Cultivating an English National Identity: Remembrance and Reception of the 1966 FIFA World Cup through Photography

Primary Title Cultivating an English National Identity

Remembrance and Reception of the 1966 FIFA World Cup through Photography

Theo Karavolas

Hamilton College, Class of 2022

On July 30, 1966, England defeated West Germany 4-2 in a thrilling extra time match at Wembley Stadium, winning their first and only FIFA World Cup. England overcame improbable odds on their road to victory, narrowly beating Argentina and Portugal in the quarter-final and semi-final, respectively. Members of the 1966 team emerged from the match as national heroes. English midfielder Martin Peters broke a match-long tie with a goal in the 78th minute, seemingly winning the World Cup for England. West Germany’s Wolfgang Weber, however, leveled the score in the 89th minute to send the match into extra time. Scoring arguably one of the most controversial goals in football history, Geoff Hurst’s shot hit the crossbar and bounced down onto the goal line to give England a 3-2 lead. Hurst later scored his second goal of extra time to secure the 4-2 victory for England.

No photograph captures the essence of this victory more than John Varley’s color photograph of English captain Bobby Moore sitting on the shoulders of his teammates as he hoists the Jules Rimet Trophy into the air. (Figure 1) The jubilant facial expressions of Moore and his teammates convey the triumph of an entire nation in the face of the exceptional victory. This iconic image of Moore is ingrained in English popular memory, evoking a sense of nostalgia for a former glory that has since eluded the English national team.

This essay will examine how Varley’s photograph of the triumphant Moore and his teammates, in dialogue with broader photography of the 1966 World Cup tournament, was interpreted in its own time and how the celebrated photograph became a replicated commodity of nostalgia. Firstly, this essay will focus on the present-day valorization of Moore. In agreement with Geoffrey Batchen’s argument, I reject historiographies that restrict discussion of the photograph to a singular, physical object, as I examine the effects of the continued dissemination of photographs as images with which viewers have a changing relationship over a span Figure 1: John Varley, photographer. “The Boys of ‘66.” Photograph. London: 1966. From Varley Media: John Varley Signature Collection.

of time.1 The British public’s understanding of Varley’s photograph of Moore evolved as the photograph became more reproducible; thus, remembrance tied to the photograph was subject to change from its original reception in 1966.

The next section will then delve into the photography of England’s broader World Cup journey within the print media. Following James Ryan’s methodology of photography as a “complex cultural process,” it is necessary to strip Varley’s photograph of its privilege and to situate it in “broader discourses.”2 I will also borrow from Ryan the term “imaginative geography,” which I define as the construction of complex and contradictory images of nations other than England.3 The photography of the English team and other national teams, such as

1 Geoffrey Batchen, Apparitions: Photography and Dissemination (Sydney: NAMU & Power Publications, 2018), 6. 2 James R. Ryan, Picturing Empire: Photography and the Visualization of the British Empire (University of Chicago Press, 1997), 19. 3 Ryan, Picturing Empire, 25-6. See also Edward Said, Orientalism (London: Pantheon Books, 1978).

West Germany, Argentina, and Portugal, defined English identity in an international context. Liz Crolley and David Hand’s study Football, Europe and the Press explores how the European print media constructed national identities through football writing. They find that print media discourse on football perpetuates the consensus that national identity is unique and can be reduced to a limited set of typical characteristics.4 This study, unlike Crolley and Hand’s work, will analyze not only magazine spreads and newspaper commentaries, but also how photography within these mediums constructed national typologies based on each team’s playing styles. My research framework also aligns with Michael Silk’s argument that corporate influences fueled the cultural production of nostalgia for 1966. He posits that the pedagogic, political, and ideological process of remembering 1966 questions the place of the past in the present, challenging who is entitled to speak and produce this past.5 This essay will conclude with an evaluation of the legacy of Varley’s photography from 1966 and argue that the nostalgia surrounding the iconic photograph of Moore will remain strong in the coming years.

To understand the contemporary interpretation of this now iconic photograph, it is necessary to establish Moore’s current standing in English popular memory. Ken Jones’s 1993 obituary for Moore in The Independent demonstrates labels Moore a “national hero” who transcended the sports realm, famous not only for his skill but also for a “combative kind of integrity.”6 Jones depicts Moore as representative of an entire nation. Further, the Daily Mirror’s tribute to Moore expresses strong nationalist sentiment by describing Moore as an ambassador for England and invokes the power of collective memory. The tabloid proclaims:

Bobby Moore was a great footballer and a true gentleman. He was as much an ambassador for his country off the pitch as he was a supreme artist on it. His death is a loss not just to football but to Britain. For he represented a past which the nation desperately needs to recover. Bobby symbolised the greatest triumph of this country’s national sport. But he was the ultimate symbol of an age where there was true pride in pulling on an England shirt. There will never be another

Bobby Moore. And that is as great a tragedy as

4 Liz Crolley and David Hand, Football, Europe, and the Press (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2002), 159. 5 Michael Silk et al., “The corporate constitution of national culture: the mythopoeia of 1966,” Continuum 28, no. 5 (August 2014): 722. 6 Ken Jones, “Obituary: Bobby Moore,” The Independent, 25 February 1993, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-bobby-moore-1475166. html. his death.7 Conflating Britishness with Englishness, the eulogizer reminisces on the time in which Moore and his teammates played for the true pride of England, implying that current footballers lack this patriotism. The myth of English national identity is situated in the past and is compared to the decaying, present state.8 Given that there will never be another Bobby Moore, England paradoxi-

Figure 2: Phillip Jackson’s The Champions: The World Cup Sculture, image from LondonRemembers.com.

cally cannot replicate the ideals embodied by Moore. Commemorations of the Bobby Moore photograph have extended beyond the print media to include public exhibits such as statues. Sculptor Philip Jackson’s The Champions: The World Cup Sculpture was unveiled in April 2003 at West Ham United’s Boleyn Ground site, ten years after Moore’s death. (Figure 2) The exhibit displays the iconic image of Moore and the Jules Rimet Trophy into the air as he is sitting on the shoulders of teammates Martin Peters, Geoff Hurst, and Ray Wilson. Peters and Hurst smile, facing towards where Varley would have photographed them. Wilson’s facial features remain stoic. Jackson, however, employed an “artistic license,” as his sculpture of Wilson omits the strain on his face.9 In Varley’s photograph, Wilson bears the major

7 Alastair McQueen, Gordon Hay, Tina Weaver, and Nic North, “Bobby Moore: Hero Who Won the World Cup,” Daily Mirror, 25 Feb 1993, 2, The British Newspaper Archive, accessed 5 December 2021. 8 has Critcher, “England and the World Cup: World Cup willies, English football and the myth of 1966,” in Hosts and Champions: Soccer cultures, national identities and the USA World Cup, ed. John Sudgen and Alan Tomlinson (Hampshire, England, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 1994), 84-5. 9 BBC News, “World Cup tribute unveiled,” 23 December 2003, http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/2982419.stm.

Figure 3: Phillip Jackson’s The Bobby Moore Sculpture, image from Wikimedia Commons.

-ty of Moore’s weight, a physically exhausting task; thus, Jackson’s sculpture ignores the physicality of the match

that preceded Moore’s celebration. Jackson’s alteration of this celebratory moment manipulates public understanding of the match by aligning it with public memory. In 2007, Jackson won a commission for The Bobby Moore Sculpture to honor the construction of the new Wembley Stadium. (Figure 3) The statue overlooks spectators as they enter the stadium. On the plinth, an inscription reads:

IMMACULATE FOOTBALLER. IMPERIAL DE-

FENDER. IMMORTAL HERO OF 1966. FIRST EN-

GLISHMAN TO RAISE THE WORLD CUP ALOFT.

FAVOURITE SON OF LONDON’S EAST END. FIN-

EST LEGEND OF WEST HAM UNITED. NATION-

AL TREASURE. MASTER OF WEMBLEY. LORD

OF THE GAME. CAPTAIN EXTRAORDINARY.

GENTLEMAN OF ALL TIME.10 Moore became a defender of the Empire, exemplary of English gentility. The statue immortalizes Moore as the sole hero of the 1966 victory. Whereas in Varley’s photograph Moore sits on the shoulders of his teammates, here he stands above a smaller composite of his teammates. This feature of the plinth forces the viewer to question whether or not the Moore of Jackson’s sculpture is the Moore of 1966.11 England remembers Bobby Moore for his heroism on the field as a footballer and as an ambassador of the imperial project. His character is synonymous with that of an English gentleman of a past age, unable to be reproduced in the present, demonstrated through the English press’ eulogization of Moore’s death through English nationalistic sentiments, as well as public scupltures. The dissemination of Moore’s obituaries in the press and the location of Jackson’s statues at football stadiums enable the broader English community to consume this conception of Moore, transforming Moore and the 1966 World Cup victory into a nostalgic abstraction. It is within this context that Varley’s photograph of Moore can be properly situated. At the time of the World Cup, Varley was based in Leeds and under contract with the Daily Mirror. His contract allowed him to take a sabbatical every four years to photograph every FIFA World Cup from 1966 to 1982. Evidence suggests that Varley was equipped with the most advanced camera technology of the time, using a Pentax camera and Kodak Ektachrome color transparency film to take his pictures.12 Photojournalists of the 1960s typically used a long lens camera with a 35mm aspect ratio and motor-drive attachments.13 Varley was one of few photojournalists to take color photographs. Varley used color film during the final because he knew it would be a momentous event and wanted his photographs to stand out.14 To shoot his photograph of Moore, Varley had to leap from the stands as a spectator and into the press pen without any credentials.15 At first glance of the photograph, the viewer is drawn to the aesthetics of England’s deep red uniforms. Moore is the focus of the photograph with his teammates admiring him from below. To the left, however, is teammate Nobby Stiles waving to the crowd, baring a toothless smile. Nobby’s teeth indicate his working-class background, which was shared by a majority of his English teammates. Varley’s photograph offers a glimpse into the industrial, working-class roots of English football. The press’ commentary on and photography of the World Cup portrayed England as a team that lacked in-

11 John Hughson, England and the 1966 World Cup: A cultural history (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2016), 183. 12 James Varley, email correspondence with son of John Varley, 16 November 2021.

13Lisa Tickner, London’s New Scene: Art and Culture in the 1960s (London: Yale University Press, 2020), 185. 14 James Varley, email correspondence with son of John Varley, 16 November 2021.

dividual flair, but one that excelled in teamwork and worked well in a defensive system. British sporting magazine The Field’s article “Under the spell of the World Cup” attributes England’s success to the “system which acknowledged and overcame our [England’s] limitations of skill and imagination,” culminating into a defensive football scheme.16 (Figure 4) This system required discipline, as England lacked the offensive prowess of other teams. The English team’s approach believed that tactical planning and determination could beat greater technical skill, emulating England’s austerity measures during the Second World War, which valued individual sacrifice for the common good.17 The photograph of George Cohen and Gordon Banks’s efforts to prevent Wolfgang Weber’s equalizer embodies this mentality. Their exaggerated

Figure 4: J. A. “Under the spell of the World Cup.” The Field, 11 August 1966.

movements demonstrate a willingness to put their bodies on the line for the sake of the team. England’s playing style represented an English national identity that relied on collective action within a cohesive unit.

16 J. A., “Under the spell of the World Cup,” The Field, 11 August 1966: 315, ProQuest British Periodicals, accessed December 5, 2021. 17 John Clarke and Chas Critcher, “1966 and All That: England’s World Cup victory,” in Off the Ball: The Football World Cup, ed. Alan Tomlinson and Garry Whannel (London: Pluto Press, 1986), 117. The Field’s commentary on the playing styles of England’s opponents generalized each team’s national characteristics. The Germans showed “the same virtues that England had, but with greater individual skill.”18 Argentina’s playing style and character, however, represented the opposite of England’s. While Argentina was the “cleverest side, with magic in their footwork,” their “[i]mmaturity” cost them the tournament.19 The article refers to Argentinian allegations that FIFA, the FA, and the British government manipulated the tournament to the advantage of England and other European teams.20 This commentary is juxtaposed with a photograph of Bobby Moore shaking hands with the Portuguese captain before England’s semi-final match. This cordial handshake is an expression of sportsmanship, a value characterized as uniquely European in The Field’s commentary. Most English people’s first visual encounter with these teams was through illustrated periodicals such as The Field. For these viewers, football photographs and commentaries communicated a seemingly indexical fidelity about the characteristics of a nations’ peoples. The press thus had ample opportunity to construct national typologies of competing teams, reflecting and reinforcing English viewers’ conceptions of the other nations. The press also employed imagery from the Second World War to signal that England had regained her status on the international stage through the World Cup. To celebrate England’s victory against West Germany, American football writer Tex Maule headlined his Sports Illustrated photographic essay by exclaiming “It Was Like V-E Day Revisited.”21 (Figure 5) Dominating the cover page is a photograph of German defenders frantically attempting to stop Geoff Hurst scoring his controversial goal near the end of the match. Football journalists tend to employ military metaphors to simplify the physical, adversarial nature of sports.22 Maule describes the patriotism felt by the audience after the match: “Grown men wept… The Royal Marine Band tootled ecstatically under a canopy of waving Union Jack” and fans uncharacteristically “flooded out onto the pitch.”23 This celebration belies the typical reserved English national character. An accompanying photograph of Bobby Moore raising the Jules Rimet Trophy captures the gravitas of the moment. While the photograph focuses on Moore and his teammates celebrating, it is hard to

18 J.A., “Under the spell of the World Cup,” 315. 19 Ibid., 315. 20 Alex G. Gillett and Kevin D. Tennent, “‘Filip’ or flop? Managing public relations and the Latin American reaction to the 1966 FIFA World Cup,” Soccer & Society 20, no. 7 (October 2019): 927. 21 Tex Maule, “It Was Like V-E Day Revisited,” Sports Illustrated, 8 August 1966: 14-5, Sports Illustrated Vault, accessed 5 December 2021. 22 Crolley and Hand, Football, Europe, and the Press, 6. 23 Maule, “It Was Like V-E Day Revisited,” 17.

ignore the mass of spectators in the stands. The glimmer of the trophy draws the attention of the entire stadium, showcasing the heroism of the team. Festivities were not restricted to Wembley Stadium. Maule writes of “crowds in Piccadilly Circus and all across London” chanting “‘England, England’” into the night.24 The continuation of celebrations beyond Wembley and into London signifies the entire nation’s participation in recognizing England’s championship status. The World Cup victory enabled the nation to enjoy a return to international leadership and triumph.

LIFE’s coverage of the World Cup focuses on match play throughout the tournament rather than eulogizing England’s victory. The cover page introduces the World Cup Final with a color photograph of an airborne German footballer heading the ball away from an English player. The German appears to be the main subject of the photograph, as his face is visible while the English player is facing away from the camera. Next to the main photograph is a smaller image of England fans celebrating their victory in London’s Trafalgar Square. The positioning and sizing of these photographs encourages the viewer to glance at the German footballer before noticing the fans celebrating. The viewer does not encounter the iconic Moore photograph until the end of the essay. Whereas the other photographs are in color, the Moore photograph is in black and white. The photograph is cropped significantly, showing only Moore hoisting the trophy. LIFE further undermines the significance of Moore to the English viewer, positioning him next to a much larger advertisement for an electric shaver. This lack of attention to Moore and England’s victory reflects the editorial politics of LIFE, which emphasize that America should influence global culture, politics, and economics.25 The action shots taken by LIFE capture the fast-paced, physical nature of football, while The photographs of the semi-final between England and Argentina confirm the national stereotypes presented in The Field. One photograph focuses on the legs of an Argentinian footballer dribbling the ball, indicative of the technical skill that Argentinians possess. The photograph of Alan Ball celebrating Geoff Hurst’s goal against Argentina, however, depicts an Argentinian player sulking in the background. This composition highlights the immature temperament of Argentians mentioned in The Field article. One unique aspect of the LIFE essay is their photography of “the painful casualties” of football.26 (Figure 6) Photographs of an injured German and Russian footbaler

24 Ibid., 17. 25 Nadya Bair, The Decisive Network: Magnum Photos and the Postwar Image Market (Oakland: University of California Press, 2020), 73. 26 Miguel Acoca, “A Flying Finale for Soccer’s World Cup,” LIFE, 26 August 1966: 86-7, Google, accessed 5 December 2021. Figure 5: Maule, Tex. “It Was Like V-E Day Revisited.” Photograph. Sports Illustrated, 8 August 1966.

are contrasted with England’s Jack Charlton initiating a tackle, with his cleat directly facing the camera lens. This juxtaposition portrays England as a team willing to endure the physicality of the game. LIFE attributes this toughness to bravery, as shown in the “British wall that held.”27 This photographic spread portrays the bravery and heroism of English players that blocked a German freekick. The wall symbolizes the collective nature of England’s style of play, with each player risking their body to defend their goal. Whereas The Field and Sports Illustrated rely on commentary and photography to narrate the World Cup, LIFE opts to limit the use of text, instead positioning images in sequences to tell well-rounded stories.28

Press coverage of the World Cup inculcated myths of national character that are rooted in politico-diplomatic and socio-economic objective realities.29 To visualize the legacy of the newfound respect for England in 1966, one must look no farther than John Varley’s photography from the 1970 FIFA World Cup in Mex

27 Acoca, “A Flying Finale for Soccer’s World Cup,” 88-9. 28 Bair, The Decisive Network, 72. 29 Crolley and Hand, Football, Europe, and the Press, 161.

Figure 6: Alcoca, Miguel. “A Flying Finale for Soccer’s World Cup.” LIFE, 25 August 1966.

Figure 7: Varley, John, photographer. “Football’s Iconic Image.” Photograph. Guadalajara, Mexico: 1970. From Varley Media: John Varley Signature Collection. -ico. While Varley’s 1966 photograph of Moore is iconic in England, Varley was internationally renowned for his photograph of Bobby Moore and the legendary Brazilian footballer Pelé in 1970. (Figure 7) Moore and Pelé are pictured in a shirtless embrace after Brazil’s 1-0 victory in the group stage. The photograph speaks to Varley’s awareness as a photographer. After the match, Varley followed Moore, hoping that he would encounter Pelé as well. Fellow photographers can be seen in the background changing their film, unaware of the moment unfolding before them. The composition is intimate; the two players are the focus of the photograph, smiling in each other’s presence as they release from their embrace. Moore holds Pelé’s canary jersey in his free hand, indicating that the two exchanged jerseys. The act of exchanging jerseys is the highest expression of sportsmanship and symbolizes a mutual respect between two players, a recognition of one’s prowess on the field and character off the field.

The English viewer, however, most likely interpreted Varley’s photograph of Moore and Pelé from an Anglo-centric perspective. Gordon Banks recalls that Pelé proposed to exchange jerseys with Moore. Banks believes that the “victor saw fit to lavish praise on the vanquished” because of Moore’s outstanding performance.30 Against the backdrop of Varley’s photography of the 1966 World Cup, this exchange of jerseys signified more than sportsmanship; it represented an act of international diplomacy. Racial dynamics do not decisively matter within the English interpretation of Varley’s photograph. Pelé, a black footballer, approached Moore, who is white, for the exchange. Instead, the contemporary English viewer understands the embrace between Moore and Pelé as an affirmation of England’s international respect and leadership that resulted from her 1966 World Cup victory.

England, however, is farther than ever from the photograph of Moore and Pelé, let alone Varley’s 1966 photograph. Regular hope and disappointment have defined the past thirty years of English football. England lost in heartbreaking fashion to West Germany twice, missing penalty kicks in both the 1990 World Cup and the 1996 UEFA European Championship. England even failed to qualify for the 1994 World Cup. More recently, Englishmen reacted with despair to England’s loss to Croatia in the 2018 World Cup semi-finals. Phil McNulty of the BBC laments: “England had history in their hands and a first World Cup final since 1966 in their sights… only to let it all slip away and so leave this historic city [Moscow] with familiar feelings of despair and disap-

pointment.”31

While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when Varley’s photograph of Moore became nostalgic, it is reasonable to suggest that the 1970 World Cup signaled the beginning of this transition. The public commemoration of Moore’s role in the World Cup victory provides further points of departure from how photography of the 1966 World Cup was understood at the time of England’s victory. The reception and memory of 1966 World Cup photography shifted from a vehicle to express a cohesive national identity to a valorization of a victory that was seemingly inevitable.

31 The Week, “It’s not coming home: reaction to England’s World Cup heartbreak,” 12 July 2018, accessed 5 December 2021, https://www.theweek. co.uk/2018-world-cup/94981/its-not-coming-home-reaction-to-englands-worldcup-heartbreak.