Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United have both submitted bids for the right to use London’s Olympic Stadium once the summer games of 2012 – for which the stadium was built – have drawn to a close. Yet both of these bids are problematic, Tottenham’s especially so.
More than anything, the scramble to put a Premier League side into the space shows the crass commercial attitude that has invaded the global sporting stage.
Tottenham’s Bid
Tottenham Hotspur has been resoundingly criticized for their desire to move from northern London – Totteham, in particular – to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford. While the new stadium is only eight or so miles from where the squad currently plays, the team would no longer be located in Tottenham. Thus, as the soccer writers at UK paper The Guardian pointed out in their January 17 podcast, the team would be choosing their brand over their tradition.
The notion of Tottenham, a team with nearly 130 years of tradition, not actually playing in Tottenham, is as ridiculous as Manchester United not playing in Manchester or Liverpool not playing in Liverpool. Were Tottenham to move to Olympic Stadium and abandon White Hart Lane – where the side has played since 1899 – they would be tossing tradition and their loyal local fan base to the dogs. “Tottenham” would become a brand name, not a point of pride, and the team would be making a bold statement: commercial prospects are more important than sporting tradition.
To make matters worse, by moving south, into east London proper, Tottenham would actually be invading the territory of another London team, West Ham United. A team that, according to senior Olympic Park Legacy Company bid committee member Tessa Jowel, was promised use of the grounds as early as 2005.
The cherry on top of Tottenham’s cynical sundae is the worst bit of all. If the team’s bid is approved, if they are in fact granted use of the Olympic Stadium, the team’s owners have announced plans to demolish the current stadium and build a new one. Olympic Stadium cost an estimated £537m of public money to build. What better way to spit in the face of the British people is there than to simply wipe that away and build a gleaming, crass monument to the team’s brand?
Tottenham’s bid for the Olympic Stadium is especially vexing for this reason: the team has drummed up a fair a mount of goodwill over the course of the past two seasons, playing spirited team soccer under the leadership of cockney gaffer Harry Redknapp without coming across as blatantly corporate in the way that teams like Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea do. Of course, you can’t blame the players for the owners’ decision, but it still a sad sight to witness.
West Ham and the Necessity to Cram a Top Flight Side into the Stadium
Certainly West Ham United’s bid carries more weight than that of Tottenham Hotspur. For starters, West Ham is an east London establishment. The team’s current stadium, Upton Park, is less than three miles from Olympic Stadium. The Hammers would be quite literally moving up the road. In this scenario West Ham damages neither its reputation nor its traditions.
The West Ham faithful – this writer included – certainly need something to cheer for. The team currently sits in last place, thanks to various afflictions, including some serious managerial woes that we discussed earlier this week. They may well be relegated this season. And if they are, you have a Championship side playing in one of the most expensive stadiums in the United Kingdom.
Also consider this: Olympic Stadium has a track running around the central field. Since West Ham has made no similar rebuilding proposition to that of Tottenham, they would be playing on an island in the middle of a much larger athletic venue. The intimacy of the sport, the proximity of the players to the fans, would be erased. In such a venue any notions of modern soccer be anything other than crass commercialism and celebrity deification would be lost.
To reiterate, Olympic Stadium was built with over £500 million of public money. So why not allow the park to stand as a public sporting venue? Why not allow its use to public leagues, local teams, and schools? Why not hold athletic events there, and the occasional exposition Premier League match to raise the revenue required to keep the park in working condition?
It seems as though the need to cram every open space with either a cash machine or the highest bidder has moved from the realms of real estate and advertising to civic officials and sport. West Ham has Upton Park. Tottenham has White Hart Lane. These stadiums may need renovation, but they’re hallowed grounds of top-flight soccer teams. Certainly funds can be raised.
Why not let the public have this one for a change?
A decision is expected to be made by January 28, 2010. Until then, we wait with baited breath.
William Gish - William Gish is an itinerant writer with interests in art, film, music, and Japan. He holds a degree in Art History and Japanese Language ...
