Since I wrote this post yesterday, I've been thinking about some of the effects of social ownership of football clubs. The question that is most in my mind is this: Does putting the emotional energy into being outraged at the creation of an avaricious football league mean that that energy can't/won't be invested into other things?
As I write these words, my answer to this question is: Yes!
I do think that by investing our emotional energy (i.e., motivation) into influencing entertainment, we don't invest it into other things.
Can people care about things like sports and other stuff (like social policy)? Sure, that can happen, but I don't think it usually does. What does happen is people get mad when ultra-wealthy owners of football clubs do stupid things, like trying to form a European Super League, and they react in ways that force said ulta-wealthy owners to change course.
I get that there are significant differences between policymakers and owners of sports teams. (Owners need fans to buy tickets, merch, and watch games; policymakers need people to vote for them or for those who support their agenda.) Be that as it may, I find myself asking: What would happen if the same level of mass public outrage were directed at policymakers?
(I mean that as a serious information-seeking question.)
Another thought is what would happen if famous people, like professional footballers, were to take a far more active and outspoken stance on social issues? Pep Guardiola did by wearing an Open Arms Hoodie?
Of course, this is not a new thing to consider. People have talked lots and lots about the social responsibility (or lack of social responsibility) of famous people for a long time. But the way things went with the European Super League is making me think about it now.