“The fans of the two clubs are against leaders who do not respect history,” said a sociologist

• Many Nantes and Bordeaux supporters have been mobilized for months and months against the leaders of their club.
• Nicolas Hourcade, sociologist, analyzes these movements of fans of historic French football clubs.

–

The best enemies united in the same fight. Saturday (1 p.m.), before the FC Nantes-Bordeaux meeting, capital for the maintenance in Ligue 1, many Nantes supporters will still be gathered to “discuss the situation of
FCN and its future ”, against the backdrop above all a strong rejection of President Waldemar Kita, owner of the club since 2007. In Bordeaux, the mobilization of fans has not weakened for weeks and weeks. Again, in the crosshairs: the president, Frédéric Longuépée, and the investment fund owner King Street, who have just retired. Nicolas Hourcade, sociologist at the Ecole Centrale de Lyon and specialist in football supporters, deciphers this outcry from Nantes and Bordeaux aficionados.

Are there reasons for such intense mobilization among supporters in Nantes and Bordeaux?

Because in the two clubs, there are very strong differences between the leaders or the owners of the club and a certain fringe of supporters who consider that the management is more concerned with financial profitability, and not enough with the history of their team. They consider the action of the owners to be harmful. They position themselves a bit like the defenders of the history and the identity of the club. Nantes is an extreme case because Waldemar Kita has been at the head of the club for fourteen years now and there is a fairly deep schism between him and a large part of the supporters since it goes far beyond the ultras.

And in Bordeaux?

It is a little different case because the crisis is much more recent. It dates from the takeover by American owners [GAPC et King Street en 2018]. This is also a historic French football club, bought by an American shareholder. The latter does not necessarily have a good knowledge of the environment. He found himself owner of the club a little unwittingly, after the ousting of the other shareholder who had initiated the project. Very recently, King Street decided to withdraw because it cannot be found there. In Bordeaux, supporters have positioned themselves as whistleblowers for months on the dangers facing their club.

How would you define the actions of the ultras of the two clubs?

I find that in these two movements in Nantes and Bordeaux, there are two very interesting things. First, unlike what happened in Marseille, the supporters try to avoid any violent outburst that could discredit them. They act as a structured social movement that uses legal actions to make its voice heard. In addition, we see both in Nantes and Bordeaux that its supporters are extremely invested in their passion and therefore have a fine knowledge of the club and also have relays within it. As these associations have followed the club for years, they have been able to create relationships with a whole set of actors in and around the club.

Does the fact that there is only one group of ultras in Nantes and Bordeaux facilitate this strong mobilization?

Yes, that can simplify the action because in fact, there is only one voice. The ultra group [Brigade Loire à Nantes et
Ultramarines à Bordeaux] speaks the words of the most committed supporters. However, in Saint-Etienne, there are different groups of ultras and there has also been a fairly strong protest against the management. In Marseille, the same thing. The specificity of the Nantes and Bordeaux ultras is that they are structured groups, which seek precisely to be in a square action and to avoid overflows. Having just one association can possibly make things easier, but I don’t think that’s a decisive factor.

Another similarity: fans rely a lot on former players in their protest movement (Gillet Piocelle and Fabbri in Nantes, Giresse, Laslandes and Planus in Bordeaux)…

We always find the same logic, that is to say that the supporters reproach the leaders in place of not respecting the history of the club. Waldemar Kita has been criticized for having cut himself off from the Nantes-style game, from training, from a whole set of traditions. And similar to Bordeaux, the supporters accuse the leaders of being in a financial logic disconnected from the realities of Bordeaux. To show that they are defending the history of the club, they rely on former players. Which can be expressed individually, but are not structured in association engaging against the club, unlike the ultras.

Some supporters (in Nantes especially) prefer to see their club come down to be rid of their leaders. Is this new?

This is not the majority discourse in Bordeaux. There are a number of supporters in both clubs who say that to clean up the situation and to rebuild a healthier club, it can go through relegation, including at the amateur level. There is also the question in Nantes whether a descent in Ligue 2 could not force Kita to leave. Among Girondins fans, it’s different, they rather want the club to stay in L1 sportingly because, according to them, this would increase the chances that a buyer will appear.

But isn’t it a bit of a paradox to claim to be a fan of a club and want it to come down?

Basically, they want their club more to correspond to what they think it is, that is to say not only a company, but also a common good which belongs to all the lovers of the club. Also, if going down to L2 or N3, that’s the only way for the club to get healthier, well, some supporters are ready to accept it. They have in mind the Racing Club de Strasbourg which, due to financial embezzlement, found itself relegated to the fifth level and which had been rebuilt with all the local players, local authorities and fans. Some say that being relegated for three or four years is complicated, but that it can be the price to pay to rebuild and that it can be better than struggling for fourteen years to encourage a club whose colors are supported, but not politics.

Two ultra “enemy” groups united in the same fight, isn’t it funny?

Their fights are similar and they are aware of it. They know that they share common interests and identical demands: more “popular” football, to use their term, and less focused on business alone.

–