This quote may clarify what Barnes is saying. His description of the 'inner socialist' in all of us defintell concurrs with Orwell's definition in this essay strangely entitled 'Socialists Don't Believe in Fun':
"At the risk of saying something which the editors of Tribune may not endorse, I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough.
Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue."
http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun
All football might now consider applying socialist principles to its transfer system, like the American NFL.

Disagree Barnes. Although i think the divide between football and rugby says a lot about class. Football used to be watched by primarily the working class and its still a working class sport to an extent. I think that explains why some of my more posher friends dislike football so much and talk up rugby. Rugby is a great sport but football is so much more watchable.

Yet posh people talk up rugby i think because they secretly don't like the fact that football is populated by commoners and loved by common folk. In football there's less of the strict authority in that people are free to rightly criticise the ref at times. The fans have more spirit.

Rugby, although a great sport, is watched mostly by rich people, and played by mostly physically superior people. Its only since England won in 2003 that people other than posh and welsh have started being interested in the game.

"The socialism I believe in is not really politics. It is a way of living. It is humanity. I believe the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day. That might be asking a lot, but it's the way I see football and the way I see life"

So said Bill Shankly

Players with 'chips on the shoulder' or 'special one' feeling look down on fellow players. Titles like 'golden boot' (for highest scorer should be abolished as they make the rest of the team feel like filler material, which they are obviously not). Just try to set out Drogba or Messi on his own against a team and see if he'll win the game. As much as we may appreciate flair and personal talent, every goal and win is a team win. You've got a point, Barnes.

As a blue-collar Rugby fan, I can see what Barnes is driving at - all team sports require a team effort, rather than one prima donna, to achieve victory. Talking of who watches which sport is often a bit misleading, as it does vary from region to region, and nation to nation.

It seems to come down to the old Aussie question - "A team of champions, or a Champion Team?"