Saturday, December 12, 2009

Glastonbury 2010: Football stops bands

Glastonbury organisers - or, at least, Emily Eavis - are fretting about what to do with the World Cup of Football matches which clash with next year's festivals.

Back in the past, a healthy "well, these people have paid a ton of cash for an arts and music festival, so presumably if they were that interested in the football they'd have stayed at home to watch the bloody football" might have prevailed. But that line has long since vanished - mainly because hardly anyone actually seems to go to Glastonbury for the music any more.

I still have horrific nightmares following the time they stuck Jimmy Hill - wearing his St George bow tie - on the massive screen during The World Cup Of Football in France 1998.

Still, Glastonbury wouldn't be Glastonbury without a messy compromise, and while they're thinking of showing the Wednesday match on the screens at the Pyramid stage, they're not planning to do so on Saturday:

The potential England match on Saturday (26th) will be held while the festival is in full swing, so it won’t be possible to show the football on the Pyramid Stage screens, though it is possible that it will be shown elsewhere on the Glastonbury site such as on the cinema screen.

Wednesday is the first night, when the field is opening, and based on all projections, should be a match that has little influence on England's chances. Saturday, if England are playing, will be while the festival is rammed, and be a knock-out moment.

In other words, if the match does take place on Saturday and England are taking part, it's going to have a lot of people wanting to see it. Just sticking it on in one of the smaller corners of the site will result in a large number of people heading in the same direction at the same time. I hope they've thought through the implications. Back in 1998, there was nearly a nasty crush until organisers decided at the last moment to stick the match on the Pyramid stage screens as well.


19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you know if there are any petitions being generated regarding the showing of the games during glastonbury? i think it would only be fair to have the cinema screen dedicated to all of the games over the weekend. i can not see a good enough reason not to do this. there will not be huge amounts of spectators watching the lesser games but unless there is that option i can see a lot of disgruntled glasto-goers.

duckie said...

@anonymous
Please don't buy a ticket for Glastonbury this year. It needs less people like you.

Anonymous said...

oh you silly man. there is very little wrong with being interested in the World Cup. Its the most popular sporting event in the world. The final always gets the highest global ratings. Now your sporting preference is not relative to this topic. What is relative is if there is a significant portion of the attendees who will want to experience some of the tournament. Also if we consider that a lot of people travel from abroad to the festival then I beleive it would be unfair not to give them the option to watch their national teams compete. Think about it.

simon h b said...

What about people coming from abroad who'd like to see the cricket? Why pander to football people? What about people coming from abroad who want to see the soap operas? In the UK, Corrie outperforms most of the early matches - why not have Corrie on the big screens?

Anonymous said...

your logic is floored. the world cup is the most watched sporting event in the world. football is a truely international game. there is no comparison to cricket or any other event apart from the olympics. corrie is not a live event and will lose very little impact if watched at a later date. a football game between competing nations will. your preference has little significance unless it represented an OVERWELMING majority. we can safely conclude that there are certainly enough people interested in the game to warrent attention to this issue.

Chris Brown said...

I've never been to Glasto and I'm not a football fan, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But I can imagine what the reaction would be if somebody started a petition to have the Arctic Monkeys walk on the pitch during the FA Cup final and start playing a set.

PS - the word verifictation is "indis".

duckie said...

Better still, petition FIFA to put U2 on at half time in all the crucial games. Then people who have bought World Cup tickets under the mistaken impression that it's a football tournament won't be disappointed.

simon h b said...

@anonymous
If you don't know what the score is in the football, it makes no difference if you watch it live or watch it on the Sky+ when you get home.

Of course, there's a chance that someone will tell you the result before you get a chance to see it - but the same is true of Coronation Street.

If people are really that bothered about the football, why don't they stay at home to watch the football?

Anonymous said...

lets just clear something up ok -

I am not suggesting that the games are broadcast on the stages where the bands are playing

what i am suggesting -

we give people the option to watch the games live on the cinema screen.

the reasons -

1. glastonbury is an event that attracts people from various nations. i believe they should have the chance to support their teams.
2. football is the biggest sport event in the world with this tournament being its biggest draw by far. therefor lets try not to compare it to a soap opera that is only seriously watched in the uk.

just to reclarify - i am not suggesting the games are played in the same stages as the bands are. it would be a seperate area. much like they have had previously for movies. they could still have movies and just show the maximum 2 games per day that the tournament is holding.

duckie said...

Sorry Chris, didn't see your comment before I posted my own exactly similar version.

simon h b said...

I'm not suggesting that they show Coronation Street anywhere, either.

But I think that given that *most* people don't want to watch the football, showing all the games over the weekend seems like overkill. England matches - yes, fair enough.

But, seriously, if you want to 'support' your team, don't go to Glastonbury. Go to South Africa.

(And watching a match on TV isn't 'supporting' a team anyway - they can't hear you, you know.)

And who cares that football is marginally more popular than other forms of knocking balls about? Masturbation is an incredibly popular pastime, but I don't think that it follows we should start streaming porn over the Glastonbury site.

If the football means so much to you, stay at home and watch the football. Or take a radio.

Anonymous said...

"But, seriously, if you want to 'support' your team, don't go to Glastonbury. Go to South Africa."
- the various issues involved in this logic include:
the tickets are extremely expensive. also there are people who would like to experience the music festival and also watch the games. try to think laterally here.

"supporting a team" is a general term used for a physical or non physical presence of support. you do not actually have to be within an ears shot.

"And who cares that football is marginally more popular than other forms of knocking balls about? Masturbation is an incredibly popular pastime, but I don't think that it follows we should start streaming porn over the Glastonbury site."
- I trust you are being facetious here. in which case this would not hold water with any serious reasoning. funny though so kudos for making me smile

ok so again. and put simply......
1. the world cup is the worlds most watched sporting event......
2. glastonbury attracts people from all over the world who would like to have a chance to watch their home nations compete not just the bias broadcasting of englands games.
3. there are a maximum of just 2 games per day which would barely cause a ripple in anyone elses experience of glastonbury but it would have a major effect on those wanting to watch them.
4. if they show it on the cinema screen it will not utilise the screens on the stages - therefor no issues with the bands.

duckie said...

Oh please, patronise us some more by "putting it simply". Your position is easy to understand, I just happen to vehemently disagree with it. Glastonbury is a festival of the performing arts, not sport. If you buy a Glastonbury ticket, regardless if where in the world you live, you are paying for that, not access to a television. It is the very separateness from normal day to day life that makes an event like Glastonbury so special, and hence why there should be no place for televised anything.

By the way, the World Cup is not "the most watched sporting event in the world". That's Formula One.

Anonymous said...

First i apologise for upsetting you that was not my intention.

In 2006 FIFA World Cup was the most-watched sporting event of that year with an average 95 Million viewers per match.

The most popular regular-broadcast sports event and TV programme is the English Premier League. It is broadcast to 600 million households in 202 countries and reportedly watched by more than 1.2 billion people per week. Even this figure may be an underestimate as the number of people watching are said to watch on pirated set top boxes and illegal Internet streams.

Now about "performing arts".. Glastonbury is host to many varieties of performing arts, not just music. Sport is considered by many to be a performing art. And infact. It is.

We have "performance" - football qualifies.

And "art" - A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities for the purpose of exhibition.

As with football and painting you have "good art" and "bad art". But its still art.

Football is infact the most popular sport in the world. Which in my opinion was only a partially relevant point. Also sport can be considered a performance of art..

Now with that cleared up what remains is the question as to whether or not it should be broadcast. You should be advised to ingnore you personal preference and focus on the number of people who would benefit from this small gesture. It will by all accounts not effect the music performances and only take up a maximum of 3 hours per day. And I am suggesting the use of a cinema screen that in previous years had been constructed to show movies anyway.

simon h b said...

I think the problem is that you're confusing something being popular, and having a right to be shown at Glastonbury.

Tell you what - if FIFA agree to hold up the second half of the third place play-off to let Justin Bieber do a set, we've got a deal.

Anonymous said...

@ simon -

sorry but im am not confused. what we are dealing with is an issue that has arrised ever time glastonbury has coincided with the world cup. this is a documented concern so lets not pretend its anything else.

now someone previously had made the same comment about playing music during football games.

I see nothing wrong with having acts play at half time. Infact its a great idea. other sporting events do it why not football.

but you see I am not suggesting that the football is played INSTEAD of the music. I am suggesting it is played at the same time. This does not inhibit any of the acts from performing and also allows anyone looking to support their home nation the option to view it on a cinema screen that is usually constructed anyway.

simon h b said...

I wasn't suggesting you were confused; I was suggesting you were confusing the viewing figures for the World Cup with a reason for showing the matches at Glastonbury.

If the screen is showing football, it can't be showing cinema - which is what the screen is erected for.

Who pays £150 to watch something that they could see for free down the nearest pub?

Anonymous said...

simon buddy you are struggling. i am constantly repeating the same points.

finally just to respond to your latest intelligent criticsims

1. confusing something/being confused = a level of confusion.. just pedantics simon please stop flinging mud to see if it sticks.

2. cinema screen for movies - ive covered this. but again - it can be used for both. the games take a maximum of 3 hours per day.

3. £150 for something they could watch at the pub for free - worst comment yet - look people would like to see both. its very simple. and its not £150 to see the world cup.. i mean.. oh never mind.

have a great festival and dont worry yourself: if they do show the games im sure you and anyone else who doesnt care for football will not even be aware of it..

and thats really the main issue.

im almost certain that with my alternative "Glastonbury 2010: Football stops bands" will not be headline news :) :)

anyone with any further questions please view above. i think i have responded to any criticisms with appropriate answers.

bye.

simon h b said...

simon buddy you are struggling. i am constantly repeating the same points.

I'm not exactly struggling, but you're right - you do keep repeating the same points. Over and over.

finally just to respond to your latest intelligent criticsims

Why, thank you for... hey, you're being all sacrarstatical at me, aint you?

1. confusing something/being confused = a level of confusion.. just pedantics simon please stop flinging mud to see if it sticks.

No, sorry - there is a fundamental difference between 'being confused' ('where am I? why am I being led to this ambulance? who stole my trousers') and 'knowingly confusing facts in order to try and prove a point' ('lots of people watch the World Cup, so it makes sense to dump the movies from an arts festival to show the football').

cinema screen for movies - ive covered this. but again - it can be used for both. the games take a maximum of 3 hours per day.

But it's a screen to show movies on during an arts festival. Just repeating 'well, it's only three hours a day' doesn't exactly answer the question 'why should an arts festival stop showing movies to put some sporting event on?'

£150 for something they could watch at the pub for free - worst comment yet - look people would like to see both. its very simple. and its not £150 to see the world cup.. i mean.. oh never mind.

I really can't tell if you genuinely don't understand the concept of 'why should someone who has paid £150 to see an arts festival discover that the arts festival has suspended part of its programme for hours a day to show a football match instead'?

There may be some people who "would like to do both". But sometimes we have to choose.

im almost certain that with my alternative "Glastonbury 2010: Football stops bands" will not be headline news :) :)

Nor, really, would 'music and arts festival doesn't drop cinema programme to make way for football'.

Enjoy your World Cup.

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.