We live in an age of direct action. People are mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.
Often the direct action they take is no more direct than a like or a retweet, but there are some places where they understand the power of protest, some places where they believe in the idea that if you stand up for what you believe in, change will come.
Stamford Bridge is one of those places. In the past, they have mobilised against Rafa Benitez, while earlier this season they turned on the players who they believed had driven Jose Mourinho from the club.
Last week, Chelsea’s fans at Anfield demanded that the club extend the contract of John Terry. The club have now offered him a new one-year deal, but it may not be enough to keep Terry at the club or to stop the protests planned for Sunday’s game at Stamford Bridge.
“We have heard of groups planning to walk out, but that is nothing to do with us,” said the head of one supporters group. “We don’t think there will be many. But there will be a lot of chanting and singing and there will be banners. There is a lot of discontent.”
There is, indeed, a lot of discontent. In the world and, now in Chelsea. Yet, unlike many of those engaged in direct action elsewhere, the supporters at Stamford Bridge will be demanding that a rich man is given more money. Unlike many of the rich men we have seen profit in recent times, Terry could probably claim to have earned it.
This will make some feel uncomfortable. The New York Times once described Terry as one of the best defenders in England, but also perhaps ‘the country’s most reviled player’.
Now the Chelsea supporters who have always seen the best in Terry are negotiating on his behalf, even if they may now have to deliver a nuanced message.
Terrace chants are not what they were, but even in the glory days, it would have been difficult to imagine a crowd chanting, say, “What do we want? A two-year extension with standard image rights concessions as agreed by our client. When do we want it? Now! But with a break clause after 12 months.”
In some ways, it could appear to be a protest against Time itself, a refusal to acknowledge that Terry is reaching the end, with the sad dulling of reaction times the most obvious sign that his powers are not what they were.
But there is a common thread to all the supporters’ protests at Stamford Bridge, one that can’t be glibly dismissed. Chelsea under Abramovich demonstrate how far one man can take a club, but how far can he take them without listening to the supporters?
“It has been a terrible season. John is one of the only players the fans still identify with and who knows what Chelsea is all about,” Tim Rolls of the Chelsea Supporters Trust said.
Chelsea haven’t been about much this season. Things may have improved with Mourinho’s departure, but not if you believe that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Their season has slipped into irrelevance so there was nothing left to talk about except what would happen to Terry and how central would he be in his own farewell, if it happened at all.
When he was sent off against Sunderland last weekend, it looked as if he was going to miss his own departure, a fittingly overwrought development for a man who has always been willing to burst into tears at any moment.
Then it turned out Terry had hired Stamford Bridge for a second farewell appearance on Monday and, at Chelsea’s end-of-season awards, Terry was said to be overcome with emotion and unable to speak when staff and players chanted his name.
This was followed by the weekend reports that Chelsea had contacted the Premier League to request that Terry be allowed lead the team out for the final game before taking his place with the suspended players in the stand.
‘There have also been internal discussions at Chelsea,’ the Times reported, ‘about whether he should wear his kit on the bench despite his suspension, with Terry minded to ignore the potential ridicule.’
Finally, there was the new contract offer on reduced terms –Â “What do we want? An incentivised contract but with no significant reduction in basic salary” – which complicated the story even further.
Terry’s farewell, like Terry himself, was now a divisive topic, but he is used to that.
At the top of Terry’s rap sheet is his suspension for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, (he was cleared in court of similar charges) but, of course, it doesn’t stop there.
Terry has parked in a disabled bay, he has been stripped of the England captaincy following allegations he had an affair with the ex-girlfriend of a team-mate and he was once said to have mocked the victims of 9/11 by embarking on some all-day drinking at an airport hotel at Heathrow the day after the attacks.
He is a reminder that England can sometimes lose sight of the difference between the things worth getting worked up over – racism –Â and the things that shouldn’t really matter – a footballer allegedly sleeping with someone.
Terry is divisive too on the subject of character. When England was tearing itself apart and losing Fabio Capello who resigned in protest at how the FA had handled Terry’s racism charge, Andre Villas-Boas, then-Chelsea’s manager, praised Terry for the manner in which he had put the “off-field” matters to one side when he played.
There is a tendency to applaud those who are able to put everything to one side and continue to play football, praising those who are “minded to ignore the potential ridicule” and declaring that this demonstrates remarkable character when it may also demonstrate other traits as well.
Outside Chelsea, everyone will be minded to ridicule him again. At Stamford Bridge, they will be minded to ignore that, believing that it only underlines why he matters to Chelsea and what we are talking about when we talk about John Terry.
