An Unpaid Labor of Love

Introduction

On several occasions over the past twenty years unprecedented media attention and speculation has been drawn to the off-field activities of professional athletes (Jackson & Andrews, 2001; Smart, 2005). An emerging development over this same period has been for partners ¹ of professional athletes also to be enmeshed directly in events and stories as they are retold in the local and national press. Athletes and their spouses have in some cases achieved significant levels of notoriety and celebrity and their “private” worlds have been sensationalized (Clayton & Harris, 2004; Rojek, 2001). Of all professional athletes in the UK however, professional football players and their partners have most often been at the heart of the media’s scandalous and lurid exposés; and for reasons which have drawn interest away from the actual “work” footballers do onto matters associated with family life and family values. Events are often recounted with a distinct moralizing tone (Clayton & Harris, 2004). The “private” affairs of players and their wives and partners are now matters for public consumption; journalists and public commentators can remark openly and guilt free about problems such as marital breakdown, and issues connected with personal health and loss.

In an article published in The Observer (October 3, 2004), Louise France examined the kinds of “intolerable” pressures heaped upon the relationships of people involved in professional sport. France contends that while the national divorce rate in the UK is approximately 40%, within professional sport relationships the figure approaches 70%. Greg Bishop writing in the New York Times (August 9, 2009) reports similarly that in the National Football League (NFL) there exists a divorce rate of between 60% and 80%, appreciably above the national rate of 50% in the United States. Journalistic accounts that make such “social” comparisons usually accompany and add legitimacy to moralistic dissections of (in)famous incidents of relationship breakdown and infidelity. Writing on sports marriages among professional sportsmen from major U.S. sports (football, baseball, basketball, and hockey), Ortiz (2006) explains such elevated figures as in part an outcome of infidelity which, for him, is a way of life for many players. Ortiz (2006) refers to a “spoilt athlete syndrome” which appears to engulf so many (but not all) male athletes, who develop inflated feelings of male entitlement, and who come to exercise a degree of “control work” in their career-dominated marriages in order to furnish their sense of male self.

Many academics undertaking research on sports work have often overlooked the interdependence between the private and public spheres of “work” and “family” life. For example, exploring careers in major league ice hockey, Canadian anthropologist Robidoux (2007, pp. 155-156) quotes, although does not comment on, the following statement expressed by a player who, in interview, articulated his experiences of professional sport and its “hidden costs”:

The player conveys his thoughts in a matter of fact manner and Robidoux appears to treat them as such; the player clearly distances himself from any responsibility for marital discord. Even so, evidence provided from the few studies of sports marriages and the “supportive” role of players’ spouses indicates strongly that the players’ conditions of work place profound economic and emotional constraints on the lives of all people bound up in such unions (Farole, 1996; Gmelch & San Antonio, 2001; McKensie, 1999; Ortiz 1997, 2004, 2006; O’Toole, 2007; Thompson, 1999).

All the research undertaken, but in particular that of Ortiz and O’Toole, illustrates how the partners of professional athletes are “married” to his work (Finch, 1983); for the women in question, it might be said that their relationship “work” is an unpaid labor of love. This point has been substantiated by McKensie (1999, p. 234) who claims that among the important lessons she learnt as wife of an American footballer was that, “in the world where I lived most of my life, I was an afterthought at best, and my existence was acknowledged only because of my connection to my NFL husband.” Although notable exceptions exist—Victoria Beckham for instance cannot be described as inconspicuous is relation to David Beckham’s playing career—anonymity is “expected” of partners in many circumstances of their husbands’ sports career (Thompson, 1999), particularly in relation to the actual “work” that is done. In drawing out the personal qualities of his interviewees, Ortiz (2006, p. 528) makes the following point:

While divorce remains a deeply personal affair in which women may come to remain in or split from their partners, the high rates of separation and divorce in sport cannot be explained solely as an outcome of player infidelity—although this may be a major factor—or the result of the private, individualized choice of wives and/or players to end their relationship. These statistics, however dubiously compiled, must be seen in part as structurally induced; the outcome of the constraints within which the partners and players come to feel oppressed by the unraveling circumstances of their lives and identities.

In view of these opening remarks, the aim of this paper is to examine the interdependence between the working lives of professional athletes and family relations. Professional sport—and in this specific case professional football—is a good example of a “precarious profession” (Roderick, 2006); and in this light, this paper offers pertinent comments about the character of workplace uncertainties and may, in a modest way, offer some important lessons for future studies which address broad themes associated with work/life balance.

Individualization, Family Traditions, and Sport

The concepts of family “life” and “values” have received significant sociological attention recently (Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Smart, 2007; Smart & Neale, 1999). An associated body of research has attempted to examine the interconnectedness of work, home and family life decisions (Dex & Smith, 2002; Vogler, 2005; Wallace, 2002). Smart and Shipman (2004) argue that this “new” interest in family life is rooted in a more general appreciation of diverse modes of intimacy and kinship. At the heart of this theoretically driven work is the notion of individualization (Smart & Shipman, 2004), a focus which has fuelled interest in the motivations of people to exercise choice in relation to styles of personal relationships. Individualism is characterized by a lessening of importance of “old,” traditional ways of life which were buttressed by extended family and kinship: Lawler (2008) concludes that kin ties now have a destabilized placed in the production of identities. In modern Western societies individuals must produce adaptive selves that are suited to global networks, a context in which the selfish self is prioritized over the needs of others and people decide for themselves how to live their lives (Bauman, 2003; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). While, of course, we must remember that individualization is not a new concept in sociology (see, for example, Elias 1991; Lukes 1973), the individualization thesis developed by Bauman, and Beck and Beck-Gernsheim has been central in debates concerning contemporary Western notions of family life; dominant work that places emphasis on the appearance of endlessly self-fashioning individuals who operate beyond ties which are narrowly connected to kinship, and who act on the basis of realizing personal fulfillment (Smart, 2007).

There have been significant transformations over the past two decades in terms of men’s and women’s employment patterns, in wide-ranging discourses about gender and in the types of intimate relationships couples are coming to establish (Giddens, 1992; Smart & Shipman, 2004): trends in this period indicate a decline in the popularity of marriage in the UK. In contrast, cohabiting relationships, which are considered to be more egalitarian than marital unions, have increased (Vogler, 2005). As a result, couples are said to be abandoning traditional forms of marriage in favor of new forms of intimate relationships and new (or renegotiated) ways of living together. The notion of individualization has been employed at the heart of much theorizing about changing family “landscapes,” focusing in part on the complex, contingent nature of contemporary partnerships (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). In short, linear representations of the individualization thesis suggest that, while women are being set free from traditional gender constraints, thereby undermining the male breadwinner model on the one hand, the outcome is unstable relationships and painful conflicts between men and women at the heart of the family on the other (Vogler, 2005). Such arguments possess highly value-laden, moralistic connotations about the family and social roles within households. Indeed, the grand theorizing of Bauman (2003) and Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) which signals the “decline” of the family is somewhat strengthened by social statistics on divorce, lone motherhood and births out of wedlock. These data paint a picture of diversified family forms as people live increasingly in “reconstituted” families (Finch & Mason, 2000). These statistics also find expression in relation to the families of professional athletes.

Research on families and personal relationships is developing in sociological significance and particular issues have come to prominence—divorce, notions of equality and intimacy (Giddens, 1992). Professional footballers are an interesting group to study sociologically in this connection, for their highly public work tends to contaminate the lives of significant others (Ortiz, 2006; O’Toole, 2006; Webb, 1998). While labor market migration is a relatively infrequent event in other professions nationally (Dixon, 2003), this article explores the case of male professional footballers and their partners for whom simultaneous job and geographical mobility is commonplace. Approximately one fifth of the playing workforce each season in this highly skilled manual occupation must find alternative work, either with another football club or beyond this industry. There are no examples of interorganizational relocation in this profession; footballers move between single site, rather than within multisite, operations. Players can anticipate a series of employer changes over the course of their short careers; job relocation is a key issue for players and their partners as labor mobility is increasing in this highly insecure profession (Roderick, 2006). In fact, a distinctive feature of the modern game is the relatively (and increasingly) high rate of labor mobility (Poli, 2010; Szymanski & Kuypers, 1999); it is not unusual for players post-1990s to be contracted to more than 10 clubs before retirement, an occupational reality which would have been rare prior to 1980s.

There is a developing body of work exploring the issue of sports labor migration (Maguire & Falcous, 2011). Most studies thus far have focused on mapping the history and patterning of the international movement of athletic talent, and then examining its effects on political and economic processes on the countries and sports concerned (Bale & Maguire, 1994; Lanfranchi & Taylor, 2001; Magee & Sugden, 2002; Maguire, 2005; McGovern, 2002; Poli 2010). ² This literature has been undertaken largely from a top-down, macro perspective, which unavoidably limits the subjectivities of migrating athletes who must negotiate practical micro issues including family relocation (or separation), children’s education, and the dislocation of kinship loyalties and friendship ties. Intellectual developments in terms of elite athletes and their relations with significant others stem largely from psychological studies that focus on athletic performances; negative competition outcomes are treated as the result of individual mental defects or the adoption of inappropriate coping strategies. A number of psychological studies have endeavored to measure the impact of “social support”—including family support—as a “social environmental factor” on athletic performances (Holt & Hoar, 2006; Jowett, 2007). The focus of this article is different from studies of a psychological kind, for the aim is to explore how professional sport impacts on the social relations of family life, rather than its specific effects on athletic performance. Psychological research on social support in sport is largely present-centered and marginalizes structural developments related to intimacy, the concept of “family,” family policy and issues bound up with the privatization of family life about which there has been notable social science debate (Smart & Neale, 1999).

This article focuses on the impact of employment-led geographical mobility on the families of a subset of sports workers—professional footballers—focusing on the “situatedness” (Jarvis, 1999) of household strategies and decision making in relation to such relocation. The narratives of players and partners oft-discussed in popular media appear to resonate with ideas related to the individualization thesis (Bauman, 2003; Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), specifically associated with patterns of personal “choice”; yet investigation for this study reveals a dynamic and complex picture. Thus the objects of this article are threefold: first, to explore the time, place and history of decision making about employment-related geographical relocation; second, to offer comments on how best to appreciate the numerous ways in which players and their partners conceive of “doing” family life; third, to clarify the adequacy of the individualization thesis in the context of job-led relocation in professional football.

Data Collection and Serendipity

The discussion of individualism upon which this paper is based derives from serendipitous findings (Merton, 1949). At least in the early stages of data collection, singling out this conceptual focus was not anticipated, for the research lens was trained on other work-specific phenomena. Yet as events unfolded I awoke to the realization that, if I did not commence systematic note taking, I was in danger of “missing a trick in the field” (Roderick, 2008). The main element to the original research was to conduct qualitative semistructured interviews with male professional footballers who represented a range of playing experience and career trajectories. ³ The interviews were conducted over a seven year period in time from 1999 to 2006. The sample of players interviewed (49 in total) was not randomly selected, and this cannot be considered to constitute a group that is statistically representative of a broader population of footballers. Even so, while this sample may have limitations, it is important to note that it is rare for players to grant interviews in which they respond to questions so frankly and for such an extended period. During interview, all players were prompted to discuss their experiences of the process of transferring and geographical mobility.

In organizing several of the interviews, the players approached suggested that the meeting should take place away from the football ground; most often the players wanted to meet at home. On several occasions I was met on arrival by the players’ partners, ⁴ who kept me company until the player in question arrived home from training; this was as much as thirty minutes in some instances. During this time I chatted politely to the players’ partners, who would often inquire about my research; for the most part I assumed that their interest simply resulted from good manners. ⁵ I realized quickly however that at times the reactions of these females to my work was startlingly revealing. In many cases, their informal remarks were as enlightening as the players’ in-depth accounts of the experiences of work-based geographical mobility. I found myself in a position to draw on telling statements made by partners, a number of whom it seemed would feel the need to explain, most often, the current “state” (tidiness) of their home, or their daily timetable in the light of their football players’ inability to predict when training would finish; club coaches would often extend, or arrange further, training sessions without warning. The daily hassles experienced by the players’ partners stemmed at least in part from the routine unreliability that marked the players’ work, which by extension impacted directly on their existence as a “couple.” A number of the partners said that at times they felt like single parents, and one strongly declared to me that she loathed football. On a small number of occasions I found myself in a home in which signs of relocation were strongly evident; for instance on one occasion I placed a cup of coffee on a removal box, which according to the “apologetic” partner, had not yet been emptied. She had moved home five times in recent years. It was evident that geographical mobility, when the topic was raised, had made a notable impact on the lives and feelings of security of many of the partners, all of whom talked in ways reminiscent of the spouses interviewed by Ortiz (2004), O’Toole (2006) and Thompson (1999). It is not my intention here to repeat their expert and insightful sociological research.

So, the data employed to develop this article arose from interviews undertaken with 49 professional footballers, and from field notes produced as an unexpected outcome of spending short periods of time in the company of players’ partners. While all interviewees were prompted to discuss their experiences of the process of transferring, of injury, and associated work issues, it was often hard for them to separate their comments from a range of other connected problems which mark out their careers. In short, players in interview (and also the wives in conversation) talked cogently about geographical mobility, transfers and other career contingencies in ways that naturally and spontaneously navigated the interconnections between family life and work life. For instance, players would often talk about an injury as prompted in interview, yet speak of its meaning and impact in terms of returning to play, future contract possibilities, isolation from team mates, and the ways in which they came to be a burden on family members. Their stories spun together narratives from their private (home) and public (work) worlds seamlessly. Representations of the partners of professional athletes were also obtained from a range of additional sites—from journalism, popular writing and academic texts. These representations are not intended to stand as a representative sample, nor would I claim that this is the only way in which the partners of professional football players are represented. Even so, the data gathered here help shed light on how players and partners experience the ways in which their family and work lives intersect and overlap, and how well existing concepts of work and family life explain the experiences and outcomes for this subset of sports workers.

Living Apart as an Occupational Hazard

Labor market migration is a relatively rare event—less than 3 per cent of couples make such moves each year (Bruegel, 1996; Green, 2004)—yet in the context of professional football simultaneous job and geographical relocation is commonplace for one or all members of a family. In professional football in England, rates of relocation have risen significantly and repeated moves are not unusual. In occupations where family dislocations and relational disjunctures are anticipated—for example, company executives (Stroh, 1999) and for those bound up in military service (Drummet et al., 2003) and academia (Walters, 2010)—the oft-cited reasons for greater stress levels for partners during uncertain and chaotic times such as labor market migration are that they feel isolated when they move, are charged with settling domestic chores and lack a social network (Hanson & Pratt, 1995). Research data obtained for this study illustrate that similar job relocation issues figure for the partners of football players. In a number of cases in conversation the players’ partners recognized and accepted the need for them to relocate in order to secure an income and, subsequently, many had traded-off personal and career goals; as such, they provide classic examples of “tied movers” (Smits, Mulder, & Hooimeijer, 2003). Historically, there has been a strong cultural expectation that job relocation is a part of the game to which players and their families must adapt. Issues of inequality, power and “dependence” have traditionally structured the organization of such households (Vogler, 2005). However, while traditional, heterosexual patterns of gender roles continue to predominate, the research undertaken here signals a changing picture in which increasing numbers of partners are coming to decide against relinquishing control over their own employment prospects and, for some, their self identities, and exercising power in relation to negotiations concerning living arrangements (Webb, 1998).

The issue of relocation in the context of professional football is interesting as, from a player’s position, transferring to a new club is usually considered positively. A transfer presents a player with the opportunity to reestablish his identity as a first-team regular and sense of self-worth (Roderick, 2006). From the perspective of the partners of professional footballers the problem may be viewed differently; for example, some are tied to their husbands economically and, thus, they recognize the need to relocate in order to secure an income, regardless of whether or not they wish to do so. The reaction to a move involving relocation may also relate to the degree to which the partner “identifies” with the playing career of the player (Thompson, 1999). According to Ortiz (1997), many partners have come to terms with the fact that their husbands are “married” to their sport careers first and to them second. In conversation, a small number of partners talked about how they avoided overt conflict when discussing a potential job transfer by suppressing their own wishes. Given the typically short-term nature of football contracts and overall playing careers, many partners place prime importance on the career of the player and, therefore, forfeit or “trade-off” personal desires (Jarvis, 1999). That said, a decision made by a player and his partner about moving to seek work following redundancy from a club, which may involve a step down in status for the player, can be a very different kind of decision from one which relates to a promotion to the big time. So, it may be argued that the felt-constraints on partners to acquiesce to a “mobile lifestyle” are both economic and cultural. The cultural norm that married couples live together, wedded to the traditional notion that a partner follows her footballer-husband wherever his work takes him, has been historically very strong and very persistent in this occupational context.

The Prevalence of Commuting Relationships in Football

In the context of professional football, evidence indicates that there is some eradicating of the longstanding cultural expectation that partners should adopt the role of the “trailing wife” (Bruegel, 1996; Martin, 1996); the expectation that partners (and children) will “trail” the player without hesitation is weakening. Where it is reasonable for them to do so, it is normal for a player (particularly those with families) to travel each day to his new club in order to avoid the hassle and stress of relocating. Players may decide to travel long distances each day to the football club or to buy or rent a flat and live part of each week away from the family in order to play and train. Yet, while many families will continue to trail, there exists a trend in which players and their partners are deciding increasingly to reconfigure their relationship for the duration of the player’s contract. In this context a commuting relationship relates not only to someone who travels long distances to work each day, but also to couples who live apart for one or more days each week. A recently retired Premier League player referred to this trend as follows:

This player provides an indication of the prevalence of long distance relationships and, concurrently, the traditional expectations males place on female partners. Yet the tone of the narrative leans towards a depiction of “wives” as having made an individual or “free” (but questionable) choice about where to live which demonstrates an insufficient commitment on their part to values traditionally associated with the family. Narratives such as this, which hint at new living arrangements in professional football, might at first glance be viewed as a sign of the spread of individualism—yet such an inference lacks adequacy.

The argument presented is not that there has been a major shift from the traditional expectation of the “trailing wife” to a situation in which all players and their partners consider, first and foremost, some form of commuting relationship. The prevailing situation for a majority of partners (and their children) is that they continue to relocate with their player when he transfers to a new club, particularly over major distances. For instance, writing in The Sunday Times (January 13, 2002), Woods and Dobson claim that “young and far-from-rich wives have found their lives uprooted at a few days’ notice when their footballer husbands have been transferred from one end of the country to another”. Such comments were evident in conversations with players’ partners, some of whom referred both to the frequent gossip about, as well as the actual “comings and goings” of, players. One partner referred to the “merry-go-round” of employees evident in the professional game. She spoke of the worry of transfer speculation and questioned whether club officials and agents ever considered other family members affected by job relocation. One former Premier League defender made the following observation when asked how his wife adjusted to a long-distance move:

On the basis of the interview data and the anecdotal evidence collected, it is apparent that there is a cultural expectation that job relocation is a part of the game to which players and their families must adapt. Even so, choices made collectively or by individuals are not “free,” as individualization theorists indicate (Bauman, 2003), but are relational choices taken in the setting of attentiveness to others and in the light of competing obligations (Smart & Shipman, 2004).

The lives of the partner can be dominated by the player’s work, particularly if they are tied to him economically. Many partners relinquish a significant degree of control over their own employment prospects, their lifestyles as well as their identities (Ortiz, 2006; O’Toole, 2006). When a player transfers from one club to another there can be a great deal of disruption for his partner. For the player, the mobile lifestyle has a thread of continuity, precisely because each move relates to their work, and at each club they have new workmates with whom they can associate immediately. A recently retired former Premier League player expressed this point succinctly. When asked whether transferring posed a problem for players and their families, he said,

The options available for players and their families are not simply a matter of personal choice, as the individualization thesis might suggest, but are linked to tight job markets which, for many players, reduce the opportunity to choose positions in specific locations. A consequence of this apparent lack of choice is that players may be constrained to move significant distances in order to play first team football. For the partners of players, such transfers have traditionally resulted almost automatically in geographical relocation if such a move was considered necessary.

Despite these traditional expectations, partners have at their disposal a degree of persuasive power, and some bring to bear a great deal of pressure when negotiating. Adding substance to this comment is a statement expressed by a former Championship player, who replied to a question about whether transferring was a problem for partners in the following way:

In spite of the unsympathetic male voice, which describes the female in this case as “moaning” rather than expressing the conditions of her reality, players and their partners are resolving this dilemma by coming to the decision to rent or buy a flat or house close to his new club and, thus, albeit temporarily reconfiguring their living arrangements.

An experienced centre forward, for example, said that he had agreed upon personal terms with a Championship club who were keen to buy him. Whilst there were no problems related to the details of the contract, he said the only remaining problem might have been his partner. He said,

The player said that they bought a flat in his new city. When asked whether that made for a settled relationship he replied,

However, this player, at a later point in the interview, said that in time he became more settled and that, despite his weekly separation from his family, “I would have liked to have stayed there.” He went on to clarify this point saying that,

The apparent reluctance on the part of the partners of professional footballers to relocate may be partially explained by reference to the proximity of social and kin networks, as the next section will argue, but, as the data exemplify, it is not a resolution reached in defiance of traditional expectations or in an individualized, undemocratic manner.

Social Networks as a Source of Rootedness

A number of partners in conversation indicated that that they are unwilling to leave their networks of friends, family and other forms of social support (such as schools and child care) at a time in the history of professional football in which labor mobility has increased substantially. Anecdotal data from interactions with players’ partners and much of the evidence provided in print media reveals that partners find it difficult to leave friends and family, they often experience feelings of isolation, they are burdened with the logistics of relocating, and they struggle to settle in unfamiliar settings. The view of Victoria Margetson, wife of former Championship player, Martyn Margetson, typifies a number of statements made in conversation by the partners of players. She explains her experiences as follows:

The uncertain circumstances that may quickly materialize for partners can generate a great deal of anxiety, particularly for those already familiar with the initial isolation and “hassle” that are characteristic of player transfers.

A small number of players interviewed for this study mentioned the fact that friendship circles had been an influencing factor both for their partners and for themselves when deliberating about whether or not to commit to certain clubs. For instance, one former Championship player explained that, as a young footballer, he considered offers from two clubs simultaneously. He was not playing regularly and he thought he needed to move on. He decided against accepting the offer made by one of the clubs despite their attractive contractual terms; this club was situated, he explained, “out on a limb.” He clarified this statement as follows:

This player signed for a club north of his home town, but still within commuting distance. While the discussion so far has emphasized social and kin networks by way of explaining decision-making processes, there exist other competing influences, constraints and pressures on players and their partners. The data gathered indicate that, even though partners harbored a strong symbolic attachment to their home as “a place,” their sentiments are arguably better understood in terms of the networks of friends and acquaintances, and preferred schools and childcare options which are tied to familiar locations, and which in turn foster “rootedness” (Hanson & Pratt, 1995). The rootedness experienced by partners may be augmented by the fact that many struggle to find and maintain friends, due to the fact that their husbands are thought of as public figures. The prospect of having to make new friends is not one relished by many (Webb, 1998); for example, a small number of partners talked about, not only the “distance” other parents kept when dropping off and collecting their children from school, but also the ways in which their children experienced difficulties in school as a consequence of their father’s high-profile entertainment work. Two partners spoke specifically of the resentment and antipathy exhibited by their children towards their fathers’ occupation.

While many partners (and players) crave a sense of rootedness, for others, relocating exposes factors beyond their control which have a bearing on decision-making processes. For instance, an experienced Division One player who transferred from a northern city in England to one in the south east of England where the cost of living and, in particular, house prices, are higher, explained how economic circumstances constrained him to live the majority of each week away from his partner and children. The following is a short extract from his interview:

After one season, this player moved on to a club in the southwest of England where he was joined by his wife and children. His partner worked as a nurse and she was able to obtain a job at a local hospital. This player said that “you don’t often get players’ wives who have their own careers.” That said, their dual earning partnership may have led to relocation being less of an obstacle for this player’s partner, on this occasion, who was able to contribute financially to the upkeep of their family.

At a local level, domestic and social support and knowledge of local schools, friends and acquaintances and neighbors, may foster “rootedness” among family members (Hanson & Pratt, 1995). Against this backdrop of familiarity and stability, one must consider the (usually) narrow employment market which characterizes professional football. Thus, a player together with his partner may feel constrained to make uneasy career decisions during periods in which he may have few alternative employment options, and few alternative employment skills. For some players, these feelings may be augmented by a heightened sensitivity in terms of equality when negotiating with their partners about the future living arrangements for their family (Duncan & Philips, 2008). So, the pattern emerging of partners steadfastly refusing to move (again) from their homes, and the subsequent reconfiguration of family living arrangements which result, is one that has an apparent draw for individualization theorists. Yet understanding the problem of employment-led relocation requires an appreciation of a complex interweaving of obligations, aspirations, and cultural and situational constraints; a comprehension that militates against an emphasis on individualist self-fulfillment over collective, social aims.

Partners, Individualization, and Decision Making

The decision reached by partners and players not to relocate as a single family unit is illustrated by the numerous examples of players who agreed that they would either travel long distances each day to, or buy or rent a flat in the location of, their new club. This pattern is an indication of changing power ratios between players and their partners in relation to decision making about whether or not to relocate. This pattern may also be a sign of a change in “attitude” on the part of partners towards their husbands’ careers, and their own aspirations. The major factors facilitating the decision to commute relate to the legitimate demands of partners for greater individual freedom and personal choice; the desire for relief from the fatigue of repeated moves; as well as the felt need for stability for themselves and often their children. Any analysis of a decision to commute reached by a player and his partner cannot be explained separately from an understanding of the long series of earlier decisions, commitments and experiences from which such resolutions emerge. Any examination of these decision-making processes must comprehend structural changes such as an equalizing of household duties and a realization on the part of women that they can achieve life goals which may be alternative to, or even encompass, traditional expectations in terms of the gendered divisioning of labor (Newell, 2000; Oakley, 1990). Therefore, household negotiations and the resultant decisions should also be understood in the context of broader social change, including individualization (Beck-Gernsheim, 2002).

The apparent transformation to more individualized forms of thinking has been associated directly with explanations for elevated divorce rates (Smart, 2007). Even so, the kinds of selfish individualism implied by Ortiz (2006) on the part of athletes cannot offer a single causal connection for the “supposedly” high levels of marital disharmony in sports marriages. Elements of individualized thinking have also been employed in accusatory ways towards players’ partners in the media (Clayton & Harris, 2004). In conversation during the data collection period, many partners made it clear that they were aware of, and also felt pressured by, the ways in which they were represented in particular in the print-media. As well, many partners articulated their sadness for, and their fear of, the manner in which gossip circulates regarding blame and responsibility for relationship breakdown. Consistent with findings expressed by Ortiz (2006), a number talked about the high numbers of partners with whom they became friendly, who they met mostly on match days and at club functions, who suddenly departed from the football scene often as an outcome of marital problems. One young partner explained that her alertness to the potential of such issues resulted from her realization that she was the only “married” partner who attended on match days. All other first team players had either split or divorced from their partners. The topic of divorce and marital breakdown was mentioned by a small number of the partners in conversation, and it was commented on in such a way as to underscore the general awareness of these types of concerns among players’ partners. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the women in conversation talked in various ways of prioritizing individual happiness over collective well-being at particular points in their lives—most often the well-being of children was paramount—and it was clear that, while players were expected to prioritize “the game,” similar expectations for the partners were experienced frequently as burdensome and unsettling.

Players’ orientations to their work shift as they experience career contingencies such as long-term injury, deselection, and ageing, changing life circumstances that consequently impact on their partners as an aspect of their interdependence (O’Toole, 2006). Thus, as player perspectives change, one may question whether, and at what point in her life history, a partner thinks mostly about her husband and his playing career, about her children and their schooling, or about herself and the quality of her life. The job of professional footballer is among a number of occupations in which the workers may be defined as “public figures.” Being a public figure essentially means being defined in terms of work for the purposes of almost all social contacts (Finch, 1983). And if public figures are contaminated by their work, it is also true that their partners experience some of the consequences of being a public figure, but without having been paid to be one. Thus, the partners of footballers are defined by his work—particularly in the media—and they struggle to erase what has come to be known as the wife of identity (Finch, 1983; O’Toole, 2006).

This comment is substantiated further by Ann Lee, wife of journeyman player Jason Lee, interviewed for a UK television documentary, who describes succinctly her attempts to develop her own identity and her self-esteem. Deliberating about “what she wants out of life” and issues of self-improvement, she states,

Suzy Barnes, wife of former Liverpool and England international, John Barnes, confirms the sentiments expressed by Ann Lee. She says that when John Barnes was transferred from Watford to Liverpool it was a very difficult period in which she felt “very isolated.” She (and their 3-year-old son) moved to Merseyside initially, but then returned south in order to be among “all my old friends” (Webb, 1998, p. 182). In the following quote, she describes how, over the course of the next two seasons, she managed to develop her “own life”:

The sentiments expressed by increasing numbers of partners are indicative of a change in attitude on their part towards their husbands’ work and their own aspirations. Information relating to other partners discussed in this article suggest that Ann Lee and Suzy Barnes quoted above are not alone in terms of exercising influence during processes of transferring. As the examples included have indicated, a number of the partners of professional footballers are coming to decide against relinquishing control over aspects such as their own employment prospects, their lifestyles and, to varying degrees, their personal identities. For partners, wanting something other than what might be “expected” breeds anxieties and disquiet: such anxieties are balanced by the desire for relief from the ontological insecurities which have been persistent features of their relations with players. The way in which partners’ changing orientations are manifest relates in part to their perceptions of the legitimacy of their power which they are able to exercise when negotiating about the “situatedness” of living arrangements (Jarvis, 1999), particularly when their husbands are either considering, or are in the process of, transferring from one club to another. While the individualization thesis underscores attempts by partners to seek out personal identity, the formal-organization of football may result in a series of structurally induced family reconfigurations. Footballers’ partners do not demand “freedom” for its own sake in the face of challenges to workplace traditions; rather, decisions are more adequately appreciated as “relational choices” taken in the setting of consideration for others (Smart & Shipman, 2004).

Conclusion

The careers of footballers have been marked by increasingly high levels of labor mobility in the contemporary game as players search for work in this precarious profession; “one club” players are now very rare. It is not unusual for players to experience simultaneous job and geographical relocation several times in their work histories; a feature of this occupation which has a significant bearing for players’ partners, children and in terms of the organization of family life more generally. For some partners being a “tied” mover (Smits et al., 2003) and embracing the prospect of “more beginnings and more farewells” (Bauman, 2002, p. 41) is considered a natural part of football-business and the “right” thing to do. In contrast, other partners tire of acquiescing to their partners’ work demands, and seek to develop their own personal satisfactions, irrespective of the moves, outlooks and motives of players. The narratives included in this article straddle these polar positions. In contrast to many sociological studies of family life which focus on cultural traditions associated directly with religion and ethnicity in the “home” and family (Smart & Shipman, 2004; Smith, 2004), this study prioritizes the cultural traditions of a high-status form of employment. In this working context, “trailing” a player as he moves between clubs and preserving the essence of the heterosexual nuclear family has historically been a powerful cultural expectation, regardless of levels of personal sacrifice. Even so, this article calls into question what workplace tradition means and to whom, and draws attention to their negotiable and changeful character.

The problem of employment-related relocation and its effects on families is relatively unexplored: to date, most research has centered on people in high-level nonmanual occupations who move geographically without changing their employer (Green & Canny, 2003). In the situation of professional footballers, there is a trend in which labor mobility is bringing about a reconfiguration of partnerships and household living arrangements. Such a trend seems at first glance to be comprehensible in terms of the individualization thesis, since female partners appear more and more to be resisting the status of “tied mover” and developing and/or prioritizing personal goals (Smits et al., 2003). It would be a mistake however, as Smart and Shipman (2004) propose, to examine individual motivations and aspirations separately from those networks of relationships in which partners are embedded that constrain their ability to exercise choice free from obligations and expectancies. Footballers’ work histories are characteristically unstable and comparatively short term. Players and their partners gain quickly an acute appreciation of the uncertainty of the marketplace, the limited tenure of average contracts, the surplus of potential quality labor and the constant threat of workplace injury and ageing (Roderick, 2006). It is in the light of such conditions of work that players and partners negotiate, however (un)democratically, decisions concerning their partnerships, the intra household economy and job-led relocation.

At times, how players and partners behave in the sphere of family life appears to be deduced from the pages of newspapers and popular magazines. The presumptions that “wags” ⁷ are making easy, selfish choices and abandoning the hard work of commitment are in fact challenged by this and other research (Ortiz, 2006; O’Toole, 2007), for the interviewees describe a picture of negotiation, support and obligation between family members. Clayton and Harris (2004) argue that footballers’ wives are portrayed in the media in ways which supports the (re)production of masculine hegemony; wives are represented as beautiful, supportive and passive. Such representations also reproduce the structures of workplace culture which shape values connected with the family life of footballers. This study of job-led relocation does not paint a picture of passivity or selfish individualism, but captures the complex interweaving of competing obligations and aspirations of players and partners in relation to their interdependent career, personal and emotional requirements; and the changefulness of connections among individual choices, preexisting family networks and the need to respect cultural ideologies bound up with professional sport. In terms of families embedded in professional football, there exist aspects of individualization mixed with aspirations to retain elements of the traditional, and it would be erroneous to prioritize individual preference and aspiration over and above family as well as workplace obligations. The options available for players and their families are not simply a matter of “free” or personal choice, but are linked to tight job markets which constrain employment opportunities and housing affordability. The social contexts bound up with the work of professional footballers provide an opportunity to explore sociologically the blurring of the boundaries between the very public spheres of work and the so-called private spheres of day-to-day domestic life, and to move beyond the tendency to treat the family as a “black box” (Bonney & Love, 1991) from which decisions about the lives of family members emanate.