WSC Logo

rss

Sign up for the WSC Weekly Howl

A small portion of despair and enlightenment delivered to your inbox every Friday

 

First name
Surname
Email

newissue medrec 333

gplus50

footballartbanner1


Manchester United – footballing fashion victims

15 September ~ These are happy days for the global football brands of north-west England. On Sunday the New York Times Style Magazine – a thick and glossy supplement to the paper's already fat Sunday edition – made Manchester United their cover feature, promising on the inside Cristiano Ronaldo and a tribute to 25 years of the club. Cristiano Ronaldo of Real Madrid? And just 25 years? Oh, never mind the details, the PR chiefs at Old Trafford will tell any jealous detractors. This is nothing but positive exposure to a new and very wealthy audience.

The article in fact tells us mercifully little about Cristiano Ronaldo. It's just that the editors obviously decided he had a handsome face, and so they made him the cover boy. And they do point out that he enjoyed "a six-year career with the Reds" (who ever calls Manchester United "the Reds"?) beneath another picture on the inside of the player wearing a $2,500 Gucci coat and "his own diamond stud earrings". The remainder of the pictures concentrate on people who are actually part of the team.

There's Sir Alex, "English football's enlightened despot", wearing "a Paul Smith suit, shirt and tie custom-designed for Manchester United", and a $16,900 Hublot watch (injury-time button optional). Rio Ferdinand looks tough and ready for action, arms crossed in a $4,575 Hermes coat and "his own Scotch and soda shirt" (presumably what Fergie threw over it during a half-time tantrum). Michael Carrick, looking bemused (perhaps he knew in advance that they were planning to describe him as "arguably the best passer at Old Trafford"), wears "a $2,750 Bottega Veneta coat". And then there's the "working-class hero, whose spirit is matched by his skill" – with his new hair in a losing fight to outgrow his stubble, it's "Liverpudlian striker Wayne".

"He looks like a TV detective," said one of my daughters, contemplating the forward looking moody in a Tom Ford coat ($4,980), shirt ($585), and trousers ($990). She had a good point. Meet Rooney, the uncompromising, unorthodox cop in conflict with the twin demons of crime and chronic hair loss. Unafraid to venture into the city's sleaziest fleshpots, risking self-incrimination as he expunges society of over-aged vice and public urination. And all the while wearing a spotless pair of shiny black Kurt Geiger shoes. Though it's definitely an improvement on his legendary lollypop pose.

Just to show it's not all deadly serious in the world of fashion and football, Nemanja Vidic wears a goofy grin as well as a Dries van Noten overcoat (a bit of a snip at $1,926). But he's out-trumped by Eric Cantona, hands thrust into his coat pockets, with an expression, as always, like he's about to correct some know-nothing on a simple philosophical point of information. Eric is wearing Giorgio Armani to keep out the cold ($3,995). According to the article, Cantona kick-started "Ferguson's peerless reign" when he returned from his six-month ban for "leaping salmon-like over the gate" at a Crystal Palace fan. It cleverly invokes the salmon image in the context of one of Cantona's pseudo-profound epithets. Though I've never heard of a salmon being charged with assault.

The feature is breathless and shamelessly transparent myth-making. Here, take a look at Manchester United, team of "outrageous feuds" and unparalleled success. They're a bit like those maverick fashion designers, eh? All iconic flawed genius, darkly shot in expensive coats. It's a fair distance from looking self-conscious in Wembley blazers once a year on Cup final day. But almost as inevitable in its clumsy, superficial execution as every other depressing off-field attempt to dress football up outside of its natural domain. Call me Top Man, but I preferred the Shoot! photo features of a player at home with the wife and kids in a T-shirt, jeans, and a relentlessly creeping bald patch. Ian Plenderleith

Comments (11)
Comment by G.Man 2011-09-15 11:43:02

Very good, but no mention of Hernandez dressed as a private school's headboy?

CRonaldo's seems to be swallowing his head. Maybe the Adam's apple is eating it. And what exactly are the white stains on Carrick's jeans?

Comment by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! 2011-09-15 12:28:39

Does wayne rooney really have that many tattoos? I mean he has a couple, but if he's going to be "much tattooed" where does that leave you when considering daniel agger, or stephen ireland who have used their entire back to create bayeaux tapestry style tableaux

Comment by jasoñ voorhees 2011-09-15 13:14:37

I was hoping someone saw this, and I'm very happy the person who did see it was Ian P.

Comment by wittoner 2011-09-15 13:34:49

Good Stuff Ian. I must pull you up though on "who ever calls Manchester United 'The Reds'?" Many people do, especially in the Manchester area. "Reds" and "Blues" were shorthand for United and City in the late lamented "Football Pink", Manchester's Saturday night sports paper and the Manchester Evening News still keeps up the tradition. Mancunian Football fans will tell you to this day that they are either a "Red" or a "Blue"

Comment by Paul Rowland 2011-09-15 13:35:53

I've seen that Wayne Rooney coat before, and to be honest I didn't really like it that much. But now I've seen Wayne wearing it, my views have changed completely. In fact, I'm going to dash out the office right now and get myself one. Plus the shirt and trousers too!

(The power of advertising, eh?)

Comment by imp 2011-09-15 15:36:00

Thanks, wittoner - happy to be corrected on that. I suppose I was imagining it being said in a US accent, and it didn't sound quite natural. Ian.

Comment by Efficient Baxter 2011-09-16 09:21:59

Ian has also clearly forgotten this number one hit single http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NXe_M8LgRw

Comment by Rogin, veranda chair fan 2011-09-16 09:52:26

It's "the Red Devils" I've never heard a Man United use in real life to refer to their team. I know it [i] is [/i] the club's official nickname, but I've only ever seen it in print, and usually then only as a device in some tortured metaphor.

Comment by The Dead C 2011-09-16 11:50:40

With all the clothes and money im a little surprised the NYT didnt get Brett Easton Ellis in to do "American Psycho pt II: Patrick Bateman's Prawn Sandwiches"

Comment by FCKarl 2011-09-17 00:50:34

Ahem. You've just underscored why nobody with a brain reads the New York Times. Perhaps 30 plus years ago it was a news journal worth some attention. Not today. Poorly managed. Poorly edited. Rife with errors a second year university student would not make. It is rubbish faux journalism with a grotesque liberal bent, truly a staff and newspaper living on borrowed time.

As for footballers and football and fashion? Also for the dustbin. Be better for those vainglorious "thugs?" with multi-thousand pound watches, shoes, shirts, and jackets to.... get their heads straight and just Play Football. As is well said: You can dress up a pig, but it is still a pig (and I am not just talking about the players).

"For all is vanity...."

Comment by The Dead C 2011-09-18 14:59:05

Ahem. I believe its "You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig". Mind you, I wouldnt be surprised if United had their own brand of rouge for the ladies

On the subject...


Discuss this article

You must be logged in to comment. Please register if you don't have an account yet.


 

© When Saturday Comes Limited 2014 | Contact | Privacy & cookies | Sitemap | Managed hosting by Latitude