It’s all over now baby blue

Cardiff City’s switch from blue to red is a depressing reminder of what’s wrong with modern football.

"In order to show proper respect for your future, you must sometimes show some insensitivity to your past”. Such were the words and rationale of Roberto Goizueta, the former CEO of The Coca Cola Company, who 27 years ago changed the formula of the world’s most popular soft drink and launched a new product, imaginatively named "New Coke". At the time Goizueta and his team were faced with a dilemma: the Pepsi challenge was in full flow and consumers seemed receptive to the idea of switching from Coke to its sweeter, blue packaged alternative. Fearing a loss of ascendency in the fizzy drinks duopoly the company took decisive action and in April 1985, amid great fanfare, Coca Cola was replaced by New Coke. 79 days and some 400,000 complaints later though, the original drink returned.

Fans of Cardiff City FC will be hoping the backlash to the announcement of their own rebranding yields similar results. From next season, the team nicknamed the Bluebirds will play their home games in a red kit bearing a new club crest.  The switch from red to blue has been enforced as a condition of investment from Cardiff’s Malaysian owners, who feel the changes will “help [Cardiff] develop its brand and to allow it to expand its appeal to as wide an audience as possible”. Due to its association with prosperity and good fortune, red is seen as more attractive colour in the Far Eastern markets identified by the club as potentially lucrative. Although it may sound like marketing spiel borrowed from HSBC’s “the world’s local bank” campaign, Cardiff are adamant that they need to go along with this rebranding exercise to  “safeguard the immediate and long-term future of the club.”

It’s fair to say the reaction from fans has been less than enthusiastic. In an effort to prevent their clubs nickname – the Bluebirds - becoming a painful and ironic reminder of what once was, supporters fought an unsuccessful campaign to keep Cardiff blue. Even for those who have taken the pragmatic approach - arguing a financially secure Cardiff City that plays in red is better than a potentially insolvent Cardiff City that plays in blue – last week’s announcement can hardly be considered a victory. Instead, it’s a rather depressing example of football’s financial realities running roughshod over supporter sentiment and years of tradition.

Unlike Cardiff, in the two years prior to the disastrous launch of New Coke, Coca Cola extensively canvassed its customers’ opinions about the proposed change. Over 200,000 Americans participated in taste tests, the results of which compelled Goziueta to boldly describe the launch of New Coke as “the surest move ever made”. There problem was that while Coca Cola had been making sure people liked the way their new drink tasted, they had neglected to consider customers’ sentimental attachment to the (old) brand. Unusually, the spectacular U-Turn that followed proved mutually beneficial to all parties. So pleased were customers to get their much loved product back, that they bought it in huge numbers, revitalising Coke’s stagnating sales and consolidating the company at the top of the pop pyramid. Indeed such was the speed with which Coca Cola snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in the New Coke debacle, that many have speculated that the entire episode was a marketing ploy from day one.

Sadly for Cardiff the world’s conspiracy theorists have yet to devise a plausible scenario in which this colorful saga turns out to be anything other than what it is: the epitome of all that’s wrong with modern football. The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano described the game as “a primordial symbol of collective identity”. Alan Sugar said it’s “the only business in the world where it's embarrassing to make money”. In a roundabout way both men made the same point: football is exceptional. It’s a game where fans’ emotional ties and tribal allegiances to clubs, their traditions, heritage and yes, the colour in which they play, takes precedence over commercial activities and the will to turn a greater profit. Except it isn’t. Football’s sacred cows have been on auction to the highest bidder for some time now. Clubs have moved cities, changed names, ceased to exist. The beautiful game has been contaminated by ugly language:  leveraged buy-outs; administration; liquidation. For their owners, clubs are no longer symbols of local pride; they are global brands, whose merchandising potential must be maximized at all costs.

In 1985 fearing dissent among its customer base Coca Cola relented to their will. In 2012, the course of action taken by Cardiff’s owners shows, in black and white, that shirt sales in Asia are more important than the views of fans from the city whose name the club bears. And when the leopard’s spots are up for sale, it’s a sign that the tail must be well and truly wagging the dog.

Aron Gunnarsson of Cardiff City will be wearing red next season Photograph: Getty Images
Public domain
Show Hide image

UK to reconsider blood donation ban for men who have sex with men

Under current rules, men who have had sex with another man in the past twelve months cannot donate blood.

During Women and Equalities questions this morning, Jane Ellison MP slipped in a bombshell: men who have sex with other men may soon be able to donate blood. 

Ellision, who is Undersecretary of State for Public Health, said that Public Health England has carried out a new survey of blood donors which is currently being analysed. Next year, the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs (SaBTO), which sets blood donation guidelines, will use the evidence to review the current policy. 

She said:

Donor referrel for MSM [men who have sex with men] was changed from lifetime to 12 months referral in 2011. Four years later it is time again to look at this issue. Public Health England has conducted an anonymous survey of donors and I'm pleased that the advisory SaBTO will review this issue in 2016.

The current ban (which also applies to a range of other groups including sex workers) is based on the fact that MSM are at higher risk of contracting HIV, according to every Public Health England survey ever conducted on the disease. Both HIV and Hepatitis C don't show up in blood tests immediately, so the 12 month rule is based on leaving a "window" for the diseases to develop and be testable. The rules are ostensibly based on sexual activity, not on sexual orientation.

However, as Michael Fabricant pointed out in response to Ellison's announcement, in practice, it also looks a lot like discrimination - there is no ban on blood donation from straight people who have had unprotected sex, for example. Fabricant continued that "equality on this issue" is needed, and clinicians themselves feel a change is "long overdue".

Blood donations in the UK have fallen by 40 per cent in the last decade, a fact which may have contributed to the decision to review the current rules.

A Stonewall spokesperson said:

We’re delighted the Department of Health Minister Jane Ellison has announced this review.

We want a donation system that is fair and based on up-to-date medical evidence. Currently gay and bi people cannot give blood if they have had sex in the past 12 months,  regardless of whether they used protection. Yet straight people who may have had unprotected sex can donate. These current rules are clearly unfair and we want to see people asked similar questions - irrespective of their sexual orientation - to accurately assess the risk of infection. Screening all donors by sexual behaviour rather than by sexual orientation would increase blood stocks in times of shortage and create a safer supply by giving a more accurate, non-discriminatory assessment.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.