Football statues and semiotics

1 Introduction

There are over 1,000 football statues scattered worldwide. The United Kingdom stands out as the primary geographic area where most of these statues are erected. As at 2023, 114 statues can be identified, featuring various subjects related to football.^[1] This fact is hardly surprising, considering the immense cultural significance of football in the UK – the birthplace of modern football. Football statues are typically situated outside stadiums, city squares, and other public spaces of prominence. Their primary purpose is to depict individual football players, but they also honor legendary managers, chairmen, and founding fathers. Notably, the individuals portrayed in these statues are rarely still active. As monuments, football statues hold specific memorial significance. They commemorate notable figures, contribute to club identity, and enhance branding value. Despite their prominence, football statues have received limited academic attention. However, the intriguing work by authors such as Stride et al. (2013a, 2013b) and Thomas and Stride (2013) stands out. Interestingly, no one seems to have explored football statues from a semiotic perspective either. Yet, as mentioned, the football statue is a depiction, that is, it represents or stands for a subject (e.g., football player). In order for the football statue to be a representation it must have the potential to mean something for somebody (the viewer), in short, it must have a semiotic potential (CP 2.228, 1897;^[2] Eco 1979: 15–16; Sebeok 1994: 10–14). It is our intention to open up for a tentative analysis/understanding of the football statue as a semiotic phenomenon; that is, we will try to look into some of the possibilities of the semiotic toolbox – inspired by Eco, Peirce, Jakobson, and Barthes. We deliberately say “inspired by,” which means, that the reader will not find, for example, any technical exegesis or critique of concepts stemming from the four semioticians; rather, we attempt to apply certain concepts, and involve some of their theoretical premises, to explore how the football statue can communicate meaning.

We will probably not say anything new about what the football statues mean; but hopefully, we will say something (new) about why and how the statues have a potential to mean something for somebody. The title of the article indicates the ambition of the text; that is, we cannot here, of course, work with a (full blown) “semiotics of football statues,” as this would probably require a systematic book-length treatment; instead, what we are trying to do is introduce and discuss a few ideas which we believe could be of relevance when working with semiotics and football statues – conceptually and/or methodologically.

In the following, we will, firstly, and inspired by Eco, argue how the football statue stands in continuous contact with the club encyclopedia; the club encyclopedia concerns the collective club memory and is the semiotic reservoir influencing both the semiotic production and the interpretation of the football statue. Secondly, and inspired by Jakobson and Peirce, we will address the football statue as a message involving different types of signs having different communicative functions.^[3] Furthermore, and thirdly, with Eco, we see how the football statue, as a message, has a model reader and with Barthes how the inscriptions on the plaque(s) either anchor or relay the potential meanings of the football statue.

It is important to note that when we speak in the following about the football statue our focus is solely on the most common type, namely: 1) the subject-specific football statue, which 2) is a physical representation, displaying 3) a close, full-body, lifelike, and most often at least, life-size depiction of a footballer, and 4) the statue is most often placed on a plinth and it has typically one or more inscriptions.^[4] We also need to say that the photos of football statues used in the text, as well as the analytical/descriptive examples, come from UK Association Football; even though there can be regional differences in, for example, the design forms of the football statue, we still believe that the semiotic concepts which we bring into play concern universal structures and sign types of sense-making and communication (Beasley and Danesi 2002: 37–38). That being said, when in the following we write “the football statue,” “football statues,” etc., we are solely referring to UK statuary.

Finally, the following analytical descriptions/examples of the football statue are based on an examination of the 89 statues depicting single football players, found in the list of UK football statuary compiled by the Sporting Statues Project. The project is based at the University of Sheffield, UK, and is recording and researching sport statues worldwide.^[5]

2 The football statue and the club encyclopedia

Inspired by Umberto Eco we can say that every (professional) football club is related to a (maximal) encyclopedia, which, in principle, involves every representation and interpretation of the club in the past and present as well as in the future – whether these representations and interpretations are true, false, or accepted as imaginary (Eco 2014: 50). And whether the representations and interpretations concern, in no particular order and just scratching the surface, formal club communication, such as websites and social media, match previews and analyses, press conferences and branding, diverse types of (live) broadcasting, appearances in popular culture, players reacting to cheers, chants and banners, or, simply, fan folklore, including when Paul and his friends, blue-collar supporters, discuss last night’s match in the pub. The club encyclopedia concerns a sociocultural format organizing every meaning of the club into a semiotic network dominated by a principle of interpretation (Eco 2014: 51). Therefore, the club encyclopedia is also something which makes possible the collective memory of a club.

The club encyclopedia, as semiotic form, can be a vast, and potentially infinite, semantic network. Just think about a premier league club like Arsenal Football Club with its pioneering moments and remarkable milestones intertwining into a rich history resonating around the globe. Formed from humble beginnings in 1886 as Dial Square Football Club by munition workers at the Royal Arsenal armaments factory and joining the football league in 1893, since then, Arsenal has secured 13 top league titles, including the remarkable unbeaten season of 2003–2004. Additionally, Arsenal holds a record 14 FA Cups. And notable figures like Herbert Chapman (1925–1934), Arsène Wenger (1996–2018), and Thierry Henry (1997–2007, 2012) have left their mark on the club and English football. Thierry Henry, the all-time club top scorer, netted 228 goals for Arsenal during his tenure.^[6]

Yet, the club encyclopedia is not simply a record of the past or a system of congealed, shared knowledge of certain epochs and sub-cultures; rather, the club encyclopedia is a multidimensional space which makes possible, and partly governs, the present and future representations and the interpretations of the club in relation to communicative contexts – including the football statue. In their excellent article “The Thierry Henry statue: A hollow icon?” (2013), Thomas and Stride note the following relationship between the club and the football statue: “[A] club’s choice to erect statues, the choice of subjects, and the choice of aesthetic forms all project important messages about its beliefs, aims and culture” (Thomas and Stride 2013: 39–40). Here the authors, most probably unaware of the existence of semiotics, indicate important semiotic points: They make a coupling between a club’s (strategic) choice to erect a football statue and the club’s intentions to convey certain messages with reference to its beliefs, aims, and culture. There is a small step, we believe, from there to saying, firstly, that the football statue simply is a message and, secondly, that the choices of the club concern, inspired by Roman Jakobson’s terminology (Jakobson 1971: 243), a selection of meaningful elements from the club encyclopedia – including that part of the encyclopedia which Thomas and Stride refer to as the beliefs, aims, and culture of the club. That also means, however, that the erected football statue itself will become a sign, or a possible starting point, within the club encyclopedia – including series of potential interpretations describing and explaining the meaning of the statue inviting or privileging some associations and, perhaps, excluding others (Eco 1979: 122).

The club encyclopedia is, then, both virtual and (part of) the background for the possibility of the meaningfulness of the football statue. Yet, there is an interdependence between the meaning potential of the club encyclopedia and its (partial) instantiation in the football statue; it is important to note, therefore, that the club encyclopedia is also open toward creativity, originality, and new meanings; the football statue, for example, can make possible new interpretations of the club encyclopedia, even altering or enriching parts of its content – due to the personality, performance, glory, etc. of the particular player commemorated. In short, there is a transfer of meaning taking place from the club encyclopedia to the erected football statue, but also a possible transfer of meaning going from the football statue to the club encyclopedia. On 9 December 2011, Arsenal Football Club honored one of its biggest legends by revealing a statue of French top scorer Thierry Henry outside the Emirates Stadium. There was, of course, nothing arbitrary about the club’s choosing Henry to become a statued figure. Henry was, for example, voted the greatest Arsenal player ever by the fans worldwide in 2008;^[7] and his CV, playing eight years for Arsenal, naturally speaks for itself – two first league titles, three FA Cups, four golden booths (league top scorer), five Player of the Year awards.^[8]

However, Henry was also (and maybe still is) an international brand “in himself” – that is, transcending his extraordinary performances on the pitch by having a charismatic star quality. Thomas and Stride seem to capture this well when they describe Henry as a being: “a global celebrity, projecting glamour and style and appealing to casual sports fans and tourists, as well as to a young and female demographic” (Thomas and Stride 2013: 71). All this just to say that Thierry Henry has a prominent place within the Arsenal club encyclopedia; or we can say with Eco, that Henry has become such a significant sign that he, as a sign, is a “type” within the semiotic network of the club or a privileged starting point for semiosis – potentially generating infinite series of representations and interpretations (Eco 1976:122–123), allowing inspections of the club encyclopedia which are, probably, diverse, complementary, and sometimes even contradictory (Eco 1984: 120). And it is parts of this rich semiotic material which the club, and of course also the sculpturing team, have used when it was decided to erect a statue of Henry. The decision also involved turning approximately 200 kilos of bronze into a message.^[9]

3 The football statue as a message

What does it mean to say that the football statue is a message? Well, at least, we are saying that the football statue, potentially, is meaningful. However, then of course another question arises – because what does it involve for the football statue to be meaningful? Again, inspired by Jakobson, we can furthermore say that the football statue, as a message, potentially is involved in a situation of communication, where it displays some communicative functions. However, before going into that, we will begin by looking at Charles Peirce’s division of signs into icon, index, and symbol, because if the football statue can be used to communicate, it is because it represents something. Formulated differently: The football statue, as a message, consists of signs. For Peirce, when we want to understand how a sign represents, we must look to the object of the sign and its double character (see also Sørensen et al. 2016). Peirce explains:

We must distinguish between the Immediate Object, – i.e., the Object as represented in the sign, – and the Real (no, because perhaps the Object is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term; therefore:), say rather the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, the Sign cannot express, which it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral experience. (EP II: 498; 1909)^[10]

Hence, the sign, and the football statue as well, we must assume, are both affected by “something,” the dynamic object, here the football player, and it is representing parts of the dynamic object, from some perspective, as an immediate object – which is instantiated in the concrete football statue. There are, with Peirce, three overall forms by which a sign can represent its dynamic object and turn this into an immediate object, namely, icons, indices, and symbols:

There are three kinds of signs. Firstly, there are likenesses, or icons; which serve to convey ideas of the things they represent simply by imitating them. Secondly, there are indications, or indices; which show something about things, on account of their being physically connected with them […] which acts upon the nerves of the person addressed and forces his attention. Thirdly, there are symbols, or general signs, which have become associated with their meanings by usage. (EP II: 4; 1894)

The football statue, as a message, involves the icon in different ways. Firstly, the material of the statue is designed/sculptured into a certain shape having a texture involving a number of qualities. Secondly, the statue possesses these qualities sui generis, or independently of the object which it represents. Thirdly, the shape and the qualities of the statue resemble an object and makes it possible for the viewer to recognize the statue as representing not just a person, but a person as a football player, and not just any football player, but a specific football player – Thierry Henry, for example.

Here, however, we are already approaching the index in relation to the football statue as message. Because the statue is also affected by its object; for the statue to represent Henry, it must resemble him and therefore there is an existential relation between the statue and Henry as a dynamic object; we must keep in mind, however, how a footballer, as a dynamic object, can take on different forms basing the sculpture design on, for example, photographs, televisual/video footage, a person doing actual posing, etc. – which all have existence before the actual process of designing/sculpting the statue began. The football statue involves the index because it has a relation to a “model” which, somehow, brings it into being.

Yet, the football statue also involves the index in another important way; this concerns that semiotic aspect of the football statue which calls attention to its very existence, that is, the index has a pointing function – look here, see (me)! Hence, the index makes it possible for the football statue to take hold of the eyes of the viewer and direct him/her to a particular object, the statue of the football player. One, and a very typical way, to direct the attention of the viewer to the football statue is to place the footballer on a plinth; thereby, the footballer is not just located in space, but the footballer becomes positioned in the environment as a signifying fact (perhaps) defining a part of the environment by giving meaning to its surroundings. The design of the football statue itself, of course, also involves the index; qua attracting attention by different design forms – either displaying the football player in action (perhaps showing certain skills), posing (e.g., with dignity, authority), or triumphing (celebrating personal/club success) (Stride et al. 2013a: 9).

However, the icons and the indices do not stand alone as types of signs concerning the football statue as a message; rather, the symbol must be involved as well because every sign used for the purposes of communication must also be conceptual and, therefore, general (Jappy 2013: 110). The symbol must impart meaning to the perceivable characters of the icon and the dynamic relation(s) of the index, thereby opening up for all the possible associations which meaningfully can be inked to the football statue involved in, for example, moments of admiration, nostalgia, celebration, (sub)cultural pride, or when the generally interested tourist just is passing by. Thomas and Stride (2013), analyzing the Henry statue, furthermore, point toward how it involves “a fluidity of meaning that represents continuity, community and ownership” (Thomas and Stride 2013: 73). This is, indeed, related to the symbolic functioning of the football statue, and concerns, we will add, all football statues, not only the statue of Henry; the symbol, as a general sign, makes it possible for fans to connect, for example, across generations – the football statue does not only refer to the past (the period when the player was active), but also the present (of the viewer) and the future – and, thereby, to the all possible series of associations which meaningfully, qua symbol (involving the icons and indices), can relate to the particular football statue over time. Perhaps the observations concerning the icon, index, and symbol and the football statue may seem trivial; however, the point is that the three different types of signs are the semiotic building blocks of the statue as a message having different communicative functions. Let us now, therefore, return to Jakobson.

4 The football statue and the factors and functions of communication

Inspired by Jakobson we can say that every act of communication – and therefore we must assume the football statue too – involves six functions, which reflect six communicative factors: the emotive, the conative, the referential, the poetic, the phatic, and the meta-communicative functions (Jakobson 1960: 353). These communicative functions, in relation to the factors of communication are:

1. the emotive function, concerning the addressers’ attitude toward and intentions behind the message

2. the conative function, concerning the addressee, including how he/she is called to do something

3. the referential function, concerning the context and identifying the content of the message

4. the poetic function, concerning the form, style, and aesthetics of the message

5. the phatic function, concerning the contact between the addresser and the addressee

6. the meta-communicative function, concerning when the message is referring to and is commenting on itself (Jakobson 1960: 353–356)

So, now the question is, does it make sense to say that the football statue is a message involving different communicative functions? And if so, can we furthermore tentatively say something about differences between the football statues as a message? Finally, and most fundamentally, if the football statue is a message, then who is sending the message and to whom and within what context is the contact between what Jakobson calls the addresser and addressee established?

Let us begin by saying that every football statue, as a message, clearly involves an addresser. Typically, the addresser will be the football club and, of course, the sculptor(s) realizing the vision behind the statue; but football statues are also erected by the initiative of local authorities, fans, or even families and friends. Yet, how is the emotive function reflected in relation to the football statue? Firstly, let us remember why the football statue is erected or what the purpose is of this communicative act; basically, we can say that the football statue has a rather invariant pragmatic semiotic core: It involves commemorating and honoring someone, including, perhaps, celebrating a specific event, a moment of glory – selected from the network of meanings in the club encyclopedia.

The aim of addresser can furthermore be, of course, of a more strategic stance, such as, to foster club identity, a sense of heritage, and a connection among generations across time, etc. – also for purposes of branding. Regardless, this aspect concerns, inspired by Eco, the intentio auctoris of the addresser, that is, what meanings (and why) the addresser wants to convey. And, looking at the design of the statue, including the plinth and plaque inscription(s), will tell us something about the attitude of the addresser and the intentions behind the message. Let us, therefore, briefly, look at the design, plinth, and plaque inscription, in that order.

There are, of course, many ways, through specific design features, in which this intended semiotic/communicative function can be realized. However, returning to Stride et al. (2013a), we can remember how there are three overall design forms concerning the football statue, namely, action, posing, or triumphing. These three design forms indeed point toward how the addresser feels and what they think, believe, etc. concerning the message, and thereby, the intentions as to why the football player is be commemorated:

1. Firstly, a design form such as action, highlights, for example, certain skills (e.g., technique), the style, and the strength of the player, and/or it shows an iconic moment in club history in which the player had a role, if not the decisive one.

2. Secondly, posing, which we should add also involves face and gaze, displays, first and foremost, dignity, and thereby, worthiness of respect and honor, but can also involve determination and readiness – when, for example, the player is resting one foot on the ball looking away from the viewer and into the horizon (or the future, where anything is possible).

3. Thirdly and finally, the design form triumphing involves the intention of preserving and celebrating moments of glory, pointing toward unforgettable contributions of the player, and thereby, for example, evoking feelings of passion, pride, and legitimacy in the fans.

The size of the football statue and the plinth, as well its plaque inscription(s), also let us know something about the attitude of the addresser toward the message. Obviously, relative to the size of the statue and the height of plinth is the distance to the viewer; if, for example, the statue is oversized and the player is placed on a high plinth with distance to the viewer, this is a way for the addresser to stress the importance of the player, pointing, for example, to a hero and, therefore, to someone worthy of admiration, in short, someone look up to – both concretely and metaphorically (see also Maagerø and Veum 2013: 84). Furthermore, if the plinth has a plaque with inscriptions, reading these inscriptions will tell us something (more) about why the addresser had the intention to commemorate the player.

Inspired by Roland Barthes we can say that there are two different ways in which the inscriptions on the plaque can stand in relation to the football statue, namely, by anchorage or relay. The inscription, qua anchorage, helps the viewer to choose the right level of perception (it controls), identifies (the footballer), and, perhaps, pinpoints the “occasion,” or the inscription, qua relay, complements the potential meanings of the statue by adding new ones (Barthes 1977: 38–41). Briefly looking at the inscription of the two plaques on the plinth placed on the statue of Peter L. Osgood from Chelsea FC., we can read the following:

1. PETER LESLIE OSGOOD. 20th February 1947–1st March 2006. CHELSEA FOOTBALL CLUB. 1964–1974 & 1978–1979. 380 APPEARANCES – 150 GOALS. WINNER OF THE FA CUP 1970. UEFA CUP-WINNERS’ CUP 1971.

2. OSSIE KING OF STAMFORD BRIDGE. STAMFORD BRIDGE HAS MANY HEROES BUT ONLY ONE KING. GRACEFUL TECHNICIAN – NERVELESS STRIKER. ICON OF THE SWINGING SIXTIES. ADORED BY FANS – SCORER OF IMMORTAL CUP FINAL GOALS. A BIG MAN FOR A GOLDEN AGE.^[11]

Hence, besides identifying the footballer, through anchorage, as Peter Leslie Osgood, and referring, indexically, to the past and his impressive statistics and trophies won, the addresser also wants to open up for potential meanings, through relay, which relates Osgood, not just to the football pitch, but, furthermore, to the cultural revolution in the UK called the Swinging Sixties – which included music, fashion, and showbiz glamour (Rycroft 2016). Hence, these plaque inscriptions complement the possible symbolic associations concerning the football player Osgood and makes possible other new associations not immediately deducible from looking at the football statue as such.

Who is the addressee of the football statue? Primarily, fans, but also the local community and the family of the commemorated player, as well as tourists and passersby. To understand the conative function of the football statue, we can begin by saying that the statue, basically, is emphatic; that is, the football statue wants to attract the attention, interest, and understanding of the addressee – in order to commemorate (the player). Obviously, the football statue wants someone to look, to become a viewer; however, there are important differences among being a passive observer, an active interpreting viewer, or someone physically interacting with the statue. And different football statues, indeed, reflect all three possibilities concerning the addressee. If we look at the last-mentioned possibility first, or what we, inspired by social semiotics (Kress and Van Leeuwen 2006), can call the interactional meaning of the football statue, then the statue of Thierry Henry (Figure 1) seems to be a relevant example.

Figure 1:

The statue of Thierry Henry (source: https://www.arsenal.com/arsenal-history).

The first thing to note here is that the statue of Henry is not placed on a plinth, but affixed to a low bronze base; furthermore, Henry is kneeling in his goal celebration, which, from the perspective of the viewer, gives a low-level effect and a feeling of proximity to the statue. The design, therefore, opens up for the possibility of the addressee interacting with the statue; not only can the viewer walk around the statue and study it up closely from different angles, but the addressee can also stand next to Henry on the base. The statue of Henry engages the addressee or invites him/her to interaction; typically, the viewer, alone or together with others, will pose for photos next to Henry, sometimes putting an arm around him (Thomas and Stride 2013: 71–72).

There is, however, another important way in which the statue of Henry engages the viewer as an addressee; that is, the statue shows Henry in a moment of triumph after scoring an epic goal. Below, in relation to the referential function of football statue, we will return to that particular moment in more detail, but the fact that the statue of Henry refers to that specific triumphant moment tells us that the statue, potentially, demands something of the viewer. Or formulated differently, and inspired by Eco, we can say that the statue, in relation to its conative function, involves a model reader – that is an addressee foreseen by the addresser who will actively engage in interpreting the meanings intended by the addresser (intentio auctoris) (Eco 1979: 7–11). Relative to how well versed the viewer is concerning the club encyclopedia (e.g., the period 1999–2007, when Henry was active in Arsenal, or the “invisibles team” of which he was part, etc.), he/she will interpret the meaning intended by the addresser, by recognizing not just a generic goal celebration, but the reference to a particular goal scoring moment involving Henry as the outstanding main character (Thomas and Stride 2013: 72). This level of interpretation, of course, demands not only commitment but also knowledge of the viewer as an addressee (Stride et al. 2013a: 9).

With a reference to Peirce, we can understand that the addressee perceiving the statue of Henry as a dynamic object (constraining the possible interpretations) needs collateral experience to interpret its potential meanings (Sørensen et al. 2014: 557–560), because as Peirce accentuates: “the Dynamical Object […] the Sign cannot express […] it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral experience” (EP II, 498: 1909). For someone not so well versed in the Arsenal club encyclopedia, the statue of Henry still opens up for him/her to actively realize the meaning potentials of the statue; this, however, will take more engagement or an interest in discovering/exploring certain parts of the club encyclopedia. In order for the viewer to realize the “full meaning potential” of the Henry statue it is also clear that the addresser, therefore, assumes/expects that the addressee has certain interpretative competencies.

Now, how can we understand the referential function of the football statue or how does the statue identify its content in relation to a context? First, of course, the subject-specific football statue involves a reference to a player, and, perhaps, to a certain moment or epoch of glory; this reference we can call the historic context of the football statue. Furthermore, the football statue is a three-dimensional object, a thing with a semiotic potential, standing in a physical environment; this we can call the spatial context of the football statue.

The football statue, as a message, involves, then, a double referential function. Let us therefore look at this double referential function. As it is subject-specific, the football statue refers to the particular player depicted as the important content of the message; the statue involves a number of physical properties which are similar to properties of the dynamic object, the real, historic football player; however, these properties are instantiated qua indices which are reactions to or caused by the dynamic object. And through the icons and indices the football statue, then, opens up for the viewers’ recognition of the player, as well as for symbolic associations concerning the player’s history, merits, personality, etc. – associations which, of course, are relative to the level of collateral experience of the viewer or his/her acquaintance with the club encyclopedia (of which the player is a part). Furthermore, all subject-specific football statues have the name of the player written either on the plinth directly or on a plaque; this involves a linguistic indexical relation, because the proper name designates who the player is – if the viewer should not know that. Finally, many football statues have plaque inscriptions which designate merits of the player by referring to, for example, the period played in the club, the number of appearances, goals scored, titles won, and when – all of which indicate why the player is commemorated.

Some football statues, however, involve another referential function qua index; these statues make possible the identification of a specific memorable moment (of glory). Returning to the statue of Thierry Henry, we can therefore say that it involves a referential function pointing at a certain historical context; that is, the statue refers, indexically, to a specific situation, a reference in time and place, namely, Henry’s knee-slide goal celebration in a match against North London arch-rivals Tottenham Hotspurs, which took place on the 16 November 2002 in Arsenal Stadium, Highbury. In the match Henry, scored the 1–0 goal after a half-pitch sprint, spectacularly breaking through the Tottenham defense; and after having scored the goal, Henry sprinted all the way back from the penalty box to the Clock End away section – where he slid (provocatively) on his knees, arms wide open, in front of the Spurs supporters. Hence, the Henry statue refers to a specific part of Arsenal’s club encyclopedia in order to establish the right historical context for interpretation.

As mentioned, the football statue is also placed physically in, or is a part of, a certain space; concerning the spatial context of the football statue, we can say that this involves both the possibility of the statue conferring meaning on its physical environment and the physical environment conferring meaning on the statue (Johnson 1995: 51). Let us, therefore, take a brief look at the statue of former Manchester City FC player David Sliva, which is part of the Etihad Stadium exterior (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

The statue of David Silva (source: https://www.mancity.com/news).

The statue of Silva is situated outside the East Stand of the Etihad Stadium. It has a height of 3.2 m (10.5 ft), is placed on a solid marble plinth, and is made from thousands of pieces of galvanized steel welded together^[12] – this makes the statue a natural center of attention even on a busy match day with thousands of fans passing by. The depicted Silva, with his foot firmly placed on the ball, has his head up, almost pausing, as the midfielder looks for that perfect moment when to pass to the striker.^[13] The pose the statue of Silva depicts invites the passersby to narratives, for example about his eminent technique, passing accuracy, and intelligent reading of the game, potentially evoking feelings and perhaps memories in the viewers of some of the greatest moments in the history of the club. Or formulated differently, for the fans passing by outside the East Stand, the statue of Silva gives/adds potential symbolic meaning to the physical environment.

On the other hand, the physical environment of the Silva statue is also involved in the meaning-making potential of the statue; that is, behind the statue, a large sky-blue banner has been place which reads in white letters: “From 2010 to 2020 he played 436 games for City, scoring 77 goals and winning 14 trophies.” This points directly toward (anchoring with Barthes) how Silva was instrumental in the successes of Manchester City and contributed to shaping its modern history (as recorded in the club’s encyclopedia). Furthermore, the statue of Silva is situated between the two ramp towers outside the East Stand.^[14] The ramp tower to the right of the statue has the names of numerous official Manchester City fan clubs from all over the world written on sky blue banners; thus, the statue is inscribed with potential meaning from the context of the massive international following which Manchester City enjoys – and which Silva himself also richly enjoyed as a player. Finally, and the most spectacular way in which the physical environment confers meaning on the statue of Silva, at night it is illuminated with sky blue tinted lightning; hence, the light further enhances the visibility of the statue, creating a striking image against the night sky. The sky-blue tinted lighting not only aligns with the team colors of Manchester City; it also adds a dramatic effect, highlighting intricate details of the statue and literally reinforcing the impression of Silva as one the Blues (a City nickname).

Does the football statue involve a poetic function? The football statue is public art, no doubt, modeled and sculptured by artists into enduring materials – not wanting to go into the difficult question of what art is, and just remembering also, however, that sport has been a motive for visual artists since athletes were represented on antique Greek vases and statues (Kühnst 1996; Sandle 2008: 14). Inspired by Jakobson, we can say the football statue itself serves as the message between the club and viewers (fans, etc.), and looking for the poetic function of the football statue means, therefore, addressing whether the statue can also be considered as a message in its own right, oriented toward itself. Yet, where can we search for the poetic function of the football statue more precisely? Well, we should look for its poetic function exactly where we have been looking all the time – namely, in the statue being a design form occupying a place in public space. The football statue, as an object, has, for example, certain properties concerning its material(s), surface, overall shape, and composition (see also Kress and Van Leeuwen 2006), and it has a relation to a plinth, which can involve one or more plaques with inscriptions.

We have already mentioned, more than once, the typology of UK football statuary put forth by Stride et al. (2013a), who argue how “a clear typology of form is apparent, with the principal designs being action, posed and triumph. All but three existing statues are created in bronze” (Stride et al. 2013a: 9). What we notice in particular is how the typology is characterized as “clear,” “apparent,” and having “principal” types of forms alike. This is another way of saying that there is a strong degree of generality or similarity within UK football statuary. We therefore believe that the poetic function of the football statue is expressed, first and foremost, through deviation or at least differences (variation) within the three types of form mentioned by Stride et al. (2013a). That is, with a reference to Russian/Czech formalism, the football statue directs attention to itself as a deviation from expectations or (semiotic) norms concerning its properties such as materials, surface, overall shape, and composition (Mukarovsky 1971; Tynjanov 1971).

So, what examples can we give concerning the poetic function of the football statue? In the above, we have just described the Silva statue; no doubt, this statue is unique within UK statuary and orients toward itself as a message – for example, with its material of galvanized steel mirroring industrial aesthetics and its spectacular blue-tinted night lightning effect also involving potential metaphorical meanings/interpretations. Let us also take a look at the statue of former Liverpool FC player Emlyn Hughes (Figure 3).

Figure 3:

Statue of Emlyn Hughes (source: photo by habiloid© and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/).

The statue of Hughes is situated on Abbey Road, Barrow-in-Furness, outside the office building named the Emlyn Hughes House. The statue depicts Hughes in action performing a skillful mid-kick; the statue stands vertically having two plinths as its base, and the ball kicked by Hughes is placed on a third plinth. The lines of Hughes’ body and the football create a diagonal line and a sense of movement and action; however, it is the three plinths which compositionally make possible the dynamic pose of Hughes, which includes the plinths reflecting the sequence of rolling grass on the pitch. From this perspective, the statue of Hughes does indeed become a message which focuses or orients its meaning toward itself; that is, drawing on certain visual elements, the statue becomes more than a commemoration of the historic trophy-winning Hughes, captain of both Liverpool and England – it becomes a work of art conveying a sense of action and emotion. Other examples can be mentioned where the poetic function of the football statue is prominent, such as:

1. the statue of Sir Tom Finney, Preston North End FC., named “The Splash” and erected as part of a fountain representing Finney in a match played on a waterlogged Stamford Bridge in 1954^[15]

2. the statue of Sir Stanley Matthews, Stoke City FC., composed of three statues of Matthews which stand in a contiguous relation on a plinth creating a sense of development and making possible an illustration of the evolution of his career^[16]

3. the statue of Dennis Bergkamp, Arsenal FC., which depicts Bergmann floating on a bronze pole controlling the ball mid-air with the top of his right foot.^[17]

And it is the “movement of the rolling grass,” the “Splash,” the “multi-figure composition,” and the “floating” which catch the attention of the viewer first. The examples of Silva, Hughes, Finney, Matthews, and Bergkamp are rare within UK statuary, which should not surprise us, however, because the statues are deviations within the design types of action, triumph, and posed.

Even though we have accentuated the poetic function of the football statue in relation to “type-deviation,” we should not forget, however, that creating an imagined moment of movement of the football player’s body in itself involves a poetic function. Most obviously, this example of the poetic function of the football statue is found concerning the design forms “action” and “triumph”; here the statues come alive by a creative interplay between, for example, statue axis, composition, form, lines, etc. – often conveying symbolic associations such as energy and vitality. Furthermore, concerning the “posed” design form, it is interesting to note how some statues involve the ancient Greek technique of contrapposto (Italian: “opposite”); that is, the statue will depict the human figure standing with the weight on one foot and the upper body twisted off axis in another direction; the effect is that the body is represented in a naturalistic pose which at the same time is a relaxed and dynamic pose; the Silva statue is an example thereof. Finally, some plaque inscriptions co-occurring with the football statues also make use of devices which are (also) poetic; for example, the plaque inscription on the statue of former Coleraine FC and Glasgow Celtic FC Bertie Peacock reads:

1. Bertie Peacock MBE. SPORTSMAN STATESMAN GENTLEMAN. 1929–2004.

2. 1958 Nicknamed “The Little Ant” for his busy style of play, as NI reached World Cup quarter-finals in Sweden.^[18]

Both the poetic use of structure of sound and metaphor is found in the description of Bertie Peacock; focusing on the expression side of language and the iconic repetition of the same suffix MAN creates a certain rhythm underlying the three nouns – which could almost sound like a linguistic message in advertising (slogan). And, the reference to the player as “The little ant” allows his style of play to be experienced via another conceptual domain, the life of the eusocial insect the ant – with its division of labor in a colony (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 3–5).

As mentioned, the football statue, as a message, is naturally erected to attract and maintain the attention of the viewer as an addressee. Inspired by Jakobson, we can say that this concerns the phatic function of the football statue. The football statue is predominantly a visual message (but also related to the tactile sense), and the material(s) and design of the statue constitute the channel through which the contact between the statue and the viewer is established. Even though we assume that the football statue is strategically placed in the physical environment by the addresser (for purposes of communication), the statue must still compete with other visual attractions for attention or just with the fact that the potential viewer may have “better things to do” than stopping and looking at the statue. That is also the case even for the artwork representing Silva, which, on match day, must compete with other attractions outside the East Stand such as food units, The Summerbee Bar, a retail pop-up,^[19] and, of course, the buzz coming from thousands of fans passing by or accessing the two ramp towers of the East Stand. Hence, every football statue must, somehow, stand out – calling for the attention of the potential viewer; and, as a message, the football statue can only do that by having some eye-catching elements.

We have already, at least indirectly, touched on the aspect of, for example, the conative, referential, and poetic functions of the football statue; this demonstrates, firstly, how closely related the communicative functions of the football statue are semiotically speaking, and, secondly, that, even though some football statues seem to have one dominant communicative function, this function cannot stand alone. It is worth reiterating that the easy accessibility of, for example, the Henry statue, which allows fans to get close to the statue, the sky blue tinted light on the Silva statue, which enhances ambience and visibility, and the unusual shapes of the plinths of the Hughes statue, which create a sense of movement and dynamics, all, in different ways, underlie the fact that the statues also have a strong phatic function – metaphorically saying to possible viewers “Hello can you see me, are you there?” Basically, every visual and/or tactile element of the football statue which can catch the eyes/hands of the addressee, and make him/her aware of its existence is where we will find the phatic function of the statue. Instead of listing a number of visual and/or tactile elements of the football statue involved in its phatic function (it could be a long list), let us just accentuate that it is a question of making a difference in relation to the visual/tactile perception of the possible addressee (see also Lemon 2018: 289–290), whether it is by foregrounding the statue in the physical environment qua its position or by using certain material(s), size, overall shape, or colors, etc.

Finally, does the football statue open up for checking whether the addressee understands the message as intended by the addresser? That is, does the football statue involve a meta-communicative function? We believe that it does – at least from the perspective of the relation between the statue as such and the plaque inscriptions. First, the meta-communicative function concerns codes and whether the addresser and the addressee are using the codes in the same way. We will not try to go into the intricate question of codes concerning visual communication (which should also concern the process of visual perception “itself”); here, it should suffice to say that the codes, with Peirce, “consist of all that is, and must be, well understood between the utterer and interpreter at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfil its function” (LW 1977: 197).^[20] That is, the codes in relation to the football statue involve, for example, conventions concerning purpose, genre, and style (what the function of the football statue is, why it was erected, etc.), but, also, the possibility of selecting and combining elements from the club encyclopedia for the viewer to understand the statue in a relevant, meaningful way. So, when the plaque inscriptions of the football statues refer to the player depicted and, for example, mention merits, honors, club history, etc., this is not simply a way to inform a possible viewer, but also a means to ensure that the addressee (as model reader) is using the same codes as intended by addresser.

We have already described Barthes’ anchoring and relay, and it is clear that these semiotic functions come into play when signs from the verbal system comment on the depicted player, thereby reducing potential ambiguity and indeterminacy of the message and making possible some community (of codes) between the addresser and the addressee.

5 The football statue as a message – concluding remarks

Inspired by Jakobson, but also Eco, Peirce, and Barthes, we have looked at the football statue as a message involved in a potential situation of communication and thereby having certain factors and functions in relation to different types of signs. Table 1 summarizes our findings.^[21]

The football statue is a public monument; it is constructed for communication as a goal-oriented center of meaning, commemorating and honoring a specific subject – potentially connecting the past and the present for the viewers. The potential meaning of the football statue is inscribed in a universe of meaning called the club encyclopedia; however, the actual realization of parts of the statue’s meaning potential is relative to the collateral experience of the addressee (as potential model reader) who can also bring new meanings to the statue. The football statue has its own “veins of meaning,” qua different design forms – at the same time opening up for and constraining different addressee interpretations. Jakobson’s model, even though developed for linguistic sign system, can help us understand how the football statue is a phenomenon of communication, in short, a message. And, most important, we believe, the football statue as a phenomenon of communication does not solely concern a semiotic relation between the statue and a viewer. Rather, we also need to understand how the football statue, in its veins of meaning, will involve addresser intentions (intentio auctoris), including strategies for engaging the viewer as an addressee, a double reference to both a historical and spatial context (the physical environment) outside the message itself, as well as different means of attracting the attention of the viewer and maintain contact (size of statue, low plinth, unusual shape, etc.).

Furthermore, some football statues allow longer viewer journeys through the club encyclopedia; these statues are deviations from semiotic norms and have a dominant poetic function; yet, all football statues, qua artistic expression (sculpting, etc.), involve a poetic function or they orient toward their own form. Finally, in cases where the football statue involves plaque inscriptions, these will point indexically toward the depicted player and make explicit the rationale for the commemoration (qua anchoring); thereby, the inscriptions potentially function as a check against, and/or perhaps make clear, the viewer’s understanding of the occasion.

Every football statue is more than a mere physical representation. Involving an interplay between the factors and functions of communication, the statue potentially becomes a message with (encyclopedic) signs serving its communicative purpose(s) – commemorating players and fostering, for example, club heritage and identity and connecting fans across generations.