It was a tough defeat for the England team on Sunday night. Not that they deserved to win – they fumbled and bargained their way to the final of the Euros and were obviously no match for the far more coherent Spain.
But the writing was on the wall: another England defeat in the final of a big tournament and it would be time for manager Gareth Southgate to go. And he went: “As a proud Englishman, it has been the honour of my life to play for England and to manage England. It has meant everything to me, and I have given it my all,” Southgate wrote in a statement.
“But it’s time for change, and for a new chapter. Sunday’s final in Berlin against Spain was my final game as England manager,” he added.
Southgate and Keir Starmer welcome a lot of comparisons: they are both cautious men; Southgate’s charisma is certainly soft (Starmer may have none at all); they share a conservative approach, whether to football or government; both are serious and quiet patriots; both understand how important the sense of national identity is to most people.
I could live with celebrity politicians if they were all like Jeremy Clarkson
Ireland needs its own Joe Rogan, someone to question liberal orthodoxies
Young, aggrieved men may not have won the election for Trump, but he knows how to speak to them
We’re meant to bask in Saoirse Ronan’s feminist triumph, but I find it all a bit nauseating
But Southgate differs from Starmer in a serious way. Despite never winning a final, and despite the harsh words thrown at his players by disgruntled fans, Southgate has been a unifying figure for the nation, and a standard bearer for a positive version of Englishness. Starmer has not had time yet to prove himself in this particular field but Labour’s relative underperformance in the UK general election does not scream Starmer the Unifier.
There has been a lot of chin stroking about the relationship between football and nationalism. Southgate himself has even joined in. In his 2021 letter Dear England, in advance of the last Euros tournament, he said of his team: “I have never believed that we should just stick to football,” explaining how the sport transcends the pitch and the tournaments and forms the “collective consciousness” of the country.
The letter was so well received that it inspired a new coinage from chronicler of Englishness Alex Niven: Southgatism; and a hit play by James Graham about Southgate, football and the national psyche, eponymously titled Dear England. It is hard to overstate the ubiquity of the man. His qualities as an actual manager raise eyebrows, but to dwell on that would be to miss the point: Southgate doesn’t just stick to football.
I have been wondering recently why Southgate has no Irish equivalent. Where is our version of that non-political unifying force; a symbol for positive national identity (far away from rabid jingoism or navel-gazing isolationism we see emerging on the streets); a force for the nation to cohere around in a quiet and calm way?
It is not, before anyone suggests, Michael D Higgins: he is too political (writing op-eds in the Guardian and hosting letters about Russia on his presidential website); his manner too esoteric; he espouses a singular version of Irishness (whereas Southgate holds his mind open to competing versions). It is also not the run of the mill A-listers Paul Mescal or Saoirse Ronan. They are good for Ireland on the international stage but they are just actors.
Maybe Southgate is just a rare, once-in-a-generation style figure. Or perhaps football welcomes these kinds of leaders: a sport that has not nearly the same vice-like grip on Ireland as it does on England. Perhaps there is an element of tall poppy syndrome endemic to the country whereby genuine luminaries – Bono springs to mind – suffer more ridicule and snark than praise. Though I suspect it is a slightly darker problem.
Ireland is more divided now than it has been in a long time. The centre may have held on in the local elections but votes pin-balled off to the radical fringes; anti-migrant protests, clashes with the gardaí, and suspected arson attempts on asylum centres is no sign of a happy nation ready to cohere around a sensible, quiet patriotism.
As my colleague Fintan O’Toole rightly pointed out on Monday, all it might take is a charismatic strongman to channel this energy and turn the right in Ireland into a potent and impactful force. This is some distance away from the sensibilities of Dear England.
And here’s the catch-22: this rancour and division is precisely the reason we need a Southgate, and precisely the reason why one will struggle to emerge. That should not discourage us from seeking it: any force that might try to counterbalance the agitation on the streets, no matter how effectively, is welcome.
[ The far right is just a Farage away from breaking through in Irish politicsOpens in new window ]
Southgatism is not a panacea: England has its divisions, its discontented voters veering to the radical fringes, its politicians seeking to smash up the status quo, a Conservative Party on the precipice of a rightward lurch. But Southgatism’s value lies in what it symbolises: that national identity matters, and that there is a version of it that is dignified and worth pursuing. It’s an important reminder in an era where national pride has been co-opted by malign forces that “patriot” needn’t be a bad word.
