"Just part of the matchday experience": The psychological toll of abuse from the stands in football

[Cowshed]

47 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Happens to individuals in all walks of life each and every day, save most of them aren't famous, haven't sought the limelight and don't earn fortunes. The management speak of ' having a difficult conversation', many of us have to do it all the time and prettying the pill isn't necessarily the best outcome for the individual, especially where they're deluded or have ideas above their station.  There's no justification for advocating abuse for abuse sake (Gas excepted) but telling someone they're inadequate or useless when they demonstrably are isn't abuse, it's a statement of fact. It's delivery mechanism is, more often than not, mirrored by the reward mechanism sought. Cognitive Dissonance Theory demonstrates that observed criticism degrades performance but then it should, one wouldn't want a crap pilot at the controls one second longer than necessary and if getting them out for fear of hurting their feelings, well, tough. The article muddles by making reference to individuals such as Enke who for those of you who've read his biography will know that the manifestation of depression he suffered as a player had roots far away from the game, embedded in his childhood. Whatever his career he most likely would have encountered the issues to which he succumbed and one mystery raised is why he chose the career he did, given the obvious issues it brought him?

We should also not forget that nobody forces these individuals to suffer 'abuse'. If the cases cited truly were an issue they might simply have upped sticks and walked away to a life of obscurity. But then it's funny how such criticism gets levelled by those entering that twilight state, the 'you're not famous anymore' brigade,  yet only when they're no longer headline news.

Cognitive dissonance is about self and ones beliefs, but criticism often feeds positive reaction. In sport players can use criticism to feed performance. If an individual has a strongly held belief - self concept this feeds their focus and competitive nature. They choose when criticised to fight v flight. 

Football players very frequently are immune to the abuse they receive. They do not control it, can't control it, don't worry about it ..

 

[underhanded]

2 hours ago, phantom said:

Poor little snowflakes, they are up there with the best earners and most privelaged sportsmen in the world

Try standing on the frontline of a battlefield being shot at !

What is this weird obsession with equating footballers with soldiers? I remember some Facebook posts that did the rounds a few years ago, some thing like: 'What a Disgrace, Rooney earns x a week whilst our boys on the frontline earn x', followed by comments calling him scum, and he should be donating his wages to armed forces charities etc.

Why is it never said about film stars, singers, architects, bankers, insurance brokers (the list goes on)? It's a weird equivalence we seem to have made up in society.

[LondonBristolian]

44 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Happens to individuals in all walks of life each and every day, save most of them aren't famous, haven't sought the limelight and don't earn fortunes. The management speak of ' having a difficult conversation', many of us have to do it all the time and prettying the pill isn't necessarily the best outcome for the individual, especially where they're deluded or have ideas above their station.  There's no justification for advocating abuse for abuse sake (Gas excepted) but telling someone they're inadequate or useless when they demonstrably are isn't abuse, it's a statement of fact. It's delivery mechanism is, more often than not, mirrored by the reward mechanism sought. Cognitive Dissonance Theory demonstrates that observed criticism degrades performance but then it should, one wouldn't want a crap pilot at the controls one second longer than necessary and if getting them out for fear of hurting their feelings, well, tough. The article muddles by making reference to individuals such as Enke who for those of you who've read his biography will know that the manifestation of depression he suffered as a player had roots far away from the game, embedded in his childhood. Whatever his career he most likely would have encountered the issues to which he succumbed and one mystery raised is why he chose the career he did, given the obvious issues it brought him?

We should also not forget that nobody forces these individuals to suffer 'abuse'. If the cases cited truly were an issue they might simply have upped sticks and walked away to a life of obscurity. But then it's funny how such criticism gets levelled by those entering that twilight state, the 'you're not famous anymore' brigade,  yet only when they're no longer headline news.

Do you honestly believe there isn't a difference between a manager "having a difficult conversation" with someone about their performance and someone you've never met screaming at you that you're ******* useless? There really is.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory is a bit difference to what you suggest. However I actually find the most interesting research in this field to be the work that Kahneman and Amos Tversky did with fighter pilots in the Israeli army. In short, officers shouted at people who performed poorly and praised people who performed well and found the people they shouted at did better and the people they praised did worse. However Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that they were failing to spot "regression to the mean" - i.e. someone who performed below their average is likely do better next time and someone over-average worse simply because they revert back to their average, not because of a response to praise or criticism. The whole idea that shouting at someone will "buck up their ideas" is based on this misconception and generally shouting at someone does not improve performance.

You also muddle your analogy up a bit over the idea "one would not want a crap pilot at the controls a moment longer than necessary". Of course you would not but you resolve that not by shouting but by removing them from the cockpit (or making a sub in football). There are obvious arguments for subbing poor players or transferring out consistently poor performances. None of these argument really provide a rationale for shouting abuse though as it does not achieve anything.

Also I'm a bit confused by the way the way you keep assuming players are fine with abuse because they get paid a lot of money. There is absolutely no evidence I am aware of that paying people large salaries insulates them from negative consequences for their mental health. I can't help feeling that the argument "they are paid a lot so should be able to take any abuse people fling at them" has more to do with frustration at how much people get paid than a reasoned argument about how pay affects mental health.

Lastly I don't think one should be surprised it is those at the end of their careers who discuss the impact of these things. It is natural people would find it hard to do so when younger players as they would be accused of speaking out of turn and having ideas above their station. Veterans are much more likely to be in a position to safely look back and reflect without fearing detrimental consequences. 

[Redandwhitescarf]

There's  banter and there's abuse. Sometimes there is a very thin even blurred line between the two. Don't bring wages into the argument as surely it's how good or not you are at the job that is the crux of the matter 

[BRISTOL86]

8 minutes ago, underhanded said:

What is this weird obsession with equating footballers with soldiers? I remember some Facebook posts that did the rounds a few years ago, some thing like: 'What a Disgrace, Rooney earns x a week whilst our boys on the frontline earn x', followed by comments calling him scum, and he should be donating his wages to armed forces charities etc.

Why is it never said about film stars, singers, architects, bankers, insurance brokers (the list goes on)? It's a weird equivalence we seem to have made up in society.

Agreed. Bizarre logic at times and I’ve never understood that mentality. 

By that logic because I’m an accountant and not a bin man I should expect to receive a proportionally higher amount of abuse from strangers in my workplace because I earn more than they do?

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Cognitive dissonance is about self and ones beliefs.

When I was taught that module, albeit a long time ago when the field was quite new, CD theory defined self and ones perception of ones environmental stressors. It reinforces facilitation theory that positive reinforcement of an activity one perceives as having been successfully achieved enhances performance, whilst criticism degrades potential performance where performance fails to match perceived ability. As you say criticism may improve performance via motivational factors where dissonance is low.

I'm crap, I don't want to be crap, I don't like my peers telling me I'm crap, so I'm going to work even harder to improve so they no longer do so. The important CD in that example is the acknowledgement that 'one is crap'. The examples given hereabouts are different. Players who think they're good and who dislike and suffer dissonance as a result of others acting in a way they do not themselves believe is a fair reflection of their ability. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the stressor who's wrong.

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

32 minutes ago, soultrader said:

I didnt't realise this was an actual job ...

 

More of a niche interest at the moment.

[Robbored]

34 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Cognitive dissonance is about self and ones beliefs, but criticism often feeds positive reaction. In sport players can use criticism to feed performance. 

‘Tough love’ in layman’s terms.

Ive not come across the term cognitive dissonance since my working days. 

I understood it as a person who considers themselves good at something - art for example but are told thier art is crap. The person experiences a psychological conflict between what they believe and what they’re being told.......and try to ease their conflict by either defending their artistic ability or by dismissing the opinion outright with rationales like ‘they don’t know what they’re talking about’

Very common occurrence when dealing with dependent drinkers.

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

27 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Cognitive dissonance is about self and ones beliefs, but criticism often feeds positive reaction. In sport players can use criticism to feed performance. If an individual has a strongly held belief - self concept this feeds their focus and competitive nature. They choose when criticised to fight v flight. 

Football players very frequently are immune to the abuse they receive. They do not control it, can't control it, don't worry about it ..

 

How many times over the years, have we ripped the piss out of an ex player, only for them to pop up and score? 

[BTRFTG]

22 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Cognitive Dissonance Theory is a bit difference to what you suggest.

In what way? CDT is wholly concerned with self and perception of environmental stressors (real or imagined.) Performance as you describe relates to facilitation theory, how external stressors alter mensurate performance.

22 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Also I'm a bit confused by the way the way you keep assuming players are fine with abuse because they get paid a lot of money

Where did I say this? In CDT terms the distinction in shouting at a park player or one on £25k a week is simple, I suffer far greater dissonance where my assumption is somebody on that level of remuneration might be expected to perform in a given way CF somebody who I perceive is playing wholly for their own pleasure and in whom I've little emotional investment. I imagine neither would appreciate being shouted at but on a comparative note the player being highly remunerated would find it far easier to reconcile the abuse a la Tomlin's comments to Pack close season.

[Laner]

59 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Didn’t take long for the standard classic ‘you earn a lot of money so it’s only natural to suffer abuse’ bollocks to come out. 

Ok... so how about looking at it a different way? Anyone coming into the game as a professional footballer must be aware of the situations they'll be faced with both on and off the pitch.

I'm not saying it's fine, it's just what happens.

[Son of Fred]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

Poor little snowflakes, they are up there with the best earners and most privelaged sportsmen in the world

Try standing on the frontline of a battlefield being shot at !

Id get 'down and reduce that profile a bit smartish if I were you..

[Maesknoll Red]

I'm at a bit of a loss, any footballer playing professionally will have come up through the ranks and know what is likely to happen on a match day, some of them grew up as fans and probably partook in it themselves.  I would think incessant and vitriolic criticism on social media would be worse, as it's there as a permanent record, not an alcohol fuelled verbal that's floated away on the wind.

[BRISTOL86]

38 minutes ago, Laner said:

Ok... so how about looking at it a different way? Anyone coming into the game as a professional footballer must be aware of the situations they'll be faced with both on and off the pitch.

I'm not saying it's fine, it's just what happens.

I agree that it’s what happens and to most it’s water off a ducks back, but like you say it doesn’t actually make it right and ‘he earns loads of money’ is a pretty sad justification for it. 

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

In what way? CDT is wholly concerned with self and perception of environmental stressors (real or imagined.) Performance as you describe relates to facilitation theory, how external stressors alter mensurate performance.

Where did I say this? In CDT terms the distinction in shouting at a park player or one on £25k a week is simple, I suffer far greater dissonance where my assumption is somebody on that level of remuneration might be expected to perform in a given way CF somebody who I perceive is playing wholly for their own pleasure and in whom I've little emotional investment. I imagine neither would appreciate being shouted at but on a comparative note the player being highly remunerated would find it far easier to reconcile the abuse a la Tomlin's comments to Pack close season.

Having seen your other posts, I can now better understand what you are getting at. 

Nonetheless I do think that the person shouting the abuse has to be seen as a factor too. I.e. if you are told by someone who you have a mutually respectful relationship with that you are crap and can do better then I am sure that motivates. I suspect many players do not feel the same about abuse from fans because the fans have not played the game so it is hard to see it as valid criticism. 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

When I was taught that module, albeit a long time ago when the field was quite new, CD theory defined self and ones perception of ones environmental stressors. It reinforces facilitation theory that positive reinforcement of an activity one perceives as having been successfully achieved enhances performance, whilst criticism degrades potential performance where performance fails to match perceived ability. As you say criticism may improve performance via motivational factors where dissonance is low.

I'm crap, I don't want to be crap, I don't like my peers telling me I'm crap, so I'm going to work even harder to improve so they no longer do so. The important CD in that example is the acknowledgement that 'one is crap'. The examples given hereabouts are different. Players who think they're good and who dislike and suffer dissonance as a result of others acting in a way they do not themselves believe is a fair reflection of their ability. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the stressor who's wrong.

Yes focussing on positives helps to improve performance. In athletic environments individuals often know they are good. The process of creating a footballer requires individuals to be beyond good. It requires individuals to be committed and resilient beyond normal life - Their dissonance is low.

These individuals can improve via negative feedback. Experts in football psychology suggest 20/80. 20% focus on negatives where necessary and 80% on the positives. This can be looked upon as an exciting means of improvement i.e. we know I am good, but with that 20% I can be even better!"

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

‘Tough love’ in layman’s terms.

Ive not come across the term cognitive dissonance since my working days. 

I understood it as a person who considers themselves good at something - art for example but are told their art is crap. The person experiences a psychological conflict between what they believe and what they’re being told.and try to ease their conflict by either defending their artistic ability or by dismissing the opinion outright with rationales like ‘they don’t know what they’re talking about’

Very common occurrence when dealing with dependent drinkers.

Yes and there is skill in directing that criticism (feedback) to the player. Footballers have an option. The feedback is a threat and they can react negatively. Or they choose the challenge. Feedback = a negative = A positive because I can be even better by using this feedback as an exciting means of improvement.

My understanding Is the same of yours. It does not work so easily in a football sense because players have differing self concepts to the rest of us. Their self concept to be what they are has to be different because their reality is nothing like ours ...

1 hour ago, Mike Hunt-Hertz said:

How many times over the years, have we ripped the piss out of an ex player, only for them to pop up and score? 

Roy Keane .. Hated friendlies and games with little to play for … He wanted intensity, vitriol, noise … And he thrived upon it.

[LondonBristolian]

39 minutes ago, Laner said:

Ok... so how about looking at it a different way? Anyone coming into the game as a professional footballer must be aware of the situations they'll be faced with both on and off the pitch.

I'm not saying it's fine, it's just what happens.

 

8 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I'm at a bit of a loss, any footballer playing professionally will have come up through the ranks and know what is likely to happen on a match day, some of them grew up as fans and probably partook in it themselves.  I would think incessant and vitriolic criticism on social media would be worse, as it's there as a permanent record, not an alcohol fuelled verbal that's floated away on the wind.

I think this is where it gets interesting, especially in terms of social media. The reality is, with both social media and players on the pitch, we dehumanise the people in the situation and say what we think without thinking about the impact. And we also think "all players will know they will get abuse and so it must be okay" but I suspect there is a world of difference between knowing it happens and actually experiencing it and that few players will be able to accurately predict in advance how they will feel when it happens. I also think, as a society, we've accepted people will get crucified on social media without really thinking through what that does to people and it will be interesting to see what those consequences ultimately are. 

[Alan Dicks' Barmy Army]

2 hours ago, Antman said:

exactly this - some people think they have a license to hurl abuse without any sense of consequence.

Its made worse with social media, where boundaries have become blurred to the point of no return.

Would you expect to abuse a co worker or someone in a social situation, or face to face situation in the same manner?  of course not - so why do it.

* i see we've had the first 'battlefield' analogy too - *facepalms*

Clearly you live behind a computer screen and never taken flak off of anyone in the real world

[Slack Bladder]

I thought it was the job of the fans to make your ground as intimidating as possible for the opposition.

Some do it very well.

[phantom]

2 hours ago, 1bristolcity said:

 Have you?

All for a bit of banter, but no matter how much the 'victim' is on makes no difference.

As a matter of fact the job "I chose" I have taken lots of abuse from people, as a Manager often had to deal with angry people.

I knew it was part of my job and I chose to take the position offered to me

47 minutes ago, Robert the bruce said:

Id get 'down and reduce that profile a bit smartish if I were you..

@Robert the bruce - care to explain what you mean please?

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

3 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Don't you already do that for free though ?

Yes, but a fair days wage for a fair day's work....I don't want to be as Corinthian in future.

[Son of Fred]

22 minutes ago, phantom said:

As a matter of fact the job "I chose" I have taken lots of abuse from people, as a Manager often had to deal with angry people.

I knew it was part of my job and I chose to take the position offered to me

@Robert the bruce - care to explain what you mean please?

If the 'wasp's are buzzing,go prone.....

[phantom]

1 hour ago, Robert the bruce said:

Id get 'down and reduce that profile a bit smartish if I were you..

 

12 minutes ago, Robert the bruce said:

If the 'wasp's are buzzing,go prone.....

Can ANYONE translate these posts into English please?

Sounds like something Eric Cantona would say!!

[ChippenhamRed]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I haven't said anything of the sort. Had you bothered to read what I'd written you'll have noted I used the phrase ' usually the result of personal failings ' if a player is as you say 'good' he will be deservedly subject to praise from his own supporters and derision from the opposition, which as I've said is itself a form of praise given they fear his abilities. So called 'abuse' usually  arises where demonstrably the player isn't as good as he thinks he is, or is defined as by virtue of his relative standing. Paul Williams was probably technically a worse player than Engvald though only the latter deserved to incur my wrath. The difference being not in how they performed, rather how they thought they should be considered by us fans. I don't hurl abuse at park players for failing to control a ball, at AG on the other hand I demand players display an element of basic competence. That seems to me a fair trade off.

Don’t assume that just because I didn’t interpret your post as intended, I didn’t “bother to read” what you’d written. Maybe I read every word but your comments are giving off a rather different impression. The failing isn’t necessarily mine.

As for “abuse arises when the player isn’t as good as he thinks he is” - how do you know how good he thinks he is? Clearly you are making sweeping assumptions that all footballers have the self-belief of Ronaldo. Again you are giving the impression that abuse is OK based on the stereotypical image of the puffed-up egocentric footballer. A lazy characterisation.

It’s entirely plausible that many aren’t anything like that, and abuse does nothing but harm.

Likewise “how they thought they should be considered by us fans” - how do you know how Engvall thought he should be considered? Did he agree the transfer fee? Did he declare himself the new Maradona? No. Once again you are jumping to stereotype all footballers as having massive egos. For me that’s part of the problem - and again hints at the suggestion that they are fair game.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I suspect many players do not feel the same about abuse from fans because the fans have not played the game 

In which case I demand they listen to Patrik Fitzgerald's 'Don't Tell Me Because I'm Young' on an endless loop before every fixture. The idiot Savage (and yes I mean utter idiot) uses the bon mot that one has to have played the game to appreciate it's nuances - bull. I'd suggest any player arrogant enough to think themselves exempt from criticism from anyone other than a peer deserves everything they get.

[Maesknoll Red]

51 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

Can ANYONE translate these posts into English please?

Sounds like something Eric Cantona would say!!

You said “standing on the front line and being shot at”. Lowering your profile would be face down in the mud, drastically reducing the target size.......

[Sello]

Put simply, why does a person have the right to abuse another human being?

In my view, no one has this right and I am left a little depressed and somewhat confused by the attempts to justify this.

According to many above, it is permissable if the abuser's assessment of the abused person's resilience is that he will be able to "take it." How is that assessment made?

Some are more careless than this and assume all footballers should be able to take it as they earn more than the rest of us.

I remember similar justification being offered in defence of racism. I sometimes still hear it. 

If this is considered too sensitive a response to be relevant to the world of football, perhaps we should be concerned if only for the more selfish and practical reason that some young talent may be falling by the wayside as a result of this behaviour. 

 

[BTRFTG]

22 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

How do you know how Engvall thought he should be considered? Did he agree the transfer fee? 

I do know Engvald passed himself off as a 'professional footballer' and I'd find it hard to believe he and his agent didn't agree his contract (though not necessarily transfer fee.) In my book that makes him a charlatan of the first water. Had he a personal sense of honour he'd have passed up the opportunity knowing he was out of his depth and would never be able to uphold his side of the contract. But of course why should he, we were the mugs paying him handsomely and far beyond his deserving? That secondary point having fans highlight his notable limitations is entirely justified and shows as much care for his feelings as he did for ours. 

[Red-Robbo]

Never shouted abuse at a player appearing for us. What's the point?

Have very occasional made my feelings known in blunt terms to the manager who selected the non-performing player.

[phantom]

Two examples of why I find it hard to feel sorry for these guys.... 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-6130059/amp/Diafra-Sakho-leaving-200-000-Lamborghini-West-Ham-sums-up.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2011/01/19/jermaine-pennant-forgot-he-owned-porsche-629935/amp/