The Sociology of the Stadium Pie - An Interview with Dr Ana Tominc
- Finn McDermott
- Aug 18
- 16 min read
I spoke to Dr Ana Tominc about the historical and social theories behind the food eaten at football games, and how these traditions become established. With a PHD in linguistics, Dr Tominc is the founder and chair of the Biannual Conference of Food and Communications, as well as the current President of the Association for the Study of Food and Society (AFSF) and is one of the leading experts in the field of Food in Media.
Though she admits she's no sports fan, Dr Tominc remains fascinated by the rituals around eating at matches - why we eat at all, and what these choices say about us...
Well, the first thing around that would be to say that it is quite interesting that food
features in relation to watching any kind of sports events. If you think about it, people are playing, whatever they're playing, and then you have spectatorship; they're sitting there watching. The fact that you need food would be an interesting thing to look at. Why do you actually need food? Is it because the enterprise, which would be the football club, requires income, and therefore, they need to have food on the side to make income? So they would make that from beer or whatever they're selling, maybe it would mean that could be a source of income. Or is it really because people are hungry, and they really need a snack at the time?
Of course, if you have a longer game, such as cricket, that can go on for whole days, it makes sense. You're not going to go around with a sandwich in case you'll need it, and it would be a lost opportunity for the people who organise it. But I think a lot of it is to do with that idea of making income.
It is a bit like popcorn in the cinema. You could survive an hour without it.
But beyond money-making, Dr Tominc argues that food carries deeper weight. It has long been a marker of identity, especially in religion...
Well, one of the oldest ways in which food relates to any type of identity would be religious identity, because you have rules around what you can and cannot do. For example, in Judaism, you can't have pork, you can't have pork together with dairy, you can't have certain types of shellfish, all that kind of stuff. And then you have rules around when you can eat and cannot eat.
And, partially, those are there, and various people attempt to explain it in various different ways, but they are partially there in order to separate one group from the other. So to say, we are the Muslims and we don't eat pork as opposed to you Christians, who eat pork.
Why does that happen? It could be a very functional sort of explanation as to why. Let's say Islam was developed in a hot place, and eating pork would not be a good idea in those places, whereas in Christianity, you cannot not eat pork because it develops in cold places in Europe, and so not eating pork in winter would be really difficult.
There are other, more idealistic approaches, symbolic approaches to these explanations and thinking around how this all features with religion or some symbolism and so on. But the fact is, it is there, and it's there throughout, more or less all religions have some form of rules, and that is the strongest one that exists, I would say, for quite a long time in relationship to identity.
With the cultural understanding of nations developing in the early 19th century through inventions such as the printing press, national identity was able to form...
Of course, it only comes into question when you start having the development of nations. So that is a very late process, according to the literature, and it comes in around the early nineteenth, and later in the whole nineteenth century when these 'nations' start being built up and the groups of people that have been historically there, like French, Scottish, English, start having much more of this understanding and wider shared culture. Ultimately, that comes about with the rise of industrialisation, things like newspaper sharing, because you have to have a way to share information about each other.
In Italy, famously, it was through the development of television. Because if you have a lot of illiterate people, newspapers don't necessarily reach a lot of working-class people. They are much more of a middle-class sort of medium. So television was the way to really bring this culture to the whole nation, particularly in Italy.
"We have made Italy, now we need Italians" - Massimo d'Azeglio
And that they started having shows about various parts of Italy, including, famously, these cooking shows to show people, look, this is how the northern Italians live, this is how the southern Italians live.
And this creation, even the understanding of the case of Scotland, how Scotland comes to be understood in the way that it is understood. I mean, yes. It's always been a kingdom.
But how do you understand yourself as a Scottish person as opposed to other nations? You can see that there are differences in Scotland. How you relate yourself as a Scottish person to say Europeans, as opposed to the English, is not the same. Right? And so, it gets created through kind of symbols, pictures, through language, stories that we tell each other, this creation of a nation.
Part of that is food and what we eat as a nation. So we'll have very symbolic foods like pizza connected to Italy, even though pizza, you could say, is similar to many types of breads that have something on them that will also be found in Greece and and Middle East. Not the same, but the same idea is similar. But yet, we do connect it very closely to Italy today. It's just like we connect fish and chips so closely, let's say, Britishness or Englishness.
And that gets established in a long process, through, as I said, various stories, you know, pictures that connect this idea of a nation to a particular food, and they can change with time. They can be contested by some groups, they can be accepted by some groups, they can they can be rejected. So it's a messy process, this creation of food related to a nation. I guess that is similar with other identities. It's just that for the nation, it's much more obvious because it happened much more recently.
The national identity of Britain is often seen as one with a distinct class system, and food is a clear example...
Class is definitely there to form national identity. It was there in other parts of the world as well, but it exists particularly in Britain, I think, very strongly, in that you still have this kind of very strong sense of class, even though it seemed in the last however many years that maybe this element is going away. I think it still is there, even though the boundaries are not as straightforward as they used to be, and the attachment of various things that show class is much more difficult to show, as they would have been a hundred years ago.
So today, even though you are working class and you consider yourself working class, you might have a lot of money. You might be able to buy the best foods. Now, of course, here you could discuss, will you buy those foods? Is that what you would like to eat? Is that what you feel comfortable with?
And here the answer is much more messy, I would say, than maybe if we were discussing the 1950s. When the connection of certain things to class, like foods, clothes, and so on, was much more straightforward in that.
Nevertheless, according to some surveys from ten years ago or fifteen years ago, there is still some form of connection between class or groups in Britain to lifestyle, which you can see, but the boundaries aren't as straightforward as they used to be. For the working-class, the question today would be, what is actual working-class? And for an answer, I think you need a proper sociological study.
If we look at it, just on the surface, it seems that the generation that was born after the war, 1945 onwards or even a little bit before, they've undergone a massive change in their lives.
If you look at those people who are now 80, 90 years old, they've undergone a huge change in their lives. In the sixties and seventies in particular, you had this huge appearance of white goods in the houses. So they have a fridge, they have a television, all of these things that women could then use, and they were not so much tied to their kitchens anymore. Their roles start changing.
So gender roles start changing. Women start going much more to the labour market than they used to. They are not at home anymore. It starts changing both ideas about what it means to be a man. It's no longer just that you need to be a breadwinner, and that's what it is. It's okay for you to, you know, take care of kids and go around with kids.
But even though we went through all of these changes, some of the research that happened shows that actually in relationship to food, even though there is a lot of inclusion of new foods, in the menus and peoples diets, because of globalization, a lot of what what people eat in Britain hasn't changed all that much because change is slow. Change doesn't impact in taste as much, it doesn't happen so fast.
And, partially, some theories say, for example, Bourdieu's theories say that the way people show their class is through lifestyle, in that way, that they signify through what they choose to eat, and that sort of happens through their socialisation. He calls it habitus, that you learn these tastes in your young age and that then you have them inside you and display them throughout your life.
Now, obviously, there will be changes as well that will happen, because you encounter new foods, new people, new lives, but, fundamentally, your taste is fixed.
So if you ate, I suppose, a particular soup when you were young, whatever it was. It's likely that you will find it very comforting throughout your life, and that will be the choice for a long time.
Some people are critical of these theories as well. They say that, you know, they're very deterministic, they say you are not determined through these childhood tastes and that a lot of people do make changes later. Yes. They do. But fundamentally, the theory says, people still kind of carry these habits in their body, in their habits, and it is very subconscious in a way.
With the rise of globalisation in all facets of society, our diets have naturally changed and evolved...
It's been changing in Britain since industrialisation and colonisation, because all of those different foods that came from various colonies that Britain went to have changed a lot of what people eat.
Think about jam. Jam is created from sugar, or think about coffee or tea, the 'favourite drink of the British people'.
All of these things are not something that you will find natively. If you were to think of a native British drink, it would be beer or ale and and those types of things, you know, stuff you can make with hops and barley.
And you're not going to be eating avocado even though it's been quite popular. You're not going to eat pizza because of tomatoes. So, a lot has changed due to the globalisation and the ability to eat foods that aren't grown in Britain has changed a lot of the habits. The fact that right now we are sitting here, and I'm drinking tea, and you're drinking coffee, and there is a chocolate there as well, shows that.
So if you think about it, we have changed a lot. What is it that British people actually eat? You could say, okay, pasta and pizza. Still, do British people like soup? Yes. So that is something quite traditional, I guess.
Will it change more? Probably. Although now you can see that trends are going back to this kind of 'looking back at yourself', the trend of eating local, you know, eating things that grow there.
As the food offered at the pie stall continues to change, the question if this comes to satisfying fans' taste buds, or simply to squeeze more money from them...
I think that there are several trends working at the same time and sometimes contradicting each other. One trend is the return to local, organic, all those types of things that have been sociologically studied in relationship to the middle-class, and their way of wanting to live more ethically and all that sort of stuff. Those things for the working-class didn't really cut through all that much because they have other worries to think about. And so, you know, they didn't consider themselves so much with it, even though historically, it is much more working-classes that have gardens and consider all those things, but they don't anymore.
And this is why it's possible that the middle-class are now differentiating themselves and making the distinction, if you like, in produce terms, through wanting to have gardens, through wanting to eat that type of food, and also wanting that, you know, the whole society does that. Of course, it is very difficult to do that.
The other thing that is at work here is probably diversification in what counts as working class because of migration, because of colonies that come to Britain. Who is a working-class person today? I think is the question to come back to. And so if you consider that the working-class probably isn't anymore just a white British person who has five generations of grandparents from Britain, then the foods that come with that probably also change.
And the third thing is that, probably, football is increasingly becoming a business, and so they consider these spectators as customers. And if they're customers, then the offer needs to cater to the tastes of the people who come to it. Now there might also be an element of gentrification, but I'm not familiar very much with it, to what extent these football places are trying to kind of uplift themselves and create also opportunities for middle-class spectators. It's possible, depending probably where they are, because middle-class people very much would like to be seen to be connected to places more, because it links to this idea of local organic, all of that type of stuff.
Partially, I think it is just a general trend of this very individualised, neoliberal, postmodern society that lost community in wanting to find some form of community. So I think all of these trends probably work at the same time, I would say.
Many football fans would say their support for their club and nation would define a large part of who they are...
And it is one of their identities, you know. If you consider who you are cheering for, it can be a matter of life and death.
I mean, you know, like, not that I can understand it, but I know that people will fight for it and sit at opposite ends and not speak to each other in some places. People are very strongly associating themselves with a particular sports club and then really go to every single game regardless of where it is. I guess, then, if this football club associates particular foods with them, for whatever reason, because they are what we eat here, is it because it's connected to masculinity in particular, assuming most of those people are men? Or is it because it particularly connects to a particular place?
I mean, think about it. When Scottish fans go to any kind of foreign country, how do they dress? They dress in a way that is very rarely a way they dress in Scotland. Kilts.
And do they then also eat foods that very rarely in they would very rarely eat in Scotland? But why?
Because of performative elements. They want to show other people that is what they are and because the stereotype around what the Scottish person is so strong in Europe. There are three things that you can do, and everybody will know you're from Scotland.
You don't have to even say anything, which is really interesting to me that, outside of, say, Italians going around in a flag, going around in a kit and saying to people, "yes, I eat Haggis and drink whiskey every evening" or whatever, even if you don't, you will say to everybody in Europe. You are from Scotland, and with a positive note! It is not like a negative nationalism. It's not seen as a negative nationalism.
Scotland's short-lived trip to Germany last summer allowed both Scots and iconic Scottish brands to get into the stereotype...
Do you remember the Irn Bru ad from a year ago? The one in the GP setting? It is amazing. It was last year when Scotland went to Germany, and all these Scottish men sitting there saying they felt very bizarre, very positive and very optimistic, which is strange for a Scottish person. "What has happened to me? Why am I so positive?"
And they are all dressed in this self-ironising way, orange wigs and little hats, super stereotypical. Viking paint and in the kilts, they all look very funny. I think you could not find another nation that would make fun of itself so much, and then the doctor eventually finds out they all suffer from a bout of optimism that comes because they got to the Euros in Germany.
In the end, it's the fact that, yes, here's Irn Bru saying to go there and enjoy it. Which is an interesting thing because then, you also associate this very commercial brand with the nation, a bit like Nutella with Italy, and then if you are a true star, you need to drink this drink, Irn Bru.
Dr Tominc recalls an encounter with the Tartan Army on a chance meeting in Italy, and the impression it gave to her and those around her...
I thought it was hilarious. We went with my colleagues to Italy to this big Terra Madre event, and that was when I was quite new in the job, and they all came in kilts, and I thought it was really interesting. It was hot in September, you know, like 30 degrees in this kilt. But the funniest thing is walking with them around.
Because, effectively, they go and it signifies to everybody. "Here we are, and we are good people." This is also saying we are approachable, we are funny, we are lovely.
Amazing. Even though they go around in the silliest possible outfit, if you think about it, it's a really silly thing to do, like dressing up effectively. If somebody else did it, they'd be thinking "what is that about? Why are you dressing up? Are we having a dress-up event?" but when the Scottish people do it, it's fine. And a man can be wearing what seemingly seems like a skirt, without anything under, as the stereotype goes. So it's very interesting, I think, how Scotland has managed to create this story around itself, but that also isn't laughable.
After returning from Germany, Hampden Stadium sold Currywurst pies for a match, after the returning Tartan Army developed a taste for them...
Well, that's a great example. How does food become a national identity? If you consider, for example, haggis, which is a very nice example, haggis was eaten in the whole of Britain in the seventeenth century. Everybody ate it, in particular, the upper-classes because, you know, you need meat for it, and it needs to be done, and it takes time and all of that sort of stuff. But at some point, it starts being associated more with the Scottish than it is with the English, where the English start seeing the Scottish through this lens of haggis, and associate it with poverty.
And so all of a sudden, the 'poor Scots', which is already a kind of a stereotype in itself, gets associated with this haggis. Then comes, of course, Robert Burns, who wrote this poem. But the food is then connected to Scottishness.
And I guess this is why, you know, even though the Scottish tourist board is trying very hard to disassociate Scotland from haggis and say, "look, we'll have this wonderful other foods that that you should be eating, like langoustine, salmon, and wonderful stuff. I don't know. Smokeys. You should eat that". It is really tricky because it's been there for two hundred years.
And today, you ask anybody, they will still say to you, well, yes, you know, it's Haggis!. It's not making Scotland a gastronomic destination as the tourist board would like it to be. Even though it might stick. It might be that it will change.
It might be that in fifty years, we're going to sit here, and it will be like, nobody will be thinking anymore of Haggis in relation to Scotland. They will be thinking something else.
As pie menus change and prices continue to rise, many fans continue to ask if they should really be paying much more for more exotic food offerings....
I think that there is a compromise between your profit and having people come, especially because you cannot be without fans. I mean, it's just going to be ridiculous. So I think there is this compromise between what you offer and how much it connects to these fans. But there is also an opportunity for change because, you know, maybe you can introduce something else, and with time, it's going to connect to your fans in some positive way.
I think that, as marketing would say, you know, you have different types of customers, and so some people will want to eat the food that they've always eaten, and that connects very strongly to the sense of who they are and who their club is and what their club is. And others will want to try something else. But then there is a question also of gentrification of that particular food that traditionally would have been, say, working-class food like, say, dal and rice in the case of India. If you now go to a posh Indian shop in Edinburgh, say,
Dishoom, and with that, they charge a lot of money. And then, you know, working-class Indian people come there and they say, why would I pay for this £15 when at home I can make it to £2?
But I guess it's very similar that you sort of, not rebranding, but you had to start seeing a particular food not anymore as this cheap kind of stuff. You give it new meaning, and therefore, the price comes with the meaning, not with the food. And the food is always there and you can decorate it better or you put better ingredients, because there's also a difference if you have, say, haggis, local ingredients or haggis here, global ingredients. Two different things, two different meanings, potentially signify different things as long as you say that this is a local type of haggis.
Like beer. Beer is beer, but if you have locally made beer, it's a different type of thing you can sell. But, generally, these are really complicated processes. And I think very often when the research happens, because it focuses on one of the things, it seems simplified. Whereas a lot of these processes happen parallelly, and are very often contradicting each other, and very often they negate each other and then change, and some groups have something over the others, and then the question, of course, that is a product of power, of which group is seen as more powerful, and which group's, you know, preferences are seen as the ones that should be considered the most.
And very often, it's the middle-class because they have better access to mainstream media. They have better access, more money, whereas working-class type of preferences feature more in places where the working-classes still go, like football.
As much as the addition of kebab pies slowly spread across Scotland, is there really much hope of widespread menu reform....
If you think of food that people still eat, jacket potatoes and soups for lunch, right, I imagine they also used to eat these fifty years ago, think about it.
Change is slow. Change is really slow.
Most British people eat a sandwich and a soup or a jacket potato for lunch. What do they eat for breakfast, cereal? What else?
This is something Alan Warr will know. He does research on these British habits, and he's he has a really good book actually out a few years ago. And he studies changes in the last seventy years in Britain and how what people eat more and what they eat less. Basically, in it, what he finds is that fundamental stuff is very similar.
Yeah, maybe you have add-ons of more global stuff, but fundamentally, it's still the same pies as you said.
If you'd like to read any further about Dr Ana Tominc's work, or to further your knowledge of Gastronomy or Food Culture, you can visit Dr Tominc's site below:
Comments