successful at any given moment. A clear example would be someone who supported Manchester United during their dominance of English football in the 1990’s and 2000’s but stopped doing so when this dominance ended.

A different conception of fair-weather fandom is defended by Kyle Fruh et al. (2021, 264). They view fair-weather fans as those whose, ‘allegiance is due to a (perhaps fleeting) alignment between a team or a sport and extra-sport considerations’. On this account, a fair-weather fan is someone who forms a temporary attachment to a sports team or athlete for reasons that are not connected to sport. This may be because it enables them to enjoy watching a match with their friends or as a source of diversion on a day when they do not have other things to do. This temporary allegiance can also be the result of responding positively to the values that a team represents at a particular time. For example, soon after the end of apartheid, many South Africans took a temporary interest in the South African rugby team because they saw this team as representing the values of a united South Africa.

On the face of it, these are two competing accounts of fair-weather fandom. While both hold the allegiance of fair-weather fans to be temporary, for Dixon the fandom responds to sporting success while for Fruh et al. (2021) it responds to factors outside of sport. We will understand the concept of fair-weather fandom as including both kinds of fans. On our view, at the core of the concept of fair-weather fandom are two features. First, this is a conditional form of fandom, meaning that some features need to be present in order for the fandom to be present. These may be features of the object of fandom’s sporting performance (e.g. the team is winning), features of the object of fandom that are external to sport (e.g. the team is representing positive values), or features external to the object of fandom (e.g. I’m visiting a friend who had been given free tickets). Our interest in this paper, though, will be on fair-weather fandom which is conditional on features of the object of fandom, such as a team performing well or a succeeding in representing a community’s values effectively.

The second feature of fair-weather fandom is that the conditions in which it will be present are positive ones, meaning that the fandom will be present for as long as the team or athlete is succeeding in some way.

While fair-weather fandom is typically defined as being a temporary allegiance, on our view this is not a necessary feature of this form of fandom. Rather, the conditional nature of this form of fandom makes it a fragile form of fandom, that can easily cease as soon as the conditions cease to be present. If the conditions never cease though, then the fandom may persist despite this fragility. Of course, for most, if not all, real cases the success is likely to end eventually, particularly if the success is a sporting one. In theory, though, one could be a fair-weather fan and never stop supporting the team, providing that the team’s success continues indefinitely.

Our account of fair-weather fandom as being a form of allegiance that is conditional on the object of fandom containing certain positive features accommodates what we take to be the core of the concept. It can also accommodate both Dixon’s and Fruh et al.’s accounts of fair-weather fandom, these accounts simply focus on different positive features of the object of fandom, one on sporting success and the other on non-sporting success.

Fair-weather fans should also be distinguished from purists. Unlike the purist, the fair-weather fan will root for a particular team. The fair-weather Manchester United fan may be genuinely disappointed when they fail to win a match, even if they lost to a better team who played more fairly. This disappointment may not last for long though, as their allegiance may only be a temporary one.

Fair-weather fans are also not necessarily the same as casual fans. Casual fans will support their team with a low level of intensity, but their support may stay at a consistent level regardless of how the team is doing (Fruh et al. 2021, 265). These fans may consistently attend five games a year regardless of what league the team is in or what values it is embodying. In contrast, fair-weather fans will support the team when the positive conditions are met but will stop doing so when these are absent.

Before moving on to consider foul-weather fandom, it is worth noting that these forms of fandom are not fully discrete categories but rather matters of degree. Someone may be more or less partisan in their fandom. Very partisan fans may be completely incapable of recognizing excellent play from opposition teams, while moderate partisans will root for their team whilst also being able to appreciate the opposition’s talents. Similarly, someone may be a very fair-weather fan in that they only go to matches when their team is successful and never goes when their team is struggling. Others may be much more moderate fair-weather fans in that they go a bit more often to support their team in times of success and somewhat less often in times of struggle.

Viewing fair-weather fandom as a conditional form of fandom also pushes us to distinguish this form of fandom from another forms of fandom that have been outlined in the literature. First, the moderate partisan, who Dixon (2016, 233) understands as fans who support a particular team (so are partisans) but whose support for the team will be withdrawn if that team engages in, ‘cheating, violence, and other tactics that subvert the athletic excellence that sport is designed to test’. Second, the moderate purist, who has no long-term attachments to particular teams but may find themselves rooting for certain teams for a short period for a variety of reasons, perhaps because their winning the match may make for greater drama, perhaps because of the particular players or coaches involved with the team (Feezell 2013, 88–89). The attachments that arise in this case are those that stem from an initial purist appreciation of the game.

Distinguishing the fair-weather fan from these two forms of fandom is more tricky, as these are both forms of conditional fandom. The moderate partisan will abandon their fandom when their team engages in unsporting behavior that undermines the spirit of the game. The moderate purist’s connections to particular teams are perhaps too weak to even be called ties but are certainly conditional as well. They may root for a team in one match when this will provide the best dramatic narrative but this tells us nothing about who they will root for in the next match this team plays. Rooting for the team here, then, is conditional on this team’s victory providing the best form of drama. Similarly, the moderate purist may root for a team so long as a particular coach or player is involved but stop doing so when they leave.

Our understanding of the fair-weather fan overlaps with both of these existing categories of fandom. Both the moderate partisan and the moderate purist are conditional forms of fandom. The moderate partisan as Dixon describes them is clearly a form of fair-weather fan on our understanding, as their support is conditional on the team doing well (or at least not doing badly) at playing in line with the spirit of the game. Some moderate purists may also count as a fair-weather fan, as their support may be is conditional on the team doing a good job of advancing certain purist ends (like creating the best dramatic narrative).

Given the overlap between these categories, we might worry that the concept of the fair-weather fan – or at least our understanding of the concept – is not a helpful addition to this discussion. Rather than providing a concept that neatly differentiates this form of fandom from those already discussed in the literature, it might instead be thought to add greater confusion to the discussion, by articulating a concept that overlaps with existing ones.

We have two responses to this worry. First, the concept of the fair-weather fan is one that is not only found within the philosophy of sport but is also a familiar concept to sports fans themselves and the wider public. There is value, we think, in seeking to understand the concepts that are actually used in sport and society more generally, rather than focusing only on concepts that are only discussed within the academic literature. Given this, we it is worthwhile attempting to understand what fair-weather fandom is, even if the definition that we give overlaps with existing academic concepts.

Second, the majority of discussions within the philosophy of sports fandom assume a scale of fandom, like that represented in Figure 1, which runs from those whose who love a particular team (partisans) and those who love a particular sport (purists).

Figure 1. Partisan/Purist fan Scale.

This certainly makes sense as a scale on which to compare different forms of fandom but is not the only scale on which fandom can be evaluated. We might also compare people on a scale with those who love a particular team strongly at one end of the scale (diehard fans) and those who have no attachment to a team at the other. This scale is represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Partisan fan/Non-fan Scale.

This may look superficially like the first figure until we note that the category of people who do not love a sports team is a much wider category than that of the purist, as it will include purists but also people who have no interest in sport at all and those who like sport but do not care about either particular teams or appreciating excellence. We see fair-weather fandom as fitting into this scale, as represented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Partisan fan/Non-fan scale (with fair-weather fans).

The fair-weather fan, then, is best understood as lying in between the partisan and those who are not fans of a team at all. This a broader conceptual space than that between the partisan and the purist as these non-fans can include purists, as well as others who have no attachment to a sports team, such as those who do not care about sport at all. Putting the fair-weather fan on this scale shows that this is a broader category than that of either the moderate partisan or the moderate purist. The fair-weather fan may be fair-weather in the sense that their fandom is conditional on certain purist values being embodied by their team (like the moderate partisan). However, their fandom may also be conditional on other (positive) features concerning their team, such as the team winning matches or embodying non-sporting values. The fair-weather fan, then, is a broader category than that of the moderate partisan or the moderate purist.

From fair-weather to foul-weather fandom

We have explained our understanding of fair-weather fandom as a form of fandom that is conditional on positive conditions being met by the object of fandom. Once we have accepted the existence of fair-weather fans, then we might ask whether their mirror image, the foul-weather fan, also exists.⁴ There is certainly conceptual space for this form of fandom, as these would be fans whose fandom is conditional on negative conditions being met by the object of fandom. It is also worth noting that the concept of fandom appears to exist colloquially, as the Urban Dictionary defines the foul-weather fan as: ‘A sports fan who only supports his team when they struggle’ (Urban Dictionary 2011). However, the conceptual space for this kind of fandom does not by itself show that there are in fact such fans. In the rest of this section, we will offer examples of this kind of fandom to present a preliminary case for the existence of foul-weather fans.

When Bury FC were expelled from the English Football League in 2019, it led to a revival of the interest in the team among some local people. As local man Sam Alan explained to The Guardian:

It’s been devastating – even for someone who wouldn’t necessarily class themselves as a supporter. I’m an interested local, who likes football and has a soft spot for their hometown team. […] The only positive out of all of this is a re-invigoration of the love for Bury FC among many locals – a real desire to save a local club. The outpouring of support, the willingness to lend a hand in getting Gigg Lane ready for a match now doomed to not take place, the resonation across the country of football fans unconnected to this place and people – all dismayed at what has happened. (The Guardian 2019)

Similarly, Motherwell FC fan Derek Watson explained that witnessing the club’s administration in the early 2000s led many fans to strengthen their love for their club. As he put it: ‘Once you have seen your club nearly go out of business, I think you do appreciate it a little bit more’ (Baillie 2021). In both these cases, the financial difficulties facing their clubs led both fans to strengthen their existing attachments to the clubs. These cases, then, involve fans making a special effort to support their teams because of their clubs facing difficulties external to sport.

There are also foul-weather fans whose fandom is conditional on difficulties internal to sport. In September 1999, Swarthmore Garnet Tide (the football team of Swarthmore College) were on a 28-game losing streak when they faced Oberlin, who were also on a long losing streak, in a game dubbed ‘the game that somebody had to win’. According to The New York Times, the game attracted a bumper crowd, and the Swarthmore fans ‘filled the home bleachers for the first time this decade’ (Broussard 1999). Furthermore, the Times explains that fans supported the team wholeheartedly throughout the match: ‘Dozens of students stood throughout the game, periodically stomping their feet on the metal stands and never losing their enthusiasm, even when rain began pouring in the second quarter’ (Broussard 1999). When the final whistle blew and Swarthmore had won, the fans rushed onto the pitch to celebrate the win and the end of their long losing streak. In this case, Swarthmore attracted more fans than usual because of their long losing run. Again, the fan support here was conditional on the team facing a negative situation, though in this case the negative situation was a long run of sporting defeats rather than financial difficulties.⁵

Another example of this form of foul-weather fandom can be found in the journalist Harry Pearson’s book The Farther Corner, an account of his travels to watch various lower-league soccer matches in the North-East of England.⁶ On his way to watch an FA Cup match between Dunston UTS and Gateshead which had attracted a record attendance for Dunston, Pearson notes his ambivalence about seeing so many fans attend the game:

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about times such as these. That’s because the person who took me to football when I was a kid, my grandfather, used to react to success by stopping going to matches. You could guarantee that as soon as Boro got beyond the fourth round of any cup competition, or started to look like Division Two title candidates, he’d point-blank refuse to get his Morris Minor out of the garage on Saturday lunchtimes. He felt the same way about friendly matches featuring foreign clubs and the Anglo-Italian Cup competition, too. Watching Eusébio playing pre-season for Benfica or the La Dolce Vita playboys of Roma was glamorous. My granddad did not go to football for glamour. He went to see the latter-day equivalent of one of his youthful idols, Willie ‘Pudden’ Carr, get carried off on a stretcher with blood coming out of his ears. (Pearson 2020, 112)

Pearson explains his grandfather’s attitude as stemming from childhood poverty:

My grandfather had grown up in hard times. Youthful poverty had affected him deeply. In his house you could have bread and butter, or bread and jam, never butter and jam. He took a similar attitude when it came to football. You could watch an unsuccessful team, or you could not watch a successful one. There was no wonder I always felt funny on days like these. I was betraying his ideals. (Pearson 2020, 113)

From Pearson’s description, his grandfather is a clear case of a foul-weather fan. He will go to support the team when they are unsuccessful but will stop going as soon as the team achieves any sporting success. This support is also conditional on other non-sporting considerations. As soon as a game becomes too attractive or glamorous, his grandfather would lose interest.⁷

These examples show the need to make room for foul-weather fandom within our taxonomy of sports fandom. Given that there are fans whose fandom is conditional on things going badly in some sense for the object of fandom, a taxonomy that makes room for fair-weather fandom should also make room for its mirror image, foul-weather fandom. Foul-weather fans share much in common with fair-weather fans. Like fair-weather fans, and unlike purists, foul-weather fans root for particular teams. Like fair-weather fans, and unlike partisans, foul-weather fans support their teams conditionally. Unlike fair-weather fans, though, the conditions for foul-weather fans are negative. While fair-weather fans turn up when the going is good, foul-weather fans turn up when the going is rough.

Our understanding of the conceptual space between committed partisan fans and people who are not fans of a team at all, is summarised in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Fan Responses to Team Success

As with other forms of fandom, it is important to note that foul-weather fandom can come in degrees. Some strong foul-weather fans, like Bury FC fan Sam Alan, may only start really caring about a club when it comes under threat, while others like Motherwell fan Derek Watson may find their fandom become more intense in times of struggle and so count as a more moderate form of foul-weather fan. Similarly, some strong foul-weather fans may refuse to go to watch a club once they are successful, such as Harry Pearson’s grandfather, while more moderate foul-weather fans will simply make more of an effort to support a team when it is facing significant sporting difficulties.

Before finishing our description of foul-weather fans, it is important to note that foul-weather fans should not be confused with anti-fans. The media scholar Jonathan Gray (2003) coined the term ‘anti-fan’ to refer to those who ‘strongly dislike a given text or genre, considering it inane, stupid, morally bankrupt and/or aesthetic drivel’ but who nevertheless critically engage with the object of their anti-fandom.⁸ Foul-weather fans may appear to be similar to anti-fans in that they are both averse to the success of the object of their (anti-)fandom. However, the difference between the foul-weather fan and the anti-fan is that the foul weather fan is still a fan. While the foul-weather fan is more likely to turn up to support their team when the going is rough, they nevertheless want their team to succeed when they go to see them play.

In this section we have outlined the concept of foul-weather fandom and provided some examples which present a preliminary case for the existence of foul-weather fans. It is important to recognize the limitations of this line of argument. We have not provided empirical evidence to suggest that this is a particular popular or prevalent form of fandom. Nevertheless, the examples that we have provided suggest that this form of fandom accurately describes at least some sport fans.

Value of foul-weather fandom

Having made our case for the existence of foul-weather fans, we are now in a position to ask whether there is anything valuable about this form of fandom. A first reaction we might have to this kind of fandom is there is something bizarre and ridiculous about it. If you really care about the team you support, why wouldn’t you want to go to seem them in the good times as well as the bad? Aren’t the successes of your team the pay-off for all the times when your team has lost? There seems something perverse about wanting to support a team when they are failing but losing interest when they are successful. We certainly recognize and sympathize with this line of thinking. Nevertheless, we want to make the case that this form of fandom can be valuable.

To start, let’s consider the kind of foul-weather fan whose fandom is present at times of non-sporting failure, such as the fans of Bury FC and Motherwell FC that we presented in the previous section. These fans responded to the financial difficulties that these clubs were facing by strengthening their existing attachments to these clubs. Here foul-weather fandom is valuable because of the concern it involves for a valuable community resource, the football club, at a time when it is under threat. There is both instrumental and non-instrumental value here. The concern itself is non-instrumentally valuable as it is a display of a valuable form of care for the local community. It can also be instrumentally valuable, as it can motivate people to act to try and protect their local clubs, perhaps through attending more matches, donating money, fundraising or volunteering for the club.

We can see the instrumental valuable role played by foul-weather fans as a useful support to the value of partisan fans. As Nicholas Dixon (2016, 256) has argued, partisan fans are essential to the economics of sport, as without these fans sport would attract far fewer spectators and far less money from broadcasters, sponsors and advertisers. A related point to note is that partisan fans are needed to ensure a stable income for clubs. If all sports fans wanted only to see the best team at any given moment, then a team’s income would vary wildly depending on how successful they were in a particular season. Partisan fans can also be expected to take action to try and save their clubs when they are financially threatened. In such circumstances, though, it is useful to also be able to draw on the support of foul-weather fans who will also assist the partisans in trying to save the club.

While less obvious, a similar point could be made about foul-weather fans whose conditional support is linked to sporting failures. These fans also provide additional support to clubs at times of need, though the support here is the encouragement from the stands rather than support aimed at saving a club from financial difficulties. This form of support is less tangible but might be thought to provide a useful form of encouragement to a group of athletes who are struggling for form or confidence.

The values of foul-weather fandom that we have pointed to so far are values that are shared with partisan fandom, as the foul-weather fandom provide a kind of reserve force to assist the partisans in supporting clubs in their time of need. A more distinctive form of value in foul-weather fandom is that this form of fan may be distinctively well-placed to both recognize and display certain sporting virtues. As Anthony Skillen (1998, 178) has argued, an important part of the virtue of sportsmanship or being a good sport is being able to lose gracefully.⁹ As Skillen puts it, this ‘generous humility has a noble beauty, a special gracefulness, that exemplifies the finest in human nature’ (Skillen 1998, 178). To push oneself to the limit in trying to win and then be able to respond appreciatively to your competitor shows a valuable form of humility.

Losers are also better placed, according to Skillen, to appreciate the valuable lessons that sport may teach us. By losing, the loser is confronted the limitations of their abilities, raising their awareness of their ‘ultimate fragility’ (Skillen 1998, 179). This, says Skillen, is a crucial lesson that sport can teach us: ‘The chief moral lesson of sport, and why it is so hard for young boys and girls to accept its disciplines, is the acceptance of limits, in the face not only of our opponents but of “nature”’ (Skillen 1998, 180). In being confronted with the limits of one’s athletic abilities, one learns to deal with one’s limitations in life more generally.

In addition to the virtues Skillen identifies as being developed through losing, we can add the virtue of resilience. The loser must find a way to return to the sporting field another day and compete again. In cases of long losing runs, like Swarthmore’s 28-game run of defeats that we discussed earlier, being able to return to the field and try one’s hardest in the next match requires high levels of resilience and determination. Indeed, J. S Russell has argued that resilience, understood as ‘the ability to adapt positively to significant adversity’ (2015, 164), is central to sport, which is ‘designed fundamentally to test resilience’ (2015, 166). Of course, it is not only losers who require resilience. Those who win a sports match will generally have faced adversity along the way that requires them to skillfully respond to. But those who lose face a special kind of adversity, especially those who lose repeatedly. To be able to respond to these set-backs and come back and compete again, displays a virtuous resilience.

These observations about the virtues developed and displayed by sport’s losers point us toward the distinctive forms of sporting virtues that foul-weather fans are distinctively well-placed to recognize. In supporting teams that are struggling, the foul-weather fan puts themselves in situations where they will be well-placed to observe athletes displaying these virtues. By supporting struggling teams, foul-weather fans will see athletes being given the opportunity to act as good losers, display resilience and who are being confronted with their athletic limitations. It is perhaps, the foul-weather fans admiration of these traits and appreciation of the struggles these athletes are struggling to overcome that explains what is attractive about foul-weather fandom. The fair-weather fan, on the other hand, will stop attending matches when their team is struggling and so be less likely to witness the occasions where such virtues are called for. The unconditional partisan is, of course, also well-placed to appreciate these virtues, as they too will be there when their team is struggling. However, this will likely make up a lower proportion of their fan experiences than for foul-weather fans, so we can expect the foul-weather fan to be particularly attuned to witnessing these virtues in others.

Foul-weather fandom not only provides opportunities to witness these virtues but also to display them. As Nicholas Dixon (2016, 241) points out, partisan fans are well-placed to develop some of the virtues that sporting competitors may develop through engaging in sport. Just as athletes have to learn graciousness in defeat or in victory, so too do partisan fans. A great victory over their local rivals, for example, gives partisan fans an opportunity to display grace in victory (an opportunity that many partisan fans will be all too happy to ignore). Loyalty is the virtue of sticking with one’s relationships and attachments. As R. E. Ewin describes it, loyalty is ‘the desire to be and remain with the group, the willingness to bear some cost for that’ (1992, 419). A long losing streak gives partisan fans the opportunity to display loyalty to the team by continuing to support them throughout their sporting struggles. As Michael Brady (2019) has argued when a team is going through such difficult times, this presents partisan supporters with the opportunity to show to each other that they are genuinely loyal fans by showing that they will continue to support the team even when it unsuccessful.¹⁰ Similarly, when partisan fans show their loyalty to a team in financial difficulties by sticking with the team and sacrificing their money or their time to ensure the team survive.

These opportunities are also available to foul-weather fans. Like the partisan, they too have the opportunity to display graciousness in defeat. The fact that foul-weather fans will stop attending matches when the team becomes successful does not prevent them from displaying graciousness when they see their team lose. Admittedly, the loyalty that foul-weather fans can display is not identical to that of the partisan. The foul-weather fan’s support is conditional and so they will not support their team no matter what. Nevertheless, by giving their support when times are hard, they do show a willingness to support sports teams and athletes that are going through difficult times. Foul-weather fandom, then, may offer opportunities of not only witnessing sporting virtue but also of developing it.

It is important to note that the value of foul-weather fandom may depend on what is motivating any particular instance of this fandom. While we do not have space to fully evaluate these motivations here, it is worth noting that there are more and less virtuous motivations that foul-weather fans can have. On the more virtuous end of the spectrum, foul-weather fans may be motivated to support those who are going through difficult times. This could involve a desire to support an important part of the local community that is experiencing difficulties. This desire seemed to be what motivated the fans of Bury FC and Motherwell FC in the previous section, who strengthened their attachment to their clubs when those clubs experienced financial difficulties. Alternatively, this desire to support those experiencing difficulties may be a response to the players who are experiencing sporting difficulties and a desire to encourage them to persevere through these difficulties. A related motivation may be a desire to witness an underdog story. Many sports fans find stories of underdogs that overcome their lowly positions to triumph against bigger clubs with better resources incredibly inspiring. Once the team triumphs though, they may cease to be an underdog, as the prize money and new commercial opportunities may significantly strengthen their financial position. A foul-weather fan may be attracted to a team by the possibility of witnessing a great underdog story. It would make sense that such a fan may lose interest when the team loses its underdog status.

There are, though, less virtuous forms of motivations that may underlie foul-weather fandom. One such motivation that strikes us as neutral or perhaps worthy of mild criticism is that of contrarianism. A foul-weather fan may simply like to stand out from other people by acting differently from the majority. If a team is becoming more popular as it becomes more successful, a contrarian may decide to stop supporting the team for that reason. We might also see this as a form of hipsterism, a desire not to be associated with the mainstream and instead to appreciate the unusual.

A more blameworthy form of motivation would be a desire to revel in the suffering of other people. We might see this as a form of misery porn or misery tourism. In their discussion of moral outrage porn, Thi Nguyen and Williams (2020) discuss how the word ‘porn’ has evolved from referring exclusively to sexual content to describe a certain way of engaging with visual representations. In describing some image as ‘food porn’ or ‘poverty porn’ people are not claiming that these images are sexual. Rather, Nguyen and Williams argue that these are representations that are ‘engaged with for the sake of a gratifying reaction, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with the represented content’ (Nguyen and Williams 2020, 148). In the case of moral outrage porn, people gain a thrill from experiencing moral outrage without facing the usual interpersonal costs and consequences that arise from expressing moral outrage. In doing so, they instrumentalize the people involved and distort moral outrage itself (Nguyen and Williams 2020). A foul-weather fan who is engaging in a form of misery porn, would be one who is deriving pleasure from experiencing the suffering and struggles of the team and their fans, without facing any of the costs that come with being a committed fan of a team experiencing difficult times. Because this foul-weather fan is simply a sort of tourist, they can enjoy experiencing this suffering as a form of play without having to experience the genuine negative emotions that a committed fan would experience in these circumstances. One problem with this is that it instrumentalizes the suffering of the committed fans, by using this suffering for a form of voyeuristic pleasure. A second problem is that it undermines the process Brady identifies in which the struggles of a sports team present fans with an opportunity to display their loyalty to each other. This opportunity would be undermined if these loyal fans are accompanied by misery tourists seeking to get a voyeuristic thrill from witnessing the suffering of others, as their presence will make it harder to identify those with genuine loyalty for the team.

In this section, we explored the value of foul-weather fandom, arguing that foul-weather fans can provide a reserve force to assist the partisans in supporting clubs in their time of need. Foul-weather fans are also distinctively well-placed to observe athletes who are confronted with their limitations and so given the opportunity to act as good losers and display resilience. We argued that foul-weather fans are also well-placed not only to witness these virtues but also to display them. We finished by considering the ways in which the motivation underlying the foul-weather fan may influence the value of this form of fandom.

Dangers of foul-weather fandom

Before we finish, it is worth pointing out a distinctive danger of foul-weather fandom, which involves complicity. Fruh et al. (2021, 269) points out that the loyalty of partisan fans makes them vulnerable to complicity with a team’s immorality. Partisan fans run the risk of being caught up in wishing ill to their rivals and delighting in their defeat. Moreover, the love partisan fans have for their club may make overlook the immoral behaviour of their club and those associated with it or even to actively defend it (Archer 2021). For example, the love that fans of Chelsea have for their club seemed to transfer over to a willingness to display active support for their former owner Roman Abramovich, despite his close ties to Vladimir Putin’s Russian government. This support that these fans had for Abramovich even led some to chant his name during a minute’s silence for the victims of the war in Ukraine (Descalsota 2022). Here the loyalty that partisan fans have towards their club can lead them to actively support those connected with the club at the expense of paying respect to those who have lost their lives as a result of Russian military aggression.

These are important worries about partisan fans, but the worries are perhaps even greater when it comes to a certain form of foul-weather fan. A foul-weather fan who only supports clubs in periods of non-sporting adversity may find themselves especially attracted to support a team when it is the subject of moral criticism. Afterall, moral criticism is one form of struggle that a sports club may face and those that only support those who are struggling may find themselves especially attracted to clubs facing this kind of adversity. In doing so, they may be even more likely than partisan fans to find themselves complicit with a club’s immorality, as they may actively seek out such clubs and support them because of this adversity rather than despite it.

While this does seem to be a potential danger facing foul-weather fans, it is important to note that it only applies to a very narrow kind of foul-weather fan. This worry only applies to such fans whose fandom is conditional on the club facing some non-sporting adversity. Moreover, it only applies to these kinds of fans who would be attracted to clubs facing the adversity of a negative moral reputation. In addition, not all fans attracted to clubs facing this kind of adversity will be led into complicity with a club’s immorality. Some foul-weather fans may be attracted to the moral challenges that this presents to fans and hope to help fellow fans navigate these difficult moral issues. Other fans of this sort may be correctly identifying that the team is being subject to unfair moral criticism and seek to support a team that is being unfairly criticized in this way. This worry, then, is not one that applies to foul-weather fandom in general.

Conclusion

In summary, this paper has explored a form of fandom that until now had not been investigated within philosophy of sport: foul-weather fandom. We have argued that foul-weather fandom is a conditional form of fandom in which fandom is conditional on negative conditions being met by the object of fandom. These negative conditions may be related to non-sporting struggles such as financial difficulties faced by clubs, or in response to sporting struggles, such as a long losing streak or a relegation battle. We have given examples of both such kinds of foul-weather fan and made the case that we should make room for this form of fandom in our taxonomy of the various forms that fandom can take. We then explored the value of foul-weather fandom, arguing that foul-weather fandom can be instrumentally valuable for protecting valuable sporting institutions, such as sporting clubs threatened with bankruptcy or liquidation. Moreover, foul-weather fandom also has non-instrumental value, as foul-weather fans display concern, empathy, or support for sporting individuals or teams that are going through tough times. Foul-weather fans are also well placed to appreciate and display important sporting virtues such as sportsmanship and resilience and to learn the important lessons that sport can teach us about our limitations. We finished by discussing how a specific form of foul-weather fandom may be associated with a distinctive moral danger in putting people in a position where they may become complicit in a club’s immorality.

Our discussion raises several interesting questions for further research. First of all, we have made a case for the existence of foul-weather fans and given examples that we think clearly show this. However, this raises the question of how common such fans are. Future empirical research in the sociology of fandom could explore this question together alongside the comparative question of how common this form of fandom is in comparison to other forms of fandom. Second, we have explored various forms of foul-weather fandom and speculated at the different motivations people may have for being foul-weather fans. Future empirical research could investigate why people become foul-weather fans, what motivates such fans and how this form of fandom influences peoples’ identities. Finally, our discussion also raises interesting further questions within the philosophy of sport. Recently, a significant amount of attention has been paid in the philosophy of sport to investigating how it can be rational for fans to care about the success of their team (Archer & Wojtowicz 2022; Baron‐Schmitt 2023; Stear 2017; Wildman 2019). The existence of foul-weather fans has the potential to add existing complexity to this discussion, as these fans both want their teams to win but then lose interest in them as soon as they do. Thinking in more detail about this form of fan has the potential to further our understanding about the rationality of fans’ desires for their teams to win.¹¹

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Dixon (2001) argues that a moderate form of partisan fandom is superior to other forms of fandom, including fair-weather fandom and being a purist. He later revises this to the weaker claim that partisans have special opportunities to display certain virtues that are not open to purists (Dixon 2016).

2. See Mumford (2011) for an argument that purist fandom is superior to other forms of fandom. See Feezell (2013, Ch.4) for a defense of moderate purism.

3. It is worth noting that supporting involves more than simply attending matches. In particular, we might think that to count as ‘supporting’ one’s team, one should root for them, that is they should publicly encourage their team. For a discussion of the morality of rooting see Smith (2022). Thanks to an anonymous referee for pushing us to address this point.

4. To our knowledge, the only other discussion of foul-weather fandom in the academic literature is Mills and Archer’s discussion of foul-weather fandom of celebrities (Mills and Archer forthcoming).

5. Thanks to Nina Windgätter for suggesting this example.

6. Thanks to Nathan Wildman for suggesting this example.

7. It is worth noting that supporters may have many reasons for not attending matches when a team starts winning. They may, for example, simply not like large crowds. We assume here that Pearson’s description of his grandfather’s motivations is accurate and that his reasons for not attending when the team were successful were due to his discomfort with success. We thank an anonymous referee for pushing us to consider this point.

8. See Click (2019) for further discussions of anti-fandom.

9. Similar points about the important of being a good loser for sportsmanship are made by Abad (2010, 31) and Feezell (1986, 2).

10. See also Archer and Wojtowicz (2023, 86–94).

11. Thanks to audiences at 2023 EAPS/BPSA Conference at KU Leuven and the 2023 IAPS Conference in Split for helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks to two anonymous referees and Paul Gaffney for detailed and helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.