For a passionate sports fan and college soccer coach, English-born John Pearson freely admits that he “never really took to baseball” in his adopted homeland.
With a new season of the English Premier League under way – and John’s beloved Manchester City aiming for their fourth consecutive title – we talked about sports in general, their place in society and the inevitability of change. As a retired education administrator, John also has plenty to say about the state of US Higher Education amid recent challenges.
You can read John’s full bio here.
*
Steve – I waited to do this Q&A with you until Manchester City completed the “Treble”, finally winning the Champions League – a remarkable achievement by any standards. But, of course, context is always important and, like it or not, it’s impossible to talk about the team’s on-field success without the backdrop of ownership and finances. This was, after all, the first time a state-run club had won Europe’s premier competition.
Then in between the last two legs of City’s Treble, the biggest story in the sports world was the Saudis buying up professional golf. So, a very big-picture question to start with: Is money killing sports?
John – We should probably clear one thing up first. What is this about a state-run club? You have been reading too many blogs from fans of the red-top teams. City are, as far as I know, a privately-owned club with minority ownership shared between a US and a Chinese investment firm. But perhaps the bigger question is whether a state-owned club is wrong per se or could it be seen as the logical conclusion of the journey professional soccer has been on for decades.
The formation of the Premier League marked a huge turning point. And it was supported, at first, by just 5 clubs who saw it as way to generate more income for themselves. That neither Chelsea nor City were part of the five perhaps provides some context for how they have been viewed in the recent years. Then came the decision to have top 4 (or top 3) teams qualify for the Champions League, which, again, proved financially beneficial to what were deemed the traditional top clubs.
So you could argue that a small number of clubs were determined not to lose out on these financial benefits. Of course, it is not as easy as that, since these changes had a remarkable impact on the global popularity of the Premier League: a popularity that has brought untold riches to many clubs.
I would argue that it is not just the money that has changed football in England but who the owners are. And perhaps this could be extrapolated to other sports.
Why are we so annoyed by Saudi Arabia buying up golf or offering ridiculous wages to bring players to their domestic league? Is there a touch of white imperialism here? Or can we actually make an argument that who the owners are should matter? I can’t see much precedent for this in most sports so I’m not sure why it is suddenly important not to have middle eastern owners. Are we really so annoyed because of their domestic policies? If so why are we having the next World Cup in a country with capital punishment, anti-female legislation and child labor? That is somewhat extreme but I think it just shows that there is little morality in sport at the top level.
I’m digressing here but do we really want to go back to the First Division as it was in 1984? Awful stadiums, poor pitches, few amenities. I also am not sure I completely buy the argument that, in the good old days, owners were just fans with money. That seems to run counter to what I know, or believe, about capitalism.
And if we go beyond the Premier League, it seems ownership is hit and miss.
Another point I’d make is that while owners are important, the successful teams since World War Two, in England, have depended on the manager. Busby, Nicholson, Shankly, Cullis, Catterick, Mercer/Allison. Clough, Revie, and on through the era of Ferguson and now Guardiola. But that perhaps says more about the abilities and personalities of these managers than anything else.
*
Steve – I think we agree that how football is run has changed dramatically over the past few decades. You mentioned the Champions League there, and for me the biggest calamity it brought was that teams started to play for fourth place, simply because the money on offer just for qualifying sets a team apart from the rest of the domestic league. And if the same teams are qualifying every year, that wealth gap just keeps widening.
I was recently re-reading Desmond Morris’s classic book from the early ‘80s The Soccer Tribe and it was a totally different world, with so much change happening in such a relatively short period of time.
John – It was indeed; and while I grew up going to Maine Road and some very frightening away games, just look at the crowds now at Premier League games as well as the amenities at fans’ disposal.
Steve – But even among the constants, there have also been recent changes to the game itself – perhaps the most obvious being VAR, which doesn’t seem to have resulted in any fewer arguments than we had just relying on human judgment.
We’ve seen cricket try various ways of shaking up its product – to a point where the US will host next year’s T20 World Cup – and now, of course, baseball has introduced a slate of changes to try to make the game more exciting. Is change just inevitable in a society where there’s much greater competition for fans’ attention – and disposable income?
John – There have been numerous changes to all sports. Facilities have improved, the rewards for success have improved, diet and training have improved and various things have changed to – supposedly – improve the game. I am yet to be convinced of the overall merits of VAR, but VAR-type systems are working in other sports: cricket, rugby, American football, baseball. Yet it seems to be such a controversy in our football. But remember the old adage: laws (which soccer has) cannot be broken, rules (which other sports have) can be twisted.
Also, of course, we all have more and more options now for how we spend our time and money. Test cricket is a case study. Crowds had been declining, so cricket moved to shorter time games and crowds improved, but it still depends on the format. So I can certainly understand why baseball would change its rules to shorten games.
Steve – What was the first football match you attended and what do you remember about it? How about your first baseball game? Your most recent? Are there any similarities in experiencing the two sports for the first time?
John – My dad, who died in 1956 when I was 7, took me to Maine Road and to Moss Lane, Altrincham to see his favourite team, Altrincham FC. But I have no idea of who the opponents were or which team I saw play first.
As for baseball, it was Ten Cent Beer Night at the Knoxville Sox.
I don’t mind admitting I have never taken to baseball. I understand it has nuances but I find test cricket so much more complex. I have been to the Oakland A’s and San Francisco Giants, as well as games at Stanford and I enjoy the atmosphere, but the game just doesn’t do much for me.
I should add I do like US College football and Basketball, though whether I can continue to enjoy these sports after all the recent conference re-alignments remains to be seen. I was against soccer’s European Super League and see the development of two or three super college conferences to be the same move towards maximizing income with little care for the players.
Steve – Like me, you’re a dual national, and an American by choice – you became a citizen in 2013. What was the first US election you voted in, and what has been the most significant change in our politics since then?
John – There was no real reason I put becoming a citizen off for so long. I became a permanent resident in 1985. There were probably two possible reasons I waited. First, my Green Card application was a mess, with a lost file and I didn’t want to go through that again. More importantly my job at Stanford involved managing immigration services for the University, so I tended to put my own case to the back burner. But once I started the paperwork the entire process was over in 3 months.
My first national election was 2016, when we still lived in California. I voted for the Green Party, as I could not take to the Democratic candidate that year and there was no way on earth I would vote Republican. (Note: The Green Party candidate in 2016, Jill Stein, is now advising Cornel West’s Presidential run).
Rather than one significant change since 2016, there’s been a developing clarity around the divide in this country and the extremes that the Republican Party will go to maintain power. But this has been a trend now for a few decades. Trump merely took it to its most obvious level.
I suppose an underlying significant change is the lack of any real alternative view from the Democrats and their inability to appeal to those who, historically, have been one of the beneficiaries of Democratic policies: the white working class. The Democrats, in the main, seem to have decided that centrist politics and fiscally conservative policies should be their platform. Though, to be fair, they do remain strong on many social issues.
Steve – You moved from one of the bluest states – California – to one of the reddest – Idaho – a few years back. There have been some quite significant shifts in population all across the country in recent years – in part accelerated by the pandemic. What have you found to be the biggest differences between the two situations?
John – We moved to Idaho after we retired for a few reasons. First, it enabled both of us to retire as we took advantage of the real estate prices in California. Second, we had good friends here and the city seemed – and is – pleasant. In hindsight, I think we should perhaps have thought more about where we wanted to retire. But there is no humidity here! Remember that old Robert Service poem about the men that don’t fit in? That’s not me really but I do get excited about new starts. The only downside of moving is all the vinyl records I have!
Steve – It often seems that it’s at the state level where fringe politics is fast becoming mainstream. What’s been your experience with local politics in Idaho? How good a job does the state’s local media do in explaining events? And with the picture in Washington continuing to be gridlocked, do you get a sense from your own state that the country is getting further away from any notion of a national consensus?
John – Idaho is a right-wing state with extreme elements of survivalists and social conservatives. It is interesting to know that in the 1950s and 1960s there was a decent showing by the Democratic Party, including the last Democratic Senator from Idaho, Frank Church. Today, Boise has a young, female Democratic mayor who I hope will be re-elected. But the Congressional representatives are nothing to write home about. We get decent coverage of state politics with our local papers. The Idaho Statesman is good with its editorials.
I could include this next sentence in pretty much every answer. The only hope, I see, for any return to any form of national consensus about social and economic policies is if the Democratic Party can be clear about its values, priorities and goals and can make it clear that many of those who think Trump is the answer, would actually be better served by the Democratic Party. But I see little hope that will happen given the grave and real disagreements about the current issues facing the country.
Steve – Naturally, having your adopted son Jack brings the conflict in Ukraine closer to home. Has it been difficult talking with him about what’s happening there? And what’s the general feeling in Idaho about support for Ukraine?
John – Jack is currently in Canada and I think follows generally what is going on in Ukraine. He was born in Zaporizhzhia, a city that’s really on the front lines. I do talk with him about it and he certainly knows my views about Putin!
I do feel the support for Ukraine is beginning to waver in Idaho, especially the longer the war goes on. Self-interest is beginning to take hold, I fear, and there is a lack of clear understanding of just how dangerous Putin is. And we also know that Ukraine was not a perfect democracy, so you now hear that a little more.
Lingering over all this is Trump who makes these dangerous and ridiculous pronouncements that he would end the war in a day. How? By siding with Putin? It is not a parallel by any means, but like with Vietnam, war malaise is inevitable after a certain time, especially when there is no end in sight. No to mention the cost and what people think isn’t being done at home while so much is being diverted towards Ukraine. On the other hand, Republicans of the more traditional type are no fans of an aggressive Russia.
Steve – Your love of American music led you to become a big fan of Jerry Lee Lewis, who died last year. It was frequently said that he was cancelled ‘long before there was cancel culture’ particularly after his first trip to Britain. For you, what will be his lasting impact on music?
John – Jerry Lee takes a long time to explain. He marched to the beat of his own drum, even when that adversely impacted others.
As you know I went to Ferriday, Louisiana, for his funeral service. He was part of the fabric of my life for the longest time. The question of his lasting impact on music is a tough one in that he didn’t write songs and his own musical style is impossible to replicate, even though many try. Most rock ‘n roll piano players have been influenced by him but there have been no major artists you could say were a direct descendent of Jerry Lee.
You could say, for example, that Oasis were influenced by the Beatles; but all great artists are hard to replicate. I think what set Jerry apart from most (but not all – Ray Charles, Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra come to mind) is the ability to take any type of song and reform it so you can then associate it with them. I suppose you would call them stylists. And like Ray Charles and Hank Williams, Jerry did create a different type of music in the 1950s. And the basis was his remarkable skill and innovation as a pianist as well as his ability to know songs from all forms of music. As for live shows, there may never have been a better live album than Jerry Lee at the Star Club in 1964.
*
Steve – As a former education administrator, what did you make of the recent Supreme Court decisions affecting Affirmative Action college admissions, as well as blocking the current administration’s plan to forgive some student debt?
What impact do you think this all might have on young voters in the upcoming election cycle?
John – Where to start with this one! Perhaps by putting it in two contexts. The first is the growth of US Higher Education and the second is the current attack, if that’s the right word, by the Supreme Court on past actions that were aimed at making opportunity in the US more accessible to more people.
While I do think there are legitimate discussions to be had about the way Affirmative Action may have operated, the necessity for some means to open up Higher Education to all in the US – away from the Pale, Male and Yale stereotype – remains.
I have little confidence that the Supreme Court made their decision based on legal considerations; rather they seem to be acting based on their own personal entitlements (and let’s not forget who brought the case). I can say that working at Stanford for 31 years gave me a clear view of the advantages – both to the school and the individual – of a diverse college population, students and staff. Such diversity, of course, necessitated changing approaches to resources and a better understanding of student needs.
I do understand that the Supreme Court’s decision does not mean race cannot be taken into account at all in admissions but that it cannot be a determining factor (apart from the Military Academies) So perhaps it will not change much at the ‘elite institutions” (and the Powell Decision in the Bakke case some years ago did suggest that affirmative action was ok as long as it was in the cause of the benefits that a diverse student body brought to a school). A lot will depend on the will of individual institutions. I feel reasonably optimistic.
Student debt is a different issue but is also tied to the general changes in US Higher Education. Costs of attending have increased substantially in the last 40 years and not all colleges have the ability to offer financial aid packages that means students can graduate with little or no debt. State Universities have also seen state funding cut which has led to these institutions increasing tuition costs and not just for out of state students.
Costs of attending have risen way beyond the ability of many to pay. So, given my own career, I have a lot of sympathy for those who have to pay back substantial loans. But is it the right thing to do by Democrats when other groups in society are struggling to make ends meet and who don’t tend to have much sympathy for students. I would like to have seen loan relief as part of a clear set of recommendations that would help others as well.
You ask whether the Democrats can rely on the youth vote, partly because of things like this.
Again, I am not that sure. There is some data that suggests more and more white male college students are becoming more conservative and there are many many young people who are not – and have little or no expectation of – attending college.
This of course connects to your earlier question about the building of consensus. I can only repeat that I am not convinced that the Democrats have yet determined who makes up their voters. They seem to have pulled away from the old coalition of working class, Blacks, union members and certain elements of ‘the educated class.’ Now it appears to be more a coalition of suburban women, ethnic groups, graduates and young people. Is that enough to defeat a coalition of angry, economically struggling, socially conservative, mainly, but not overwhelmingly, whites? We will find out.
*
You might also enjoy these other Conversations:
Michael Avila – Not All Who Wander Are Lost
“The war [in Ukraine] is deeply disturbing to me as a human being and particularly now as someone who has family in the region. Moldova is just as vulnerable as Ukraine. People from Moldova and that part of the world are tough people who have unfortunately seen this kind of thing, from Russia and others, many times before. I think people are quite stoic about what’s happening, but you know the concern and angst is always there.”
*
Alina Utrata – Musk and Managing The Message
“Sports are unavoidably political – you can see that in Iran, where women have not been allowed to attend football games. Or here in the UK or US, where women’s sports are not given the same kind of resources or respect, or trans athletes may be banned from competing. That’s a political statement about who we feel should be included and valued in society.”
*
Ian Nicholas Quillen – Over/Under
“The Qatar World Cup had all sorts of problematic issues, but it was also just very different in other ways that have nothing to do with politics or morality or human rights. It was basically a one-city World Cup, the first in the Arab World and the first without in-stadium beer sales. And of course the first in the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. That makes it sort of an easy target where other tournaments with similar problematic issues at some level – Russia, South Africa recently – maybe were not. We act like these things are unprecedented but they’re almost as old as the tournament itself.”
*
States of Play 