Martin Samuel replies: where do you think the National Football Museum should be?

In this week's debate, Martin Samuel argued in favour of a proposal to build a new national football museum at Wembley, replacing the current one in Preston. It provoked some heated discussion:

I was born on Tyneside and lived in Preston and district for ten years before moving south 22 years ago. I am not a natural supporter of centralising everything in London but a few years ago we hosted a young Japanese school student who was mad on football and here out of season so in desperation we took him to see the old Wembley, doing the rather apologetic little tour. He was ecstatic, this was the place he had seen on TV and now he was there, never mind Buckingham Palace and all those castles, this was something to tell his pals at home. Yes, old Wembley has gone but with the combination of a first rate museum and a good tour new Wembley will become a major tourist attraction, something that cannot happen at Deepdale, however much I would wish otherwise. CliveS.

MS: My point precisely, Clive. Nothing against Preston, the north or anywhere in provincial England but to pretend that visitors do not migrate towards the capital is delusional.

I'm no fan of Wembley but why don't we have two national football museums, in London and in Preston.  There are Tate galleries in London, Liverpool and St Ives. They could exchange material over time and run exhibitions which the Tate successfully does. Tony Ramos.

MS: Not a bad idea, but one will attract considerably more visitors than the other, so it cannot be an equal partnership. The Tate in London is the daddy, if you get my drift, as anyone who has ever been there and then to the galleries in Liverpool and St. Ives will testify.

I moved north to Bamber Bridge four years ago, I have been to the museum and it is fantastic. It is also Tardis-like in that it has been designed perfectly, as you go round you keep finding more and it provides a perfect afternoon. I am a Chelsea fan and come from Essex so I am not a northerner by birth and the thought of the museum going to Wembley is abhorrent as it is no longer the home of football following the ripping up of the pitch for some sort of car event last week. Preston are one of the founding fathers of football. Do we think that the museum of cricket should move to The Rose Bowl? Of course not, so why talk about moving a great museum from its current home. Chris Dowsett.

MS: Don’t give me all that Essex boy and Chelsea rubbish, Chris, you live in Bamber Bridge, which is a bus ride away from Preston. I would find it stranger if somebody who is a football fan and living in Lancashire had not supported the museum. As for Wembley being used for events beyond football that has always been the case. The directors of Preston North End would exploit this source of revenue via Deepdale, if they could. Do you know why they do not? Because the Rolling Stones don’t want to play in Preston. Your Rose Bowl analogy is ludicrous as the cricket museum at Lord’s handily combines a sense of history with maximum access for visitors, so there is no problem.

It is a national football museum and while that might be taken to mean English football, you cannot deny the major impact of Scotsmen, Irishmen and Welshmen in the game. Preston is a lot nearer the centre of Great Britain than London, so seems as good a situation as any. This call to move it to London is yet another instance of the capital's chattering classes refusing to accept there is life outside the M25. Star o' Rabbie Burns.

MS: The centre of Great Britain, mate? Jog on. The Scots are so interested in British football they won’t even let their players be part of British team at the next Olympics (which went, strangely, to London, not Preston).  They are of no consideration whatsoever in the location of this museum.

It has to be Birmingham. Aston Villa invented the whole concept of league football. They created the Football League. It was Villa who invited the other eleven founders (no southern teams, interestingly, because the south had no great teams back then) to the meeting. No Villa, no football as we know it. Noel J.

MS: So what? Basing the location of a modern museum on something that happened in the 19th century is flawed. A hundred towns have a claim on football for various reasons, as this debate has demonstrated, so remove all that baggage and just put it where the most people will go. No place is more connected with the birth of a sport than Rugby, but would you put a rugby union museum anywhere but Twickenham these days?

Move it, 20 miles down the road to Blackpool, which has millions of visitors each year and a football tradition to boot. Nobody visits Preston unless they're lost. Mr.Osato.

MS: A fair point, and I like the formality. Yours sincerely, Mr Samuel.

Hatred of London and the south from many on here seems to have blinded argument and judgement. London is not a football city? Well, it has the most teams in the Premier League and the Championship, and about eight players in the last England squad with more coming from closely surrounding areas. No historical connection to the game either? That would be overlooking the first meeting of the Football Association in Covent Garden or that Ebenezer Cobb Morley wrote the laws of the game there. Jim.

MS: You’ll never win this one, Jim. Remember that theatre remark that Kevin Keegan made when he was Newcastle United manager? Funny, I haven’t seen him at many games lately. Maybe he loves football with such passion that he only turns up when he is being paid.

What people seem to forget is that apart from Wembley hosting the 1966 World Cup, the north outshines the south by a massive amount. League title wins: 18 Liverpool, 17 Manchester United, 13 Arsenal, 9 Everton, 7 Aston Villa, 6 Sunderland, 4 Newcastle United, Sheffield Wednesday. Even Newcastle and Sunderland have won the league more times than Chelsea, and the south has never won the European Cup. Preston is the best place. Geoff.

MS: Sorry, I did not realise European Cups were won for a region, Geoff. Arsenal would have beaten Barcelona for the south, would they? So why were all those Tottenham Hotspur supporters wearing red and blue shirts then? People of Leeds, good news – Manchester United won the European Cup for the north. What nonsense. So just to recap: because Sheffield Wednesday have won the league more times than Charlton Athletic we should have a big, empty museum in Preston. Good one.

Most people with any sense pass through Wembley too. Allan.

MS: Yes, but on occasions they have to stop to watch their team play. Like this chap.

Having visited London many times I have never travelled to Wembley, except in 1964 when Preston played there. Deepdale is within 45 minutes drive of eight Premier League clubs and two miles from the M6. It has quite a smart centre with some good buildings, although lacking in shops with top names. The article carries a derogatory photograph of Preston that is nothing to do with the museum. Will an article about Wembley be shown headed by a photograph of a discount optician in Edmonton? Peter.

MS: So Peter from Preston has been to Wembley, despite his disdain, and this is my point. How many have casually visited Preston? We are flying in the face of logic here, folks. “Preston: quite a smart centre with some good buildings.” As slogans go, that will be packing them in. (As for the photograph, Peter, I don’t make those choices, but I can appreciate that you found it unrepresentative. I quite agree. If it was up to me I would have had a 12-year-old with rickets, a cloth cap, two whippets and pie, standing on top of a slagheap, while in the background his mum cashes a giro. Joking, JOKING.)

I spent three years in Preston, three dreadful years culturally. I come from London, live in the north now, but common sense has to prevail. London, Liverpool or Manchester, but Preston? Get real. The museum has been there for about ten years, it has had its chance, now move it. Simon F.

MS: I make no comment on Simon’s view of Preston, as I said it is not my intention to have a pop at the place. I do sympathise with his last line, though. It is not as if we are considering moving something that is working to its potential at its present site, or that is has not been given the time to succeed there.

Any argument that there is more passing trade at Wembley would seem false in that there are very few tourists in London that ever make it to out to Wembley. In terms of access I have used a popular route finder which says that it takes 25 minutes to get from central London to Wembley but takes only 10 minutes more to get to Preston from Manchester and Liverpool. Preston also lies on the West Coast mainline and the M6, far better transport links than Wembley will ever see. Wembley Stadium is already poorly sited and a catastrophic waste of money and I fail to see the same mistake should be made by moving the museum. You never know, if Preston shape up this season they could take their place in the Premiership, then those whose concern for the game doesn't stretch beyond the over hyped Premiership will be able to stop whining as Preston will be somewhere considered worth visiting. Eh, Mr Samuel? Matthew.

MS: Sorry to urinate on your bonfire, Matthew, but I’ve been to Preston to watch football a number of times, most recently against West Ham United in the Championship a few years back, and I have visited the museum with the entire family en route to the Lake District. I, too, think Wembley is not the best location. I would have it slap-bang in the middle of London, perhaps on Soho Square when the FA depart. I don’t know what mode of transport you are using, by the way, that does Manchester to Preston in ten minutes. Maybe a helicopter, because on my recent visits I’ve spent that long waiting at lights on Deansgate. You see, all of your arguments about proximities to motorways and journey times fail to address one simple fact: not enough people are going, so something is wrong. 

When visiting England any US soccer fan must see Wembley, so London is the place to put a soccer museum.  Michael.

MS: See? I am not saying we locate museums solely for American soccer fans, but visitor potential has to be a factor. Has nobody ever played Zoo Tycoon?

London, accessible? Do me a favour, it is if you live there. Maybe we should move Stratford to London, so that Americans never have to leave. I think the museum should be in Trafford Park, near Old Trafford. It is genuinely accessible by road, rail, plane and tram, and 76,000 football fans visit regularly. It has other museums (the Lowry, the Imperial War museum) and it is in the centre of the country. Give me better arguments. Sorry Preston. Tom Fairclough.

MS: It would certainly be better than Preston, Tom, but doesn’t Manchester United have its own, very successful, museum at Old Trafford. Would people take in two? You write of 76,000 regular visitors but that is not 76,000 different people each time, with many wanting to look at a museum. It is mostly the same blokes, and the museum will serve them once. London takes millions of commuters each day, but they don’t all swing by the British Museum. It is new blood that we are after. As for accessibility, if you live in Liverpool, you can be in central London in about three hours maximum by train. Sounds accessible to me.

You said: “That is why there is a Tate Modern; not a Tate, Preston.” What about Tate St.Ives in St.Ives, Cornwall? Not everything has to be in the capital. Surely if people are so fond of the beautiful game they will be prepared to spend a weekend in some of Lancashire's outstanding countryside and then take a trip to the stunning museum.

Get off your backsides and venture somewhere further than London. Chris H.

MS: But people are not, Chris, don’t you see? So we can exist in your utopia in which the Tate St. Ives is somehow the equal of the Tate galleries in London, and everyone spends the weekends on a Virgin replacement rail service accessing Preston, or we can do something to open our museums to the world. If the entire Tate collection had been moved to Cornwall that would have been a disaster; St. Ives works as a bijou outpost location, no more.

Preston is closer to the majority of real football fans not the corporate fops who see the names Matthews, Finney & Mortensen and think it is a law firm. Richard Dow.

MS: Southerners, you mean, Richard. Come on, be honest and just say it. It would make your argument even more baseless than it is, but at least it would be upfront.

I am a North Ender and I am so proud of our history and the example we have set to the football world. Although I no longer live in Preston, it is always a pleasure to visit this historic and friendly city. The Football Association is at fault here, not the location or the club, because it has not promoted this wonderful museum. Leave it alone and spend the money on advertising. Roopne.

MS: This remains the best argument for keeping the museum in Preston, the allegation that it has been insufficiently marketed. If the FA, Football League and Premier League went to town on it for a year and, at the end, we were still at the low six figure visitor level, then would you believe me? 

A football museum in London? Are you for real? At least put it somewhere with some connection to the game. It would be like putting the the National Mining Museum in London. The National Museum of Financial Advisors maybe, but not football. NWRA.

MS: Thought you’d blindside me with that reference, didn’t you NWRA? Sorry, chum, but you’re debating with a heavy duty fan of The Fall here. NWRA = The North Will Rise Again (final track on Grotesque After The Gramme, a Fall album from 28 years ago) or North West Republican Army, although I always thought that was Mark E. Smith’s little joke. Come on, then, what is your favourite version? Mine is the live one in Chicago, when the keyboards break down and he makes Marc Riley play the intro on kazoo. Genius. Anyway, your argument is cack, but you’ve name-checked one of my favourite Fall songs, so we’ll call it quits, eh?

Look at the founder clubs in 1888, all twelve of them. None from London. First club to do the double? Preston. All history and in the past? Well yes, isn't that what museums are usually about? Chris.

MS: Yes, the exhibits, not the location. To put Preston’s double into perspective in terms of relevance to the modern era here are two things the players did not have to contend with in those days: a crossbar, which was not yet part of the goal apparatus, and matching shirts. There were no pitch markings, the goalkeeper could handle anywhere on the field and Preston’s liked to put up an umbrella when it rained. Sorry to pop the great history bubble but we are talking a different game. It would be like insisting on building all motoring museums in the place where it is believed man invented the wheel.

It seems that in your opinion if it has to have any merit, it has to be in London. What utter rubbish, it is high time people realised that there's life north of the Watford Gap. Ismail.

MS: The Watford Gap is in Northamptonshire, Ismail. If you are going to pontificate on insularity at least do your research.

What is wrong with having the museum in Manchester or Liverpool? Why does everything have to be London centred, especially considering no London team has ever won the European Cup or is highly revered internationally when compared to Liverpool, Manchester United and even Aston Villa, all previous European Champions. Kevin Harris.

MS: Yes, Kevin, abroad nobody ever mentions Arsenal or Chelsea. The Villa, that’s all they care about.

Give me a break. Absolutely no way should it be in London. The United Kingdom is so centred on London it is nauseating. Wembley is a dreadful place and only exists so journalists and FA execs have a short ride to get there. Lawrence.

MS: That’s right, Lawrence. The problem with journalists is that they never want to leave their backyard. Now, I need to break off for a while if I am going to get from Tokyo to Yokohama for Manchester United’s press conference and back to London in time for tea.

I live in Preston, and yes it is a toilet and I'm not saying it should keep the museum. But, for crying out, can we not have something that isn't in London? Your opening piece said it all. “Most reach Preston and keep going: to the Lake District, to Blackpool, south to the capital.” Does that mean to your mind there is nothing south of Preston until you get to London? I'd say most people bypass Preston on the way south to Manchester or Liverpool. Richard.

MS: But I was writing about specific tourist destinations, Richard, hence London, Lake District, Blackpool. And I never said Preston was a toilet.

Wembley is only accessible if you happen to live in Neasden. Otherwise it's a horrible place to get to. Question is: who wants to see a football museum? Frank Upton.

MS: Question is, if you didn’t want to see a football museum, why join the debate? Have you not ever wondered about these people? The ones who preface their contributions with the announcement they have no interest in the issue. New debate: Don’t you think they have too much time on their hands? Should they get out more?   

It should stay in Lancashire, either Manchester or Liverpool. London can have the national Rugby Union museum. Stephen.

MS: Are you going to tell him, or shall I?

The National Football Museum should be based in neither London nor Preston but in Sheffield, the home of the oldest football club in the World: Sheffield FC. Tenerife Blade.

MS: Look, mate, if you don’t live in the country don’t tell us where to site our museums.

One of the greatest contemporary museums of modern art is situated in the provincial backwater of Bilbao, Spain. The museum is designed by Frank Gehry and now brings in huge crowds. Yes, Preston deserves to hang on to its museum, but it needs its own wow factor. The FA should get a wow-factor building. Gary Kolhi.

MS: Bilbao has more going for it than one museum. Would people travel to Preston for a single wow-factor building?

The Beatles museum is in Liverpool because when you think Beatles you think Liverpool. Sorry, but I can’t say I think Preston when I think football, although you cannot dispute their proud history. Stephen.

MS: Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, logic will get you nowhere.

Wembley is no more accessible for the population than Preston. If that is the criteria for the location it should be at the NEC outside Birmingham. Ian.

MS: Ah, the great Birmingham, central and convenient for everybody, myth, which never takes into account that the M6 is hell on toast and people actually pay to be rid of it.

I'm originally from Leicester, where we have the National Space Centre. Has anybody visited it? Me neither. Leon.

MS: And no statue of Joe Orton, either. Rotters.

Well, an extra long debate today, because it is my last one for The Times (it will continue elsewhere, but you’ll have to find it again from mid-January). I’m gone, baby. I’m out of here. Thank you to all that contributed. What started off as a bit of a chore has developed into a lot of fun and there were times – not many, I’ll grant you – but some times, when we even seemed to get somewhere. I would like to finish by saying, for the record, that I have absolutely nothing against Preston, despite the flippant nature of some of the responses. And I’m really not very good at long goodbyes so, I’ll phone you, OK? Martin.

TheGame weekly Debate will return in the new year.

Comments

[Mick]

"So what? Basing the location of a modern museum on something that happened in the 19th century is flawed."

Martin's view as to why the museum shouldn't be in Birmingham is ridiculous. So, by his logic, there should be no RSC in Stratford, no museum to JFK in New England (his birthplace). Why bother with a museum for Elvis at Gracelands? Obviously it should be in New York.

The ironic thing, to build on another of Martin's points is that there SHOULD be a museum to rugby in Rugby...but London wins again because of sheer Londoncentric politics. Such a museum would actually have a bond with its roots and living past.

A museum should reflect the living soul of its roots and its past by being located where the events it records actually took place. A museum that celebrates Roman history, for example, would be far better suited to Rome than London.
The FACT is that the world's first football league was conceived in Birmingham. All of these other claims about the birth of football have very little evidence to back them up. The letter that William McGregor wrote to his peers in 1888 still exists. Preston's claim is that they won the first league...good...but they didn't actually create it. No Aston Villa, no football as we know it. From Premier League to Champions' League it all comes from the genius of McGregor and Aston Villa. The museum MUST be located in Birmingham. For it not to be is a massive slap in the face to history and to posterity.

Greed 1 Culture 0.

[Kai]

Just to be pedantic - but there is a museum of rugby union in Rugby - my girlfriend is from Rugby and dragged me there last time we visited!

[steven k]

l have lived in many countries in my life and let me explain the following. Let's assume, the world football museum is put in France. Should it be placed in some small regional town 400 miles outside Paris for whatever historical reason, or should it be placed between Paris and Disneyland, so that every family would stay one more day where daddy would take the boys to the museum while the ladies would go shopping in the chic boutiques. How many people visit London every year? how many of them are football fans with trumendous respect for the English game?
Would they go to Preston on their week end break?
How many tourists would bother with the changing of the guard stuff outside Buckingham Palace if it was in Preston?
l rest my case.

[Rokerboy]

The truth is the FA the Government and Wembly PLC between them went against public opinion and went ahead and built the white elephant at almost 3 times the origional estimate. This (if you admit to the truth) is why it is proposed to move the museum. They need to recoup the wasted money. Well I say "you made your bed you lie in it and leave OUR traditions be" You have almost everything in London but that is not enough. YOU WANT EVERYTHING. You greedy southern so and so`s will be wanting to move the lake didstrict next.

[M.Moss]

Much as it pains me to say it,the museum should be in MANCHESTER or second choice LIVERPOOL.
I don't support either team and don't like the arrogance of MU,while Liverpool are just lucky,with low talent.But unmistakably,these are the 2 teams who have won the serious stuff in Europe.And ,in the minds of tourists and visitors,MU and Liverpool are the names that spring to their minds when talking about UK footie.Both areas could also use a boost to their attractiveness as they are both miserable.A nice new museum of football would do a lot for the local community,might even get some decent hotels built,and some decent reataurants and public transports links and connections as a result.
So, Manchester ,or distant second Liverpool gets my vote.

[Michael Haughey]

I dont know where you got this idea there werent crossbars and pitch markings and the keeper could handle the ball anywhere when the Football league began in 1888. That simply isnt true.
The NFM belongs in Preston because they thought of the idea first and also gave it a home. Same as Cooperstown. Wembley was closed 2000-2007, wouldnt have got anyvisitors then!

[Dave Hewitt]

Yet another Londoncentric piece of pathetic promotion for the rather dismal industrial estate that is Wembley.

Brent as a tourist attraction, I can see the promotional garbage emanating from the Premier league.

The full history of football since the 90's.
The massive achievements of the Premiership, the only history there is! Hardly.

No place for the players and teams who graced the game pre-Prem money.

A very divisive and rather fruitless idea to move from Preston to the borough of Brent.

[Grover]

Seems to me most are missing the real point.

Clearly it should be in London - I am no fan of the Smoke but that is where the tourists are and getting bums through the turnstile is the name of the game. Also, I get a pound the people making the decision are domiciled in London so this isn't really a question.

However, why contemplate putting it at Wembley? All of the very good arguments for putting it in London are negated if you put it at Wembley - passing trade, tourist numbers, accessibility etc.

It has got to be in the centre of London with all of the other tourist attractions. Who the hell wants to have to haul all the way out to Wembley?

[Ben]

I live in Preston and its great that I can jump in the car and be at the football museum in 5 minutes loking at some of our games iconic objects. It's a fantastic place, but to site the museum of the national game in a small provincial city (and not even in the centre of that city) meant that it was always going to struggle to get the numbers that it would get in London or Manchester (or even in the centre of Preston). Comparisons with other national museums are unfair, when the the museums resources (staff and finances) are a fraction of those of other nationals. The museum deserves increased funding and marketing, and a chance to improve its visitor figures, before its relocation is seriously considered.

[Rory Holburn]

What does it matter, another museum and another waste of tax payers money. Since its a "national museum" it has to be free entry - idiotic governement - so put it where no one wil visit it and keep the staffing bill to a minimum and save us a load of cash.

Alternativley - build it in London, charge £35 entry (or whatever they pay for a two hour football match) and make a fortune off foriegn tourists. But why would anyone do that - there's no one left in Britain who actualy creates wealth -Gordons got them all on the state payroll and prefers to borrow the money from thoes tourists rather than earn it from them.