The Price of Loyalty, The Duty of Fandom

What's the point of being a fan?

I can't really answer the question, and I tend to believe the question has no answer. If you get something out of being a fan for a particular team, that's enough for me. I have personal reasons why I support a given team. For DC United, my place of residence, the culture of support, the frequent examples of enjoyable soccer, a sense of a decency and integrity... all of those things feed the reasons why I support this team as opposed to another. Others may have different lists, or different priorities.

The next question I find a little more interesting: As fans, what should our behavior be? What are the limits of support?

I bring this up because of Aaron Stollar's match report on the Kansas City - United game. Aaron has taken some hits, both on Large Message Boards and even in our comments when we reacted to his article. Essentially, the most frequently leveled charge is that he's bailing on the team in a rough patch. I can see how some people come to that interpretation, and as a good follower of modern literary theory I agree that authorial intent doesn't matter, but I'm not going to say that Aaron is less of a fan for what he said, even though I think his analysis is flawed. The fact is, you can't determine what kind of a fan someone is based on what they write, or even how they feel.

Here's my feeling on the matter. At the stadium, from the first whistle to the final whistle, I will cheer and support my team. That's my part of the bargain. And that word "team" is even a fuzzy concept. You'll hear people spout aphorisms like "No player is larger than the team." Well, sure, but what exactly does that tell you? Is the team then the sum of its players and management? Is there some platonic ideal of the team that we owe allegiance to, that not even the front office or the players really comprise? Personally, I tend towards that interpretation: There is a team in my head that I am supporting that may have nothing to do with what is on the field or is being managed.

And what is that team? One built around three co-equal principles.

1. A team that works to win championships.
2. A team that plays enjoyable soccer.
3. A team that acts with integrity and dignity.

Can I say of DC United that it always exemplifies these principles? No, I can not. But I can say that more often then not it overlaps these ideals, and to that end I can feel that my support is not wasted. But if I felt that this team had abandoned those objectives for something else: whether winning ugly or dishonestly, or not caring about winning compared to bottom-line calculations, or by treating its fans like cattle, then I could walk away form this team. Really, I could. In a moment. There are limits which, fortunate me, we have not come close to. But loyalty should be circumscribed by something. I'm not going to root for an organization I don't share a vision with just because it's my organization due to an accident of geography.

Note that even if this team fails to win championships, I will support this team if the effort to winning is apparent. But I also recognize that to win championships occasionally calls for changes: In the players, in the management, in the executives, in the fans... whatever. And writing about the need for changes, when perceived, does not, in my mind, make you less of a fan. In fact, if one were to ignore such things I would argue you are less of a fan. Blindly supporting mediocrity is a stupid position, and counter-productive to a successful franchise at any level. I know we all have grandiose associations with unrequited love, but once you get out of high school you realize how stupid unrequited love is, A.E. Housman poetry aside.

In general, I'm not going to pass judgment on who is a truer fan. I think that such judgments are tacky, clique-building exercises that reflect a certain degree of immaturity. As long as you call yourself a fan, and have some idea why you're a fan, that's good enough for me. Now, does that mean that overly-cynical and pessimistic people can't be jerks (and I'm not talking about Aaron here at all, but rather the guy sitting two rows behind me looking at the pitch and yelling how everyone is crap at the top of his lungs.) Nope, he's still a fan, he's just also an unpleasant dick. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Aaron's criticism is constructive, so he is not a dick. It's clear that his objectives are for the success of the team. So he's a fan as well, and just as good as any other.