Social inclusion through football fandom: opportunities and

constraints for people with learning disabilities

Abstract In Britain, within the contemporary drive to use sport to tackle the isolation of socially excluded

groups, association football (football) fandom has been suggested in many policy documents as a

possible site for enabling people with learning disabilities(PWLD) to become more socially included.

However, whilst there is some evidence of the benefits of playing football, as yet there is little

evidence to support these claims. Drawing on empirical data from my doctoral research, this paper

aims to provide a critical analysis of the opportunities and constraints to overcome social exclusion

that football fandom provides for PWLD. The first pieces of evidence as to the social benefits PWLD

can realistically achieve through football fandom, such as a sense of belonging and a shared social

identity, are presented. This paper concludes that whilst football fandom offers certain social benefits

to PWLD, which go some way towards tackling their social exclusion, they are unlikely to result in the

‘social inclusion’ characterised by Government.

Introduction People with learning disabilities (PWLD) have always occupied a marginal position in British society,

whether in spatially separated institutions or absent from wider social opportunities (Hall, 2010). In

contemporary political discourse, this isolation is articulated through the language of social

exclusion, attributed to individuals lacking social capital and social networks, and being disconnected

from their communities (Baron, 2004). Primarily based on the theoretical ideas of Robert Putnam

(1995; 2000) and the research of Collins, Henry, Houlihan and Buller (1999), sport and leisure

participation, particularly Association Football (football), has been increasingly championed as a

means of tackling this social exclusion. Current policies bestowed by the national governing body for

football, the Football Association (FA), and implemented within individual football clubs, such as

‘Football for Disabled People’ (The FA, 2001), ‘The Disability Football Strategy: 2004-2006’ (The FA,

2004), and ‘Football for All’ (The FA, 2006), have all highlighted the benefits of being involved in

football “whether as a player, referee, administrator, coach or spectator” (The FA, 2010). However,

whilst these policies dedicate considerable effort to achieving the positive health and social benefit

associated with playing football, relatively little explanation is given to the supposedly positive social

outcomes of being a spectator or fan.

Building on previous work (Southby, 2011) discussing the potential use of football fandom as a site

for the social inclusion of PWLD, this paper aims to provide a critical analysis of the opportunities

and constraints to overcome social exclusion that football fandom provides PWLD. Using empirical

data from my doctoral research on the same topic, it is argued that football fandom offers PWLD

many social benefits, particularly in relation to feelings of belonging and a shared identity with other

fans, which may go some way towards tackling their social exclusion. However, these social benefits

are unlikely to enable PWLD gain the necessary social capital to become ‘socially included’.

Following brief consideration of a definition of learning disability, the paper begins by discussing

PWLD’s experiences within the contemporary discourse of social exclusion and theorised routes to

social inclusion. The emergent role of sport and leisure participation as a tool for tackling social

exclusion, and the supposed social benefits associated with being a football fan will then be shown

to represent a simplistic and overly romanticised view of PWLD as football fans. A brief overview of

the research methodology will then be given. The experience of football fandom from the point of

view of learning-disabled people themselves will be discussed. Finally, the social benefits PWLD can

realistically achieve through football fandom, such as a sense of belonging and a shared social

identity, are then presented.

Defining ‘learning disability’ There is considerable confusion around definitions and applications of the term ‘learning disability’.

Traditionally, underpinned by a medical model, terms such as mental retardation, mental handicap,

intellectual retardation, and intellectual handicap have been used to describe people with an

apparently scientifically measurable incomplete development of mind. However, following the

appeals of advocates and many disabled people themselves from the 1970’s onwards, an alternative

social model of disability, differentiating between impairment and disability, has grown in use. The

social model has replaced medicalised and stigmatising language with terms such as intellectual

disability, learning difficulty and, most commonly, learning disability to emphasise how social,

political, and physical barriers disable people with intellectual impairments. The most recent

understandings of learning disability, using a cultural model (Patterson & Pegg, 2009), have found

something of a middle ground between previous paradigms, perceiving disability as a naturally

occurring minority variation that should be neither more nor less valued.

Defining people as ‘learning disabled’ is problematic as no two people with intellectual impairments

will be identical. Following the example of MENCAP - the prominent British learning disability charity

and advocacy group - and the British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD), the terms ‘learning

disability’ and ‘people with learning disabilities’ (PWLD) will be used throughout this paper to refer

to people who “find it harder than others to learn, understand and communicate” (Mencap, 2011).

From institutions to terraces: using football to tackle social

exclusion

PWLD’s experiences of social inclusion and exclusion

Until relatively recently, PWLD were seen as out of place in mainstream British society and subject to

institutionalisation (Macintyre, 2008). A gradual shift in public attitudes has, however, occurred

since the 1970’s associated with the move from exclusive reliance on individual, medical models of

disability, to a more integrative agenda viewing disability as a failure by society to allow physically or

intellectually impaired people to participate fully in social life (Levitas, 2004). However, although no

longer viewed as objects of fear, ridicule, or segregation, and despite a raft of integrative social

policies, PWLD continue to face unseen barriers to participation and live their lives closer to the

fringes of society (Macintyre, 2008).

Despite the social integration of PWLD being a priority policy issue since the community care

reforms of the early 1990’s and the introduction of disability discrimination legislation in 1995, it was

not until the 1997 general election of ‘New Labour’ that social policies adopted holistic approaches

to integration. ‘Social exclusion’ was seen as a result of:

“what happens when people or places suffer from a series of problems such as

unemployment, discrimination, poor skills, low income, poor housing, high crime, and family

breakdown” (SEU, 2001:10).

This re-diagnosis of their social marginalisation as ‘social exclusion’ was a significant moment for

PWLD as it placed them under the same conceptual heading as other isolated social groups seeking

‘inclusion’. Whilst the concept of social exclusion has been criticised as just a fashionable way of

talking about poverty (Pierson & Smith, 2001), it does offer “something different” and has added

some much needed depth to previously simplistic poverty debates (Lister, 2000:38; Byrne, 2005).

In both theoretical and political discourses, the causes of social exclusion are attributed to

individuals becoming disconnected from their communities (Baron, 2004). Tackling social exclusion

was therefore supposedly a simple matter of “creating routes back into society and giving people a

chance to integrate” into their communities (SEU, 2001:9). However, whilst this supposedly fresh

policy understanding of exclusion was intended to depart from previous neo-liberal ideas and usher

in a new dawn of effective social policies, the enduring political ideologies of individualism, active

citizenship, globalisation, and privatisation have done little to address the underlying causes of

PWLD’s exclusion.

The 2001 white paper Valuing People (DH, 2001) and its later incarnation Valuing People Now (DH,

2009:11) are undeniably positive in their intentions to enable PWLD to “lead their lives like any

others with the same opportunities and responsibilities”. However, rather than attempting to

address the structural inequalities at the heart of PWLD’s exclusion, the aim of these social exclusion

policies has been truncated to promoting ‘inclusion’ into prescribed institutions of society (Labonte,

2004); principally paid employment and economic activity. Simply aiming to involve PWLD in pre-

defined mainstream social spaces, the complex social interactions that characterise social exclusion

– including PWLD’s often negative experiences of being ‘included’ – are not addressed in official

documents and discourses (Secker, Hacking, Spandler, Kent and Shenton, 2005). For example, whilst

employment means participation in mainstream spaces and economic activity, it also exposes PWLD

to the abuse, neglect, poor pay and job insecurity experienced by other employees (Milner & Kelly,

2009). Simultaneously, inclusionary discourses have served to devalue the segregated ‘safe’ places

that PWLD have created for themselves where they can develop their own social groups (Milner &

Kelly, 2009).

The role of sport, leisure and football in tackling social exclusion

Reflecting their supposedly holistic approach to addressing social exclusion, the 1997 election of the

‘New Labour’ government marked a change in British sports policy away from ‘sport for sports sake’

towards using sport instrumentally (Green, 2006; Seippel, 2006). Primarily based on the conclusions

of Collins et al (1999), the newly formed Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) noted how

“the powerful input that sport can have on social exclusion factors is increasingly recognised by all

involved in regeneration and inclusion” (DCMS, 2001:8). Subsequent national sports strategies ‘A

Sporting Future for All’ (DCMS, 2000) and ‘Game Plan’ (DCMS, 2002) made explicit in policy

discourse the theorised link between sports participation, increased community involvement, and

decreased social exclusion.

As an ongoing leisure activity, participation in sport was thought to provide a source of continuous

engagement with one’s community and decrease the risk of becoming socially excluded (Vermeulen

& Verweel, 2009; Waring & Mason, 2010). However, while sports participation occupies an

important place as a political tool, the contribution that sport can make to community development

may have been overemphasised (Coalter, 2007). Given the contemporary emphasis on ‘evidence

based’ policy making, the lack of any systematic evaluation of as to the potential benefits of sports

participation is attributed to the theoretical strength and widespread acceptance of the potentially

positive outcomes of involvement in sport. This broader lack of evidence about the sufficient

conditions for inclusion to occur is reflected more specifically in the lack of formal evaluation

concerning the social relationship between football clubs and their fans, as identified by Brown et al

(2006).

As one of the most popular leisure activities in Britain, football has been at the forefront of the drive

to use sport to tackle the social exclusion of PWLD. In practise this has meant professional football

clubs in Britain coming under increasing pressure to “create opportunities at all levels for anyone

with a disability to get involved in football- whether as a player, referee, administrator, coach or

spectator” (The FA, 2010). Football’s popularity in extending to communities less accessible through

traditional political means suggests it may be the most likely sporting platform upon which to

achieve social policy goals (Wagg, 2004). However, as yet there is little evidence to substantiate the

underpinning assumptions of some football based inclusion policies (Tacon, 2007). Health and social

benefits have been recognised for playing football (Collins & Buller, 2003), but there is no evidence

as to the social benefits of being a fan.

The Disability Football Strategy:2004-2006 (The FA, 2004) and Football for All (The FA, 2006) imply

that through being football fans PWLD will become less socially excluded as they integrate into the

existing community of established fans. However, these policies appear to neglect the established

body of literature describing the challenges faced by PWLD attempting to fully participate or

integrate into mainstream leisure settings (Solish, Minnes and Kupferschmidt, 2003). Devine & Parr

(2008) offer some hope for the assumptions embedded in national sports strategies, suggesting

inclusive leisure settings with non-learning disabled children can result in increased inclusion for

learning disabled children, and a de-stigmatization of impairments. However, these benefits are

limited in both time and space, occurring only in locations where integration is the specific aim of

the activity.

The singular focus of many sports clubs on removing physical barriers in order to comply with the

Disability Discrimination Act (1995) has, however, resulted in a failure to recognise the wide range of

additional barriers and implicit discrimination faced by PWLD when entering mainstream leisure

settings (Allender, Cowburn and Focter, 2006). Where leisure organisations have been most

successful at including PWLD they have recognised some of the unseen barriers faced and actively

encouraged the integration of PWLD (Waring & Mason, 2010). The National Association of Disabled

(football) Supporters (NADS) and MENCAP have produced the ‘A Level Playing Field’ (Mencap &

Nads, 2008) document, outlining how sports venues can be made more accessible to PWLD.

However, this is only advisory and not enforced by The FA. Considering that private sports

organisations, such as football clubs, are often disinterested in, and often hostile towards, actively

contributing to broader social inclusion goals (Vermeulen & Verweel, 2009), without more

compulsory standards many PWLD may be unable to successfully access football stadia, and denied

the opportunity to engage with other fans.

In short, it could be argued that policies encouraging football fandom as a route to social inclusion

adopt a romanticised view of the past involvement of PWLD and the potential of sport and leisure to

provide sites for social inclusion. Assumptions about the positive outcomes of football fandom lack

any evidence base and a direct linear effect between simple participation and inclusion cannot be

assumed.

Changing football fan ‘communities’

The assumption imbedded in many social-inclusion-through-sport policy documents that football

fandom will offer PWLD opportunities to be included within an established community of football

fans, and be part of their long-term social network, fits closely with the traditional conceptualisation

of football fans as a single, homogenous group drawn from the immediate vicinity, making weekly

pilgrimages to the football stadium in order to enact their ‘authentic’, passionate, and audible

displays of allegiance (Giulianotti, 2002). However, this is inappropriate. Since the early 1990’s there

has been a significant re-alignment of football’s social structures which has seen these ‘traditional’

fan groups decline (Brown, Crabbe and Mellor, 2008). Once thought of in terms of a loyalty to a

geographic community, football fans are now more commonly conceptualised in academic literature

in terms of a fragmented group of consumers navigating a transient market place (Giulianotti, 2002).

The changing nature of football fandom has led to a reinterpretation of the role and meaning of

football clubs. Rather than being confined to a physical catchment area or seen as a lifelong

commitment, reflecting an uncertain and individualist post-modern society, football clubs have

come to represent collective symbols of identification. Powered by the global media, consumers can

now buy into the processes of connectivity associated with a ‘fan community’ (Stone, 2007;

Blackshaw, 2008). Whilst some traditional supporters remain, the increasingly fleeting sociability of

many fans offers more transient members access to ‘cloakroom’ or ‘emotional’ communities

(Blackshaw, 2008; Crabbe, 2008), allowing them to attain the benefits of social identification.

Although these changes have supposedly led to the decline of ‘authentic’ fan groups or communities

(Penny & Redhead, 2009), they have also been the catalyst allowing previously excluded groups,

such as women, ethnic minorities, and disabled people to access the fan experience (Williams,

2006). Of course, until now there has been no documented evidence of whether this experience is a

positive or negative one for PWLD.

Within the policy discourse it is assumed that football fandom represents an appropriate site for

increased involvement by PWLD. Considering some of the existing literature on football fans,

however, raises questions about the appropriateness of encouraging the exposure of potentially

vulnerable PWLD to the negatives of football fandom. Despite the argued social benefits, fandom

can also become overly ‘obsessive’ and damaging to people’s social functioning (Vallerand,

Blanchard, Mageau, Koestner, Ratelle and Le´Onard, 2003). In the extreme, PWLD also risk becoming

involved in anti-social behaviour, excessive alcohol consumption, racism, xenophobia, sexism, and

physical violence. A further concern is that PWLD may fare badly in football fan subcultures. While

very little attention has been given to the everyday patterns of sociability among football fans

(Stone, 2007), interactions have been shown to be used instrumentally by all types of people to

enhance their personal identity and social status within fan groups, often at the expense of those

unable to access these subcultures (Giulianotti, 2002).

Research Methodology Based at three professional football clubs in England – United, Athletic and Rovers – thirteen fans

with varying intellectual impairments were purposively sampled. Following an institutional definition

(Patterson & Pegg, 2009), learning-disabled football fans were conceptualised as anyone attending

the football training sessions for United’s, Athletic’s, or Rovers’ learning-disability representative

football teams who volunteered themselves as a fan.

Using a combination of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and photo-voice

(Aldridge, 2007) data collection followed an inductive exploration of the supposedly positive

relationship between learning disability, football fandom, and social inclusion. The resultant

qualitative data was analysed following a grounded theory approach.

Learning-disabled football fandom The ‘cultural revolution’ that has occurred in football (Brown, Crabbe and Mellor, 2006) has

evidently opened up new opportunities for ‘non-traditional’ fans and many PWLD have been quick

to seize this opportunity. Whilst many authors lament the decline of the “traditional” fan making

weekly pilgrimages to football stadia to enact their passionate and audible display of allegiance

(Williams, 1999:35), this anger may be misplaced. Certainly, white, working-class, males may have

become less dominant, but this changing fan culture has enabled PWLD to participate in many of the

‘invented traditions’ fandom (King, 2000). This includes regularly attending live matches, wearing

club merchandise, and singing and chanting club songs. As such, assuming that football has never

remained stationary enough for a ‘tradition’ to solidify, and by highlighting the continuity that exists

within football fandom (Crabbe & Brown, 2004) it is perhaps more accurate to speak of an evolving

‘tradition’ that PWLD are now able to access.

However, just as non-learning-disabled fans are not a homogenous group, there is a wide variety in

how PWLD support their teams. This variation can be easily conceptualised using Giulianotti’s (2002)

taxonomy of football fans. PWLD can display different combinations of Hot/Cool and

Traditional/Consumer relationships with football clubs, occupying every quadrant of Giulianotti’s

(2002) taxonomy.

Whilst this variation suggests that football fandom is an environment in which PWLD are able to

exercise choice – a key aim of Valuing People (DH, 2001) – this is something of a “utopian vision”

(Burton & Kagan, 2006:305). The reality for many PWLD is that fandom is limited by their

‘capabilities’ (Sen, 1987) and so their fandom is more a reflection of personal circumstances, not

necessarily what they would choice to do.

The social benefits of attending live games Amongst the traditions of football fandom perpetuated by learning-disabled fans was attending live

matches as the pre-eminent method of supporting one’s team. The pleasure of being in the stadium

for PWLD is described through the notion of ‘atmosphere’. The more people in the stadium who

“scream and shout”, “bang the Kop (the stadium wall)” and “blow whistles” (Alex), the more

atmosphere is created and the more enjoyable the match. Through such activity, learning-disabled

fans are able to become vicarious participants in the event; they are able to participate in the highly

symbolic aspects of cultural identify through collective rituals that distinguishes ‘us’ against ‘them’

who’s defeat is priority. Of all these actions, the choreographed football chant or song is the most

powerful expression of collective identity, allowing PWLD to demonstrate how “proud” they are to

be fans. In practise, even where PWLD are unable to perform the ‘choreographed gestures’, just

“making noise” or clapping seems to be enough to feel part of the series of luminal events with a

community of like-minded others, all of whom are involved in the cascading activities (Armstrong &

Young, 1999).

Just as much of the football fan literature highlights the decline or sterilisation of atmosphere in

British football stadia, so to do some of the learning disabled fans involved in this work. Although

travelling to away matches appears to offer a solution to this problem as “everybody seems more up

for away games” (Joe), these benefits are limited to those PWLD with the capabilities to attend away

matches. Whilst all the fans enjoyed it when the stadium became “noisy”, there was a general

concern about their being too much atmosphere with other fans, for example, “getting drunk”,

“swearing”, “arguing”, “fighting” and “throwing things” (Mark). However, unlike other contexts

where similar negative experiences can result in a further isolation from a particular social space

(Mathers, 2008), at football stadia learning-disabled football fans ignored those experiences in order

to keep supporting their teams.

As well as the positive emotions generated going to games, attending live matches has many social

benefits in terms of the opportunities for social interactions it presents. Compared to other

examples of where PWLD have entered ‘mainstream’ locations only to remain absent from social

networks (Pinfold, 2000; O'brien, 2001; Bray & Gates, 2003; Emerson & Mcvilly, 2004), interacting

with “other supporters” while attending football matches is a common occurrence. These

interactions can both strengthen their exiting social ties with those they attend matches with and

stimulate fresh interactions with other fans. Through “having something in common” (Mark) the

perceived subordinate role of PWLD appears to be diminished and relationships of more equal

status are created.

These interactions tend to follow Simmel’s (1949) idea of sociability. Or to use the football

vernacular, ‘banter’. Conversation is almost exclusively about the football team or the match at

hand; people predict scores, comment of events, or ask about previous performances. It is because

of the specificity of the conversation that learning-disabled fans are able to contribute. Whilst they

may have missed certain other rites of passage (i.e. going to university, full-time employment,

buying a house), learning disabled fans can potentially accumulate the necessary sub-cultural capital

(i.e. knowledge of their team etc) to be recognised as “experts” and to have their opinions valued.

However, reflecting Hall’s (Hall, 2004; 2010) concern about how the successful involvement of PWLD

in specific leisure settings may be limited to those contexts, it appears that the relationship learning-

disabled fans create at football only exist within the stadium. The term ‘season-ticket friends’,

coined by Gavin, sums up how relationships are formed for ninety minutes when it feels like having a

“couple thousand mates” (Tom) only for these to dissolve before recommencing at the next game.

These relationships reflect the contemporary understanding about football fans communities

(Crabbe, 2008) as like-minded individuals come together to form ‘neo-tribes’ or ‘emotional

communities’ characterised by “occasional gatherings and dispersal” (Maffesolli, 1996:76). In terms

of social inclusion for PWLD, the ninety minutes of attending the game appears to offer them the

opportunity for “intense effective bonding” (Crabbe & Brown, 2008:436), but at the end of the game

they have to go back to their individual lives.

The ability of learning-disabled fans to become part of these ‘imagined’ or ‘emotional’ communities

is of course dependent on people’s capabilities to attend matches. A common idea identified by the

learning-disabled fans in this study was that having a season ticket creates more opportunities to

“get to know people”. Not just because season ticket holders are able to attend all home games, but

because they are always sat in the same place, surrounded by the same people. Additionally, having

a season ticket and attending regularly carries with it associated sub-cultural capital (Giulianotti,

2002; Weed, 2006; 2007) amongst other supporters and allows learning-disabled fans to feel “more

part of it”, like a “more dedicated supporter”, and “higher up the ranks of supporters” (Sam).

Evidently, football stadia can be seen as a kind of ‘semi-institutional’ space where learning-disabled

fans are able to, both, feel included and make a valued contribution to the ‘community’. Whilst

other ‘refuges’ or ‘safe spaces’ that PWLD have created for themselves are often judged to be

isolating or exclusionary (Burton & Kagan, 2006), the semi-institutional space of the football stadium

allows PWLD to be within a ‘correct’ mainstream location without being exposed to the oppressive

‘normality’ of mainstream society. It brings dissimilar people together who otherwise would not

have met. Also, because live football matches involve alternative forms of behaviour and

participation to mainstream society, it “may camouflage societies typical response to individuals

with disability” (Devine & Parr, 2008:402).

But what about when the full-time whistle is blown?

The social benefits of football fandom away from live games Whilst attending live matches is a significant part of football fandom, the football fandom of those

involved was evidently not confined to the 90 minute game, but persisted across their whole lives.

This of course presents opportunities – just like at games – to interact with other like minded

individuals in ‘everyday life’ (Stone, 2007). Opportunities to interact with other fans also existed in

non-traditional spaces, such as the internet, although this was limited to those fans with sufficient

literacy skills. The benefits of this persistent fandom outside of live matches was to create the

‘cloakroom communities’ of like-minded people, although they were often even more fleeting.

The nature of many learning disabled fans football fandom, both at and away from live matches,

suggests it may be considered as a form of serious leisure (Stebbins, 2000; Patterson & Pegg, 2009).

Engaging in football fandom as a form of serious leisure can be seen to have many social benefits for

learning disabled football fans, especially in comparison to the ‘casual’ activities they might

otherwise engage in. However, it is questionable whether football fandom had become an

‘obsessive passion’ for some fans, actually having adverse social effects. Of course, not all

participants in this study engaged in fandom as a serious leisure activity. Whilst for some this was

through choice – they just were not that into it – for others it was questionable how much their

‘capability poverty’ (Burchardt, 2004) prevented them from attaining these benefits.

Football fandom, especially for those engaging in it as serious leisure, also appears to offer learning

disabled fans a source of personal identity. This identity is able to be transmitted to other people

through displaying appropriate symbols, such as clothing emblazoned with club logos. Just as

Giulianotti (2002) suggests, different symbols appear to display and reflect different aspects of

learning-disabled peoples’ identities as fans of Rovers, Athletic, or United. As a form of identity,

football fandom appears to have significant social benefits for PWLD, principally in relation to

breaking down the stigma of ‘learning disability’ and allowing individuals to be seen as fans first.

Being a football fan appears to give learning-disabled more confidence entering mainstream social

spaces. Although there are other factors more traditionally associated with being part of identity

formation (i.e. religion, gender, disability) these appear not to be a significant barrier to learning-

disabled fan identity.

The significance of football becoming part of learning-disabled peoples’ personal identity is that it

can allow them to indulge in a shared identity with other fans, which in turn develops into feelings of

‘belonging’ towards other fans. This occurs within given social spaces (i.e. at the stadium) but also

allows PWLD to feel a connection to their fellow football fans throughout their daily lives. This is

significant for learning-disabled people who might otherwise experience a powerful sense of

difference.

Conclusion Through empirical research carried out for the first time exploring learning-disabled peoples’

experiences of football fandom, this paper has shown that football fandom does has several social

benefits for those with learning-disabilities. Amongst those learning-disabled fans involved in this

research, the benefits included interacting with other football fans and the creation of imagined

communities. However, because such events occur predominantly in the football stadium, these

benefits are only available to those fans with the capabilities to attend live matches. Fortunately,

because of the ubiquitousness of football in British society, interactions between fans can also occur

outside of games as well. A second benefit of football fandom for learning-disabled people is that it

enables them to establish a personal and social identity other than being ‘disabled’, allowing them to

bond and feel they belong amongst other like minded-individuals.

Although football fandom can evidently contribute to learning-disabled people feeling less socially

excluded, this does not mean it necessarily enables them to become more socially included. The

relationships and social networks that learning-disabled people are likely to create and become part

of through football fandom are only fleeting and content specific. As such, they are unlikely to

conduct the transfer of social capital necessary for learning-disabled people to become included in

the mainstream social spaces and economic activity characteristic of ‘inclusion’.

References Aldridge, J. (2007). Picture this: The use of participatory photographic research methods with people

with learning disabilities. Disability & Society 22(1): 1-17.

Allender, S., Cowburn, G. & Focter, C. (2006). Understanding participation in sport and physical

activity among children and adults: A review of qualitative studies. Health Education Research 21(6):

826-835.

Armstrong, G. & Young, M. (1999). Fanatical football chants: Creating and controlling the carnival. In

Finn, G.& Giulanotti, R. (Eds.). Football culture: Local contests, global visions. London, Frank Cass.

Baron, S. (2004). Social capital in british politics and policy making. In Franklin, J. (Eds.). Politics, trust

and networks: Social capital in critical perspective. London, London South Bank University. 5-16.

Blackshaw, T. (2008). Contemporary community theory and football. Soccer & Society 9(3): 325 -

345.

Bray, A. & Gates, S. (2003). Community participation for adults with an intellectual disability. Review

of the literature prepared for the national advisory committee on health and disability to inform its

project on services for adults with an intellectual disability. Wellington, National Health Committee.

Brown, A., Crabbe, T. & Mellor, G. (2006). English professional football and its communities.

International Review for Modern Sociology 32(2): 159-179.

Brown, A., Crabbe, T. & Mellor, G. (2008). Introduction: Football and community – practical and

theoretical considerations. Soccer & Society 9(3): 303 - 312.

Brown, A., Crabbe, T., Mellor, G., Blackshaw, T. & Stone, C. (2006). Football and its communities:

Final report. London, Football Foundation.

Burchardt, T. (2004). Capabilities and disability: The capabilities framework and the social model of

disability. Disability & Society 19(7): 735-751.

Burton, M. & Kagan, C. (2006). Decoding valuing people. Disability & Society 21(4): 299-313.

Byrne, D. (2005). Social exclusion.

Coalter, F. (2007). Sports clubs, social capital and social regeneration: ‘ill-defined interventions with

hard to follow outcomes’? Sport in Society 10(4): 537 - 559.

Collins, M. & Buller, J. (2003). Social exclusion from high-performance sport. Journal of Sport & Social

Issues 27(4): 420-442.

Collins, M., Henry, I., Houlihan, B. & Buller, J. (1999). Sport and social inclusion: A report to the

department for culture, media and sport, Loughborough University.

Crabbe, T. (2008). Post modern community and future directions – fishing for community: England

fans at the 2006 fifa world cup. Soccer & Society 9(3): 428-438.

Crabbe, T. & Brown, A. (2004). ‘‘you’re not welcome anymore’’: The football crowd, class and social

exclusion. In Wagg, S. (Eds.). British football and social exclusion. London, Routledge.

Department for Culture, Media & Sport. (2001). Building on pat 10: Progress report on social

inclusion. London.

Devine, M. & Parr, M. (2008). “come on in, but not too far:” social capital in an inclusive leisure

setting. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal 30(5): 391 - 408.

Emerson, E. & McVilly, K. (2004). Friendship activities of adults with learning disabilities in supported

accommodation. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

17: 1-7.

Football Association, The. (2001). Football for disabled people. London, The Football Association.

Football Association, The. (2004). The disability football strategy: 2004-2006. London, The Football

Association.

Football Association, The. (2006). Football for all. London, The Football Association.

Football Association, The. (2010). "Football for all." Retrieved July 15, 2010, from

http://thefa.com/TheFA/WhatWeDo/Equality.

Giulianotti, R. (2002). Supporters, followers, fans and flaneurs: Ataxonomy of spectator identities in

football. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 26(1): 25-46.

Green, M. (2006). From ‘sport for all’ to not about ‘sport’ at all?: Interrogating sport policy

interventions in the united kingdom. European Sport Management Quarterly 6(3): 217 - 238.

Hall, E. (2004). Social geographies of learning disability: Narratives of exclusion and inclusion. Area

36(3): 298-306.

Hall, E. (2010). Spaces of social inclusion & belonging for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal

of intellectual disability research 54(1): 48-57.

Health, Department of. (2001). Valuing people: A new strategy for learning disability for the 21st

century. London, The Stationary Office.

Health, Department of. (2009). Valuing people now: A new three year strategy for people with

intellectual disabilities, making it happen for everyone. London, HMSO.

King, A. (2000). Football fandom and post-national identity in new europe. British Journal of

Sociology 51(3): 419-442.

Labonte, R. (2004). Social inclusion/exclusion: Dancing the dialectic. Health Promot. Int. 19(1): 115-

121.

Levitas, R. (2004). Let's hear it for humpty: Social exclusion, the third way and cultural capital.

Cultural Trends 13(2): 41 - 56.

Lister, R. (2000). Strategies for social inclusion: Promoting social cohesion or social justice. In

Askonas, P.& Stewart, A. (Eds.). Social inclusion: Possibilities and tensions. Basingstoke, Macmillan.

MacIntyre, G. (2008). Learning disability and social inclusion. Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic Press.

Mathers, R. (2008). Hidden voices: The participation of people with learning disabilities in the

experience of public open space. Local Environment 13(6): 515-529.

MENCAP. (2011). "What is learning disability?" Retrieved January 25, 2011, from

http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=1684.

MENCAP & NADS (2008). A level playing field. London, MENCAP.

Milner, P. & Kelly, B. (2009). Community participation and inclusion: People with disabilities defining

their place. Disability & Society 24(1): 47-62.

O'Brien, J. (2001). Paying customers are not enough: The dynamics of individualized funding.

Lithonia, GA Responsive Systems Associates.

Patterson, I. & Pegg, S. (2009). Serious leisure & people with intellectual disabilities: Benefits &

opportunities Leisure Studies 28(4): 287-302.

Penny, S. & Redhead, S. (2009). We’re not really here: Manchester city, mobility, & placelessness.

Sport in Society 12(6): 755-764.

Pierson, J. & Smith, J. (2001). Rebuilding community: Policy and practise in urban regeneration.

Basingstoke, Palgrave.

Pinfold, V. (2000). Building up safe havens . . . All around the world: Users experiences of living in the

community with mental health problems. Health and Place 6: 201-212.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-

78.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone : The collapse and revival of american community. New York ;

London, Simon & Schuster.

Secker, J., Hacking, S., Spandler, H., Kent, L. & Shenton, J. (2005). Mental health, social inclusion and

arts: Developing the evidence base. London, National Social Inclusion Programme/Care Services

Improvement Partnership.

Seippel, O. (2006). Sport and social capital. Acta Sociologica 49(2): 169-183.

Sen, A. (1987). Commodities and capabilities. New Delhi, Oxford University Press.

Simmel, G. (1949). The sociology of sociability. American Journal of Sociology 55(3): 254-261.

Solish, A., Minnes, P. & Kupferschmidt, A. (2003). Integration of children with developmental

disabilities in social activities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities 10: 115-121.

Southby, K. (2011). Football fandom, social inclusion and learning disability: Opportunities and

constraints. World Leisure Journal 53(4): 322-331.

Stebbins, R. (2000). Serious leisure for people with disabilities. In Sivan, A.& Ruskin, H. (Eds.). Leisure

education, community development and populations with special needs. Oxon, CABI.

Stone, C. (2007). The role of football in everyday life. Soccer & Society 8(2/3): 169-184.

Tacon, R. (2007). Football and social inclusion: Evaluating social policy. Managing Leisure 12: 1-23.

Unit, S. E. (2001). Preventing social exclusion. London, Social Exclusion Unit.

Vallerand, R., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C. & Le´onard, M. (2003). Les passions

de l’aˆme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:

756-767.

Vermeulen, J. & Verweel, P. (2009). Participation in sport: Bonding & bridging as identity work. Sport

in Society 12(9): 1206-1219.

Wagg, S. (2004). British football and social exclusion. London, Routledge.

Waring, A. & Mason, C. (2010). Opening doors: Promoting social inclusion through increased sports

participation. Sport in Society 13(3): 517-529.

Weed, M. (2006). The story of an ethnography: The experience of watching the 2002 world cup in

the pub. Soccer & Society 7(1): 76-95.

Weed, M. (2007). The pub as a virtual football fandom venue: An alternative to ‘being there’? Soccer

& Society 8(2/3): 399-414.

Williams, J. (1999). Is it all over? Can football survive the premier league? Reading, South Street

Press.

Williams, J. (2006). ‘protect me from what i want’: Football fandom, celebrity cultures and ‘new’

football in england. Soccer & Society 7(1): 96-114.