Advertising and the World’s Oldest Tennis Tournament

In a new initiative, I am publishing a guest blog for the first time. This one, by tennis enthusiast and freelance writer Jonny Rowntree, explores some aspects of Wimbledon’s historical relationship with advertising. If you would like to consider writing a guest blog on an aspect of sports history for this site, please contact me using the details on the Contact page.

The Wimbledon logo, 2014

The Wimbledon logo, 2014

Since the first Wimbledon tournament in 1877, tennis’ most prestigious event has become the grand stage of dramatic flourishes, redemption and reclamation. Even for non-tennis enthusiasts, Wimbledon has become a tradition that illuminates television sets in pubs and living rooms across the world, its logo as synonymous with the sport as the legends that have graced its turf. Larger than life personalities, wide media coverage, and a successful branding have forged the venue’s legacy.

In this article, we take a behind the scenes look into the oldest tennis tournament in the world and how it has cultivated and maintains the traditional image established in the early days of the game, and how Wimbledon is evolving and adapting to new technologies and developments in marketing and advertising.

1894 Programme

1894 Programme for the Championship

Times have changed considerably from the first black and white print poster in 1894 highlighting the “Lawn Tennis Championships”. This initial break into the event is an excellent lesson in typography and there is a great sense of drama and anticipation, truly announcing itself in turn of the century style. The All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTCC), the organisers of the Wimbledon tennis tournament, would print its first programme in the same year, outlining the court layout and a train schedule, all for threepence.

While these designs would change considerably, the Club wanted to maintain the spirit of its initial presence as a traditional private court, which kept clothing to white and advertising to a minimum.

Perry created posters fr London Transport until 1937

Perry created posters fr London Transport until 1937

In 1928, London Transport employed artist Frederick Herry Perry to design a series of posters to promote services to Southfields tube station. This saw a considerable move towards livelier colours than in the earlier materials, creating a minimalist narrative with echoes of Art Deco. The 1931 poster was displayed in Underground stations, ticket offices and train carriages. Perry’s innovative design and inclusive graphics helped to open up Wimbledon to the greater public in terms of interest. The masterminds behind the marketing understood this all too well as they continued to target specific stations like Wimbledon itself and Southfields, which is closer to the grounds and was emphasized in the 1931 poster. Perry’s connection with the Underground Group and London Transport enabled him to continue his impressive career with Wimbledon until 1937, the year the event was broadcast for the first time on television.

Wimbledon’s publicity was increased considerably in the 1980s by the work of Tennis Week’s John Davies, illustrator for both posters and magazine covers. These combined a colourful, pastoral style reflecting vintage eras of the traditional English pastime.  Davies’ work is a reflection of Wimbledon’s eagerness to present the event as a distinctly English occasion.

Rolex timekeeping at Wimbledon

Rolex timekeeping at Wimbledon

Ralph Lauren branded uniform for ball girls and boys

Ralph Lauren branded uniform for ball girls and boys

As television and radio coverage expanded over the years, the question of further sponsorship opportunities arose. Wimbledon increased in popularity, with 300,000 attending the championship throughout the 1970s, 400,000 towards the late 1980s and the 2010 tournament attracting 500,000 people, according to ESPN. In this context, and with an eye on Wimbledon’s prestigious brand, the organisers resolved to keep sponsorship to a minimum, with only minimal advertising from brands that would appeal to the ABC1 demographic that the event famously attracts. Rather than bring in perimeter advertising or tournament sponsorship, as other sports were doing at this time, Wimbledon restricted advertising to elite makers’ names on essential equipment. Rolex, the official timekeeper from 1978, thus appeared on scoreboards and courtside clocks, IBM’s logo appeared on the service speed board, while other names have been like Slazenger (which has been there since 1902) and Ralph Lauren, which arrived in 2006.

IBM branded service speed board

IBM branded service speed board

Eager to keep afloat in modern times, Wimbledon went online in 1995. The official website has grown considerably, from 3.2 million to 19.6 million visitors when comparing 2001 to 2013. Additionally, with the growth of smartphone ownership in the late 2000s, Wimbledon commissioned IBM to create a bespoke app which has been downloaded by over 1.7 million users.

Wimbledon’s commitment to solidifying its brand and not selling out to sponsors has paid off – 2010 alone saw a surplus of £31 million. Wimbledon referee Alan Mills stated that if the AELTCC decked out the tournament in a fashion like the US Open, then ‘It wouldn’t be Wimbledon, would it?’.

Arguably, Mills’ statement could be dismissed as somewhat passé given the number of apparently traditional sporting events that have embraced sponsorship, such as golf’s Open Championship, which began in 1860 and is debatably as steeped in tradition and ritual as Wimbledon, yet sees players sporting outfits emblazoned with their sponsors’ logos and hoardings around the course promoting corporate partnerships.

With this example in mind, however, we could argue that golf has lost some of its tradition and apparently exclusive allure, and the same thing could potentially happen to Wimbledon if it’s brand of tradition was broken.  That is to say that key sponsors, partners, and brands that associate themselves with the event will lose interest due to the reduced exclusivity and perceived debasement of the event if less prestigious brands were allowed to advertise there.

In an interview with the UK Tennis Industry Association in 2013, Sir Martin Sorrel, CEO of WPP Group (also known for being group finance director at Saatchi & Saatchi), claimed that ‘outside of the Olympic Games and the World Cup, Wimbledon is the most powerful sports property’, with a worldwide audience of more than one billion. While Wimbledon continues to tread slowly into the domain of sponsorship, its selections are carefully attuned to its brand. Stella Artois joined in 2014 as official supplier in a contract which ends in 2018 as a part of ‘The World’s Greatest Events’ campaign, while Pimm’s continues to be sold as one of the two staple drinks at the Wimbledon tennis tournament.

Sony promoted their range of 4K televisions during Wimbledon using a player’s nails

Sony promoted their range of 4K televisions during Wimbledon using a player’s nails

With these restrictions in place, sponsors have had to find innovative ways of marketing, and social media has proved indispensable as a means of doing this. Andy Murray’s popular Twitter presence was partly helped by a rigorous social media campaign by his sponsor Adidas. Tech companies like Sony have capitalised on the high-definition revolution by using footage of Wimbledon players like Anne Keothavong to showcase tiny logos that can be seen only on their 4k screens.

The use of modern advertising and marketing practices and channels has allowed Wimbledon to continue to thrive whilst not losing its traditional image. Viewers can connect with the tournament through marketing promotions produced not only by its official suppliers, but also by brands using the umbrella of the Wimbledon tennis tournament.

Jonny Rowntree, @shoutjonny, St Ermin’s Hotel

 

 

 

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

From Hamilton to Glasgow

Medal from the 1950 British Empire Games, held in Auckland

Medal from the 1950 British Empire Games, held in Auckland

The summer of 1930 saw the inaugural versions of two international sporting events. The first was dedicated to a single sport, football, and was given the ambitious name of the World Cup by its promoters, FIFA. Held in Uruguay with just 13 teams, all from the Americas and Europe, it has proved to be an immensely popular event that has evolved over the 84 years since its birth. The other new event in 1930 was a little more modest, but it too has evolved and lasted. Held in the Canadian city of Hamilton, the multi-sport event was called the British Empire Games. Eleven teams took part (only two fewer than in that year’s World Cup), with a more geographically diverse spread that took in Australasia, the British Isles, Africa, South America, Bermuda, and Canada. Today, the latest version of this series is starting in Glasgow. Held every four years since 1930 apart from in 1942 and 1946, they went from being called the British Empire Games to the British Empire and Commonwealth Games in 1954, changing to the British Commonwealth Games in 1970, and then the Commonwealth Games in 1978. They now attract 71 teams from across the world, made up of countries, territories, and dependencies from the South Atlantic to the Pacific via the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia, as well as separate teams from England, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

For those of us born into post-colonial Britain, for whom the history of empire is a controversial subject, the Empire/Commonwealth Games offer a fascinating way into the UK’s overseas history. The list of teams at the Games tell a story about the spread of British influence across the globe, but also of the ways in which the retreat from empire that has characterised the post-1945 period has been managed. It tells a story of language and culture, and of how efforts have been made to maintain a relationship once the direct reins of control had gone. But if we look closer, certain absences tell us more difficult stories about imperial history. The United States of America (or at least part of it) and the Republic of Ireland are both former imperial possessions, but neither sends a team to the Games, and while post-apartheid South Africa is now back in the fold, its neighbour Zimbabwe remains isolated. These absences are not part of the comfortable and naive narrative of how the Commonwealth Games are a celebration of how well the British managed their empire. While the Games are a triumph of cultural bonding, and are not matched by anything remotely on this scale by the other former European empires, it is always important to look for who is not involved as well as who is.

Wembley Arena, originally called the Empire Pool, and built for the 1934 Empire Games

Wembley Arena, originally called the Empire Pool, built for the 1934 British Empire Games

The other critical issue that arises from a glance at the history of these Games is the political economy of hosting. The Games have always welcomed as many teams as possible  from throughout the Empire/Commonwealth: they were never the ‘Anglo-Saxon Olympiad’ that J. Astley Cooper, a Victorian advocate of using sport to maintain imperial power, wished to see. However, while teams from around the world have taken part, the hosting of the Games has been dominated by Great Britain and the old dominions of Canada and Australasia, a pattern that is continuing today and in 2018. If we include Glasgow 2014 and the next Games for which a host has been allocated, Gold Cost 2018, then we can see that of the first 21 events, only three have been/will be held outside Australia, Canada, Great Britain, or New Zealand. Jamaica (Kingston 1966), Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur 1998), and India (Delhi 2010) are the exceptions to the hegemony of the imperial mother country and the former dominions. Of those four countries, and including 2014 and 2018, Great Britain tops the hosting list with six Games (London 1934, Cardiff 1958, Edinburgh 1970 and 1986, Manchester 2002, and Glasgow 2014), followed by Australia with five (Sydney 1938, Perth 1962, Brisbane 1982, Melbourne 2006, and Gold Coast 2018), Canada with four (Hamilton 1930, Vancouver 1954, Edmonton 1978, and Victoria 1994), and New Zealand with three (Auckland 1950 and 1990, and Christchurch 1974). Despite the presence of 18 African members of the Commonwealth, the Games have never been to that continent, nor, despite the fact that England, Scotland, and Wales have all hosted them, have Northern Ireland. This is an intriguing area that needs further research, but it tells us a great deal about power relations in the Commonwealth.

Despite the cynicism that I am, as a historian, contractually obliged to bring to these events, I’m looking forward to the Games. They provide a great opportunity for smaller nations and territories to get noticed: seeing #Tuvalu and #NorfolkIsland trending on Twitter during the opening ceremony last night was great. Similarly, the fact that the Commonwealth Games have incorporated some para-sports into the full programme rather than run a separate event is all to the good. We just need to make sure that, alongside the celebration, we don’t choose to forget the more complicated historical narratives behind this sporting event.

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Blog posts

The Worst Performance Since 1958?

2910006036_99351a93a1_mIn the week that the England women’s football team made further steps towards qualifying for the 2015 World Cup, the men’s team made their fastest ever departure from the World Cup finals. Following defeats by Italy and Uruguay, England crashed out from Brazil after just two matches. Cue the press clamour for historical comparisons: this was, we were quickly told, the worst England World Cup performance since 1958, which was the last time that England failed to get through the group stage. These kind of comparisons are helpful to a degree, as they give us some kind of perspective and put down some historical markers: but just as when the British Olympic medal haul of 2012 was billed as ‘the best since 1908’, it is easy to overlook the contexts of those earlier events. So, what was England’s 1958 World Cup campaign in Sweden all about? Was it as bad as 2014?

England topped their three-team qualifying group  for the 1958 World Cup with relative ease, beating Denmark 5-2 at Molineux and 4-1 in Copenhagen, and beating Eire 5-1 at Wembley before a 1-1 draw at Dalymount Park. However, between the last qualifier in Dublin in May 1957 and the first match in Sweden in June 1958, the heart was ripped out of the England team on a snowy runway in Munich. Amongst the eight Manchester United players killed on 6 February 1958 were four members of the England team: Roger Byrne, Duncan Edwards, David Pegg, and Tommy Taylor. Pegg had played in the last qualifier, while the other three had played in all of them, with Taylor scoring 8 of England’s 15 goals. The loss was immeasurable, and better pens than mine have explored the ‘what ifs..’ of Duncan Edwards’ potential impact on England’s long-term development. At the time, it meant that England went to Sweden with a partially improvised and inexperienced squad. Only four of the 20 man squad had more than 10 caps before they left for Sweden  (including the long-serving Billy Wright with 93 and Tom Finney with 73), twelve of them had been capped seven times or fewer, while three – Tottenham’s Maurice Norman, Chelsea’s Peter Brabrook, and Peter Broadbent of Wolverhampton Wanderers – joined the squad without a cap to their name.

Play_order_for_the_FIFA_World_Cup_1958

Organising the order of play for the 1958 World Cup

However, despite this inauspicious background, and despite the fact that we all know that the team failed to get through the group stage, the England team did far better at Sweden 1958 than their counterparts in Brazil this year. England faced a tough group, involving eventual winners Brazil, Austria, who had finished in third place at the 1954 World Cup in Switzerland, and World Cup newcomers the USSR. The Soviet squad included seven members of the team that had won the Olympic football tournament in Melbourne in 1956, and Sweden was a staging post for the USSR between the victories of the 1956 Olympics and the 1960 European Championship.

However, despite this tough opposition, England got through the group games undefeated. They drew 2-2 with the USSR in Gothenburg, 0-0 with Brazil at the same stadium, and then 2-2 against Austria in Boras. One crucial and hugely impressive fact hidden away in that list of draws was that Brazil had appeared in every World Cup since the competition started in 1930, and the 0-0 against England was the first match in which they had failed to score: Burnley’s Colin McDonald evidently played a blinder between the sticks in the face of the Brazilian attack. England finished the group with the same points and the same goal record as the USSR (3 points, scored 4, conceded 4), so a play-off at Gothenburg had to decide who would join Brazil in the quarter finals. The Soviets won 1-0, a 69th minute goal by Anatoli Ilyin sealing England’s fate.

So yes: 2014 has been the worst World Cup for England since Sweden 1958, but a closer reading of that tournament shows an England team still reeling from the Munich air disaster getting through their group unbeaten, being the first team to stop Brazil from scoring in a World Cup, and exiting after the odd goal in a play-off. Dates alone can tell only a tiny part of the story.

Pelé_jump_1958

Pele in the 1958 World Cup Final. His first World Cup goal came against Wales in the quarter final.

The other fascinating thing about 1958, of course, is that taking such an Anglocentic view of it disguises the fact that England were not the only team from the UK who made it to Sweden. The 16-team contest saw Scotland make their second appearance, and Northern Ireland and Wales make their World Cup debuts. It remains the only time that all four of the UK nations have appeared in the World Cup finals together, and the only Welsh appearance at the finals to date. Like England, Scotland failed to get through the group stages, with a 1-1 draw against Yugoslavia being followed by narrow defeats against Paraguay (3-2) and France
(2-1). Northern Ireland and Wales both fared better, though. Northern Ireland beat Czechoslovakia 1-0, lost 3-1 to Argentina, and held reigning champions West Germany to a 2-2 draw before going through the play-off process with another win – this time 2-1 – over Czechoslovakia. Their 4-0 defeat at the hands of France in the quarter final was far from humiliating. Wales also got through to the last eight after a similar group stage to England with three draws (1-1 v Hungary, 1-1 v Mexico, and 0-0 v hosts Sweden). They then upset all the odds by beating Hungary, runners-up in 1954, 2-1 in the play-off before finally bowing out to a 1-0 defeat by Brazil in the quarter final. The single goal that beat them was scored by a talented 17 year-old known as Pele. It was his first goal at a World Cup finals.

Sweden 1958 thus serves as a yardstick, and is presumably being used to show that it is over 55 years since England did this badly. A closer look at the tournament shows that the group stage exit that happened at Gothenburg was the end of a much better showing than the defeats at Manaus and Sao Paulo in 2014.  Moreover, 1958 should be seen as an important point in British international footballing history: it has never been only about England. Role on Canada 2015, with England’s women poised to qualify, and Wales and Scotland looking good for the play-offs.

 

 

 

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Blog posts

New Undergraduate Course in Sports History

De Montfort University in Leicester has just launched a new and unique undergraduate course that will focus on the historical and cultural aspects of sport. The BA (Hons) Sports History and Culture will draw on the teaching expertise and research strengths of the staff at the International Centre for Sports History and Culture (ICSHC). I’m joining the ICSHC in September as the new director, and I’m very excited about working on this new venture.

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Blog posts

Triumphs, Heroines, and Heroes

I spent yesterday morning in a radio studio in Clerkenwell. This is not a normal way for me to spend a Thursday, but I was invited in to work on a fascinating project with Honda as part of their preparation for the Goodwood Festival of Speed, which starts next week. Honda had commissioned a poll of 2,043 adults from around the UK to find out about people’s favourite sporting moment, and the sportswomen and men who they see as ‘unbeatable’. There were a few qualifications – the sporting moments had to be British triumphs, while the heroines and heroes could be from anywhere. The poll led to the compilation of three Top 10 lists, and I was asked to front the publication of these lists through a series of radio interviews. I did 13 in all, including many BBC regional channels and a number of commercial stations. It felt a bit groundhog day after a while, as some of the interviewers inevitably asked similar questions, but it was a fascinating process, and it gave me the chance to reflect on the kind of qualities that people want in their sporting moments and icons.

Close-up_of_the_ball_from_the_1966_World_Cup_Final_(3302542219)

The ball from the 1966 World Cup Final, now in the National Football Museum in Manchester

Topping the list of Greatest British Sport Triumphs of Our Time was, inevitably, the England men’s football team winning the World Cup with their 4-2 victory over West Germany in 1966. This felt a little like when people compile lists of best albums or best movies of all time, and Sgt Pepper and The Godfather come out on top. I love both, but it sometimes feels like they are the starting point and then people go on from there. With 1966, though, there is an added dimension – after all, both The Beatles and Francis Ford Coppola made other things after those triumphs. For me, the appeal of 1966 resides not just in a fantastic match with all the drama you could want, but also in the way that it stands alone as the only major silverware that the men’s team has ever won. I was also intrigued by how this triumph still resonates for people lime me – anyone under 50, in fact – who have no personal memory of it, and have come to it only at second hand or through Baddiel and Skinner’s ‘thirty years of hurt’.

Beyond that, it was fascinating to see that the majority of the moments in the Top 10 were individual or pairs events rather than team events. England’s victory in the 2003 men’s Rugby Union World Cup came in at No. 8, and the epic Ian Botham Ashes series of 1981 was one place behind it, but the rest were not team events. Andy Murray’s 2013 Wimbledon win went straight in at No. 2, followed by Torvill and Dean’s Bolero routine at the 1984 Sarajevo Olympics, Roger Bannister’s sub-four minute mile from 1954, and then key triumphs for Steve Redgrave, Bradley Wiggins, and Mo Farah. Intriguingly, Francis Chichester’s 1966 solo circumnavigation of the world was at No. 10, an impressive feat that I for one had assumed many people had forgotten about.

Paraguay_stamp_-_Martina_Navrátilová

Martina Navratilova, winner of 18 Grand Slam titles

When it came to the heroines and heroes, lawn tennis legend Martina Navratilova and boxer Muhammad Ali topped the respective lists. The people who were polled clearly respected longevity and consistency in their sporting icons, as both of these athletes were at the top of their game for many years. It was refreshing to see only two footballers in the men’s list – Pele at No. 3 and George best at No. 7 – and also good to see aesthetic sports being valued, with Top 10 finishes for skater Jayne Torvill, and Olympic gymnasts Olga Korbut and Nadia Comeneci. Athletics was represented by Usain Bolt, Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis, Roger Bannister, Paula Radcliffe, and Kelly Holmes, and many other household names, from Ayrton Senna to Steffi Graf, made good showings.

Muhammad_Ali_NYWTS

The Greatest – Muhammad Ali

Of course, this kind of list making is essentially a bit of fun. Everyone will have their own favourite that gets missed, and everyone will have some alternative to the Top 10. The responses are incredibly relative, so sports that are huge in some areas (such as rugby league) got averaged out of the national picture – looking at this list, you would not know that Great Britain have won the men’s rugby league world cup three times, in 1954, 1960, and 1972). I was surprised to see no golfers in there, or anyone form the world of horse-racing, and disappointed (but maybe not surprised) that the 2012 Paralympics had not made a big enough impression on popular memory to be recalled. It is also obvious, but probably no great shock, that victorious England women’s teams seem to have had their triumphs forgotten. England women won the rugby union World Cup in 1994, and the England team won the women’s cricket World Cup in 2009, but they don’t get a mention. Indeed, it is perhaps ironic that as I write, the mainstream media is full of incriminations and navel gazing over one England team losing 2-1 to Uruguay in one World Cup, while paying virtually no attention to the other England team beating Ukraine 2-1 on the same night in their bid for 2015 World Cup qualification. No prizes for guessing which of these teams was made up of men, and which of women.

Overall, the lists showed an interesting mix of long and short-term moments, and icons from the past and the present. They suggest that the respondents value the Olympic Games, care about individual sports as much as team games, and hold such characteristics as longevity, dedication, character, and style in high esteem.

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

London’s Olympic Pools: Lanes and Legacies

SONY DSC

Before my swim at the Aquatics Centre

During the recent school holiday, I went swimming with my 13 year old son. Not such a big deal  – except this time we went to the Olympic pool at the London Aquatics Centre. It was only my second time in a 50 metre pool – and as the first one was a splash around in the 1970 Commonwealth Games pool in Edinburgh when I was in the city on a family holiday in the early 1970s, before I has learnt to swim, it doesn’t really count. For my son, it was a first. We were both impressed by the whole experience – the size, the scale, the way the light fills the space now that the temporary seats have gone, the stunning curves of the Zaha Hadid‘s design, as well as the sense of distance that comes with a 50 metre pool for people like us who are used to only 25 metres. As well as the swim, I was most impressed with the way in which the Centre is being managed for its community. With prices that match those at other pools in the area, and with public access to the competition pool and the training pool, this is a great example of Olympic legacy at work. I remain to be convinced about the plan to turn the Olympic Stadium into a football ground, but my feeling is that they have got it spot on with the pool. They even serve hot Bovril in the cafe.

Swimming at the London 2012 site has led me to reflect on the aquatics sites for London’s previous Olympic and Olympian Games, and how far these sites added to the capital’s swimscape.

The River Thames at Teddington Lock

The River Thames at Teddington Lock

If we go back to the pre-Coubertin period, the planners of the National Olympian Festival of 1866 held their swimming events in the River Thames. They chose Teddington, where the lock, built in 1811, marks the end of the river’s tidal reach. Here, on a rainy and windy July evening, swimmers competed for the first medals of these first games to be staged by the National Olympian Association. With a moored barge marking the start, swimmers from London and beyond took part in three races – the quarter mile, the half mile, and the mile. Nothing was purpose built for this Olympian festival – the athletics took place the next day in the park at Crystal Palace, and the gymnastics and ‘antagonistic sports’ were at the German Gymnasium in Kings Cross. London’s first Olympian swimming event was thus a fairly modest affair, making use of a natural space where plenty of people regularly swam, and it is impossible to see any kind of impact on London’s swimming spaces.

Nations_at_1908_Olympics

The opening ceremony of the 1908 Olympic Games, with the swimming pool in the background

In 1908, when London first hosted the International Olympic Committee’s Olympic Games, the British Olympic Association commissioned the world’s first purpose-built Olympic Stadium in the west London suburb of Shepherd’s Bush as part of the Franco-British Exhibition. The planners wanted to fit as many sports into the Stadium as possible, and the aquatic sports of swimming, diving, and water polo were part of this vision. Accordingly, engineer Paul Webster built an open air pool into the infield of the Great Stadium. Despite the running tracks and the cycling track being built to imperial distances, the pool was metric, a whopping 100 metres long, and a 10 metre diving tower that could be lowered under the water when the pool was being used for swimming and water polo. The pool – sometimes referred to as the swimming tank – was well placed for the crowds, but was clearly far from ideal for the swimmers. There was no heating and no filtration system, and the water was made filthy by some athletes jumping in to cool off, muddy legs and all, after their races. After the Olympics, the pool was used for various things, including an angling competition, and it served as an unintentional water obstacle for the Olympic rugby union, hockey, football, and lacrosse  competitions that took place on the in-field in October. However, with public baths al over London by this time, many with the all-weather advantage of being indoors and the water quality advantage of filtering, there was no significant demand for the pool. It was soon drained and filled in: and while the re-named White City Stadium had a long sporting afterlife when the Olympics had finished, featuring athletics, speedway, greyhound racing, football, and more, there was no to be no aquatic legacy of the 1908 Olympics.

empirePool

Empire Pool, Wembley

When the Olympics returned to London in 1948, there was no budget for significant new building, and the Games had to fit into the capital’s existing venues. With Wembley chosen as the hub of the Games, the planners were working around the presence of an excellent aquatics site. The Empire Pool had been built by Owen Williams for the 1934 British Empire Games, the second iteration of the series that has since evolved into the Commonwealth Games. It was already set up for up to 7,000 spectators, and positioned just yards from the Empire Stadium, it was the perfect fit. At the 1948 Olympics, not only did it host the swimming and diving, and the final stages of the water polo, it also did service as a boxing venue, with a ring erected on scaffold over the water – the perfect example of make do and mend that characterised these Olympics. However, just as the 1908 pool so very little post-Olympic swimming action. As Ian Gordon and Simon Inglis show in their Great Lengths, the pool had been a massive hit after the 1934 Empire Games, attracting huge crowds. It had also doubled up as a venue for ice skating and ice hockey in winter, with a rink being created on boarding placed over the pool. But it had closed during the War and it was only re-opened for the Olympics. The building, re-branded Wembley Arena, is still going strong, but its days as a swimming pool are long gone.

And so to 2012. These earlier Olympics took place in the years PL (pre-Legacy), when Olympics did not have to have plans for the city’s future built into them. They made no long-term impact on where Londoners swam. Now that we are in the legacy phase of 2012, it is useful to compare the Aquatics Centre with the earlier sites of Teddington Lock, White City, and the Empire Pool, and to see how making a community pool with the capacity for international competition was a great part of the project.

See you in the medium-paced lane sometime soon.

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Blog posts

Making Sport History: new book

Routledge have just brought out a new book in their series Routledge Research in Sports History. Edited by Pascal Delheye, it’s called Making Sport History: disciplines, identities and the historiography of sport. The collection brings together essays on different aspects of researching and teaching sports history, with authors from North America, Australasia, and Europe all contributing. My chapter, ‘History and Sport Studies: Some Methodological Reflections on Undergraduate Teaching’, is a personal reflection on the challenges and opportunities of teaching history on a Sport Studies degree course, where most of the students chose to give up History while still at school.

The book is now available from Routledge.

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sport and Leisure history workshop

On Saturday 14 June, the University of Winchester will be hosting the Summer Workshop for the South of England Sport & Leisure History Network, part of the British Society of Sports History (BSSH). The event will bring together scholars who are working on a variety of aspects of sport and leisure history, in a friendly and informal atmosphere. The papers will be arranged around three themes: Leisure in Wartime; Leisure, Sex & Sexuality; and Leisure and National Identity. The full programme is as follows:

Rafaelle Nicholson (Queen Mary University of London), ‘Even the World of Sport Suffered a Feminine Invasion’: Women’s Sport in Second World War Britain

Simon Young (University of Winchester), The Moscow Olympics and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1975–1980

Michael John Law (University of Westminster), Sex in the Car Park: The Impact of Changed Mobilities on Sexual Behaviour in the Interwar Home Counties

Leo Bird (University of Sheffield), Innuendo and Double-Entendre in Popular British Comedy, 1945–1960: Moral Ambiguity in Post-War Britain

Rory Magrath (Southampton Solent University/University of Winchester), The Inclusive Masculinities of Premier League Academy Footballers

Geoffrey Levett (Birkbeck, University of London), George Newnes and Pierre Lafitte: New Leisure Journalism and National Identity in 1900s Britain and France

Dion Georgiou (Queen Mary University of London), Remembering ‘Cool Britannia’: National Identity, Race and Nostalgia on Britpop’s ‘20th Anniversary’

I’ll be rounding things off with the keynote on Football Diplomacy. The event is free (though lunch is not provided), and will run from 9.30-5.00. If you would like to attend, please email  bsshsouthcentral@gmail.com by Wednesday, 11 June 2014.

Follow @BSSHSouth on Twitter.

 

 

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Conferences

In The Loop

Air_Raid_Precautions,_1940_HU104542

ARP women knitting, 1940

Over the last few years, I’ve been involved with In The Loop, a fascinating project run by Winchester School of Art on the history, politics, and practice of knitting. I first got involved when I gave a paper on sports-related knitting patterns at their inaugural conference in 2008, which ended up being picked up by other conference organisers – since then, I’ve given keynotes on this rather unlikely subject at conferences in Bolton, Brighton, Southampton, and Malmo, and written it up for an American craft magazine. Then, in 2012, I spoke at In The Loop 3 on knitting and the Olympic Games, a paper which I’ve also taken to the sources with a paper called ‘Sweaters and the Services’. I’ll be touching on the portrayal of knitting in wartime propaganda, on the wartime knitting boom, and on the representations of service men and women in patterns of the First and Second World Wars.AGM of the Knitting and Crochet Guild, and which forms the basis of my new article in a knitting-themed issue of Textile: The Journal of Cloth and Culture, out in March 2014. For In the Loop 2014, which takes place at Southampton and Winchester on 2-3 April, I’m moving away from sport but keeping a focus on knitting patterns as historical 

Click here for full details of In The Loop, and for the programme for the study days. Click here for details of the Knitting Reference Library at Winchester School of Art. You can also follow In Loop on @intheloop3.

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

London 1908: the First Winter Olympic Programme

This weekend, winter sports fans will have their eyes glued on Sochi in Russia, where the 22nd Winter Olympics are due to begin. The Winter version of the Olympic franchise do not have the same global appeal as their Summer counterparts, as the twin constraints of geography and costs keep  many nations out: compared to the 204 teams that competed at London 2012, the most recent Summer Olympics, the last Winter Olympics in Vancouver attracted 82 nations. Still, the Winter Olympics have grown in appeal and scope over the eighty years of their official history, and they provide spectacle and drama in equal measure on the ice and on the slopes. The fact that this year’s Olympics have already attracted so much controversy, due to Russia’s human rights record, the Games’ environmental impact, and the country’s draconian treatment of homosexuals, is a sign of how big the Winter Games getting – they are now (rightly) as political contested as the Summer Olympics.

I’ve written about the Sochi LGBT debate for the Free Word Centre, although I am fascinated to see how it pans out now that the Games are on us and many people have made their sentiments clear: Barrack Obama’s decision to send Billie Jean King as one of his representatives is my favourite piece of provocation so far. What I want to do here is to think more historically about the prehistory of the Winter Olympics, particularly the series of sports that were held as part of the 1908 London Olympics under the name of the Olympic Winter Games of the Olympic Winter Programme.

1924WOlympicPoster

Poster for the 1924 Winter Sports at Chamonix

The official version has Chamonix 1924 as the first Winter Olympics, although it is well to remember, as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) themselves point out,  that this appellation was granted only retrospectively: at the time, these sports that attracted competitors from 16 nations to the French Alps were simply held in conjunction with that year’s Paris Olympics. The 1928 Games at St Moritz were really the first to be organised under IOC auspices – and, of course, it is only from this period that we should refer to the other Olympics as the Summer Olympics: it’s anachronistic to apply this term to any Olympics before 1924. But Chamonix was not the first time that Olympic organisers had experimented with winter sports. Ice hockey featured in the 1920 Olympics at Antwerp (Canada won, of course), as did figure skating, in which five nations competed across singles events for men and women and a mixed pairs event. But it is to London in 1908 that we really need to look for the start of this prehistory.

 

The 1908 Olympics started on 27 April, with the opening matches in the racquets tournament at Queen’s Club. Events were then spread across May and June, with the main two weeks of stadium-based events running at the Great Stadium in the Franco-British Exhibition grounds from 13-25 July. Sailing and motorboating took place in July and August, and then there was a break until 19 October. It was on this day that the Winter programme was launched. The idea had developed during the British Olympic Council’s planning for the Games. Their minutes of 20 December 1906, for example, record the discussion of ‘the possibility of holding Olympic Skating Competitions in the winter of 1907-08’, and the planning for what they soon referred to as the ‘Winter Sports’ and the ‘Winter Games’ carried on as the Games approached, with the dates being set at the Council’s meeting on 15 November 1907: ‘The Winter Games were definitely appointed to commence on Monday, October 19, 1908’, and a Winter Games Committee was subsequently set up to plan the events. Figure and sped skating were both discussed, with the former kept and the latter dropped, and the Committee decided to hold the team sports played in Britain in winter as part of this experimental programme. Football, hockey, lacrosse, and rugby thus found themselves as part of the first Winter Games.

London_1908_English_Amateur_Football_National_Team

Great Britain’s football team at the 1908 Olympic Games

The Winter Programme started at the Stadium on 19 October, as planned, with Denmark beating France B 9-0 in the football. Over the next two weeks, the team sports all took place. Great Britain won the football, beating Denmark 2-0 in the final watched by just 8,000 people. The hockey was also won by Great Britain, though this was a tournament in which England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales entered separate teams, all under the name of Great Britain, with France and Germany making up the numbers. The final saw England beat Ireland 8-1 in front of 5,000 people. The lacrosse tournament had an even lower profile: with only two teams involved, Canada and Great Britain, there was only one match, with Canada taking gold medal after a 14-10 victory. The rugby was similarly low-key, a two-team tournament between the touring Australian side and the British county champions, Cornwall, although the record books have to show this as Great Britain. Australia won 32-3. As well as these team sports, the Winter Programme involved boxing, a one-day tournament for five weight classes at the Northampton Institute in Clerkenwell.

Edgar_Magde_Syers

Madge and Edgar Syers

It is what happened at Prince’s Skating Club, Knightsbridge, however, that makes this Winter Programme of the 1908 Olympics so significant. For here, on 28 and 29 October, the figure skating took place, the first time in Olympic history that an ice-based sport had featured. Prince’s Club was a private members establishment which had been running since 1896. For the Olympics, it hosted four competitions: Individual events for Gentlemen and Ladies; a Special Figures event for Gentlemen; and Pairs Skating. The last of these was pioneering, not just for it being an ice-based sport, but as the first time that the Olympics had included a mixed-sex aesthetic sport. Inevitably, the competition was rather small: this was an expensive niche sport at the time, and only 21 competitors from 6 nations took part. However, this included leading figures in the sport, such as the Swede Ulrich Salchow (whose name we will hear a lot from Sochi as skaters attempt their double and triple Salchows), world champion every year  bar one between 1901 and 1911, and Madge Syers of Britain, whose entry in the 1902 men’s world championships had forced the International Skating Union to create a separate event for women. Over the two days of competition, the four gold medals went to Sweden, Russia, Germany, and Great Britain, Syers winning the Ladies’ event and also winning bronze with her husband Edgar in the Pairs. The skating events attracted a great deal of press attention, with pictorial features in many of the dailies and large technical coverage in The Field, and the Olympics certainly helped to popularise skating in Britain.

1908_Olympic_Games_Ulrich_Salchow

Ulrich Salchow

It is impossible to claim that what happened in London in October 1908 was the first Winter Olympics. That phrase has no currency until the 1920s, when separate events, under the IOC’s auspices and featuring only alpine and ice-based sports, were first held. However, this Winter Programme was a crucial moment in Olympic history, not least for bringing ice into the equation. As historians, we should look back at this moment in the prehistory of Sochi 2014 for a reminder that the Olympics have always been experimental, and that the programme has never fossilised.

 

Share This Post

Leave a Comment

Filed under Blog posts