So, many have heard the news about Liverpool fans getting arrested for “racism” after complaining about “Yank” owners. While the Deficit Hawks (not GOP affiliates) in Manchester continue to protest against the Glazers, they at least have focused squarely on the family in question. At least as of late.
Meanwhile, in Spain, an Argentine consortium has purchased Xerez. And some commentators throw their arms up in disgust.
Granted, many people complain about the Chelsea and City riches, but nobody points to their nationality as a pro or a con. I understand that race and nationality are not synonymous, but when I hear the word “Paki” come from English lips or “Mexican” from anglo lips, the connotation is crystal clear. But why are these nationalities spoken with ire a pejorative, but not Yank?
Is it the power equality – does economic status make a difference? If so, then why doesn’t that apply to other pejoratives in the personal context?
In the United States, a nation of immigrants, alienage is a protected class in various contexts. An employer cannot discriminate against an individual based on their country of origin. Obviously, club ownership is a different ballpark entirely – but my question is not legal, it is armchair sociological. Why does Yank mismanagement bother you more than, say, English mismanagement? Do you look at other clubs and say “Darn Brits!”
Or perhaps this is merely the unwelcome homecoming. The aristocracy which stayed behind 400 years ago feels threatened when the new rich from the new world come back, sniffing for money making opportunities. I’m not sure, but I am puzzled – poor mismanagement is poor mismanagement, regardless of nationality. And even a Yank can attest to that.