The genesis of team rivalry in the New World: sparks to fan animosity in Major League Soccer

Abstract

While rivalry debates rage among soccer fans and the media, scholars have focussed much of their research on clashes between specific clubs that share a considerable history of competition. Yet, historical conflict is just one of several elements that contribute to enduring sports rivalries, and several soccer teams – particularly in America and Canada – have limited history but salient rivals. This study compares the intensity of rivalries within Major League Soccer through a league-wide fan survey that also measures the importance of eleven antecedents to rivalry and how these elements are associated with fans’ negative reactions to rivals. While geography and frequency of play are the two most important rivalry antecedents according to fans, elements of bias such as cultural difference and unfairness are more closely associated with fans’ schadenfreude and relationship discrimination against rivals. Quotes from fans aligned with the most intense rivalries in MLS illustrate these findings.

Notes

1. Warner, ‘Rivalries in Manchester and Liverpool’, 59.

2. Dmowski, ‘Geographical Typology of Rivalries’, 335.

3. Delia, ‘Exclusiveness of Group Identity’, 402.

4. McDonald and Rascher, ‘Does Bat Day Make Cents?’, 21.

5. Tainsky and Jasielec, ‘Television Viewership of Games’, 100.

6. Guschwan, ‘Riot in the Curve’, 255–6.

7. Dunning and the ‘Leicester School’ worked extensively on the topic of soccer hooliganism; see Dunning et al., ‘Roots of Football Hooliganism’ for example.

8. Markovits and Rensmann, ‘A Counter-Cosmopolitan Backlash?’.

9. Ibid.

10. Guschwan, ‘Riot in the Curve’; Majumdar, ‘Ghati-Bangal on the Maidan’; Warner, ‘Rivalries in Manchester and Liverpool’.

11. One exception is Dmowski, ‘Geographical Typology of Rivalries’.

12. Tajfel and Turner, ‘Social Identity Theory’.

13. Mael and Ashforth, ‘Identification in Work, War, Sports, and Religion’, 199–203.

14. Hogg and Terry, ‘Social Identity and Self-Categorization’, 124–5.

15. Tyler and Cobbs, ‘Rival Conceptions of Rivalry’, 230.

16. Benkwitz and Molnar, ‘Interpreting Football Fan Rivalries’, 482.

17. Tyler and Cobbs, ‘All Rivals are Not Equal’.

18. Dmowski, ‘Geographical Typology of Rivalries’, 334–7.

19. Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football.

20. Majumdar, ‘Ghati-Bangal on the Maidan’ offers further depth to this Indian football rivalry.

21. Guschwan, ‘Riot in the Curve’, 253.

22. Mael and Ashforth, ‘Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification’, 122.

23. Tyler and Cobbs, ‘All Rivals are Not Equal’.

24. Tyler and Cobbs, ‘Rival Conceptions of Rivalry’.

25. Tyler and Cobbs, ‘All Rivals are Not Equal’.

26. Benkwitz and Molnar, ‘Interpreting Football Fan Rivalries’, 482.

27. McDonald and Rascher, ‘Does Bat Day Make Cents?’, 21.

28. Tainsky and Jasielec, ‘Television Viewership of Games’, 100.

29. Armstrong and Giulianotti, Fear and Loathing in World Football, 25, 114.

30. Markovits and Rensmann, ‘Emergence of Global Arenas’, 75–106.

31. Havard, Wann, and Ryan, ‘Impact of Conference Realignment’, 229.

32. Havard, ‘Glory Out of Reflected Failure’, 248–9; Dalakas and Melancon, ‘Schadenfreude Toward Hated Rivals’, 53–4.

33. Dalakas and Melancon, ‘Schadenfreude Toward Hated Rivals’, 54.

34. Pettigrew and Meertens, ‘Subtle and Blatant Prejudice’, 62.

35. Benkwitz and Molnar, ‘Interpreting Football Fan Rivalries’, 482, describe the geopolitical approaches of Thompson, ‘Identifying Rivalries in World Politics’.

36. Adopted from Tyler and Cobbs, ‘All Rivals are Not Equal’.

37. Freud, Civilization, Society and Religion, 131, 305.