Euro-nly as good as your communications

With the Jubilee bunting barely packed, another national event is already open us. Euro 2012 won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but the bi-annual hype and disappointment machine that is England international football provides us with some interesting communications lessons.

Two years ago, the England team left the World Cup in South Africa under a cloud. Expectations were measured prior to the tournament, but it was largely expected that England would give a good account of themselves. They didn’t. Unceremoniously hammered by a strong German side (sound familiar?), they were met by an extremely hostile media and public on their return. But it was the perceived attitude of England players that grated most with supporters. Wayne Rooney’s crude outburst in response to England fans booing the team was partly responsible for this, but players’ suggestions of being bored between games and a very public player mutiny were also met with incredulity from a public who felt they had become too detached from the common fan.

No England team returning early from a tournament is likely to receive a rosey reception from our media, but there are suggestions that the FA and England senior management have learnt some valuable lessons from the South Africa debacle.

Firstly, expectation management is important. In reality this has largely, and surprisingly, come from the media and the public, who recognise that the limited talents of the England squad do not match up to those of other countries. There is little England players and management can do to generate such measured expectation, but they have helped to reinforce it. Both have effectively walked a tricky communications tight-rope, demonstrating confidence that they can perform well while also talking of the strengths of other countries. Altogether, there is a sense of a less bullish, more circumspect approach from players.

Secondly, like any organisation, getting the right spokespeople is important. Although most players will at some point find themselves in front of the cameras answering questions, the decision to put players like Joe Hart front-and-centre has been a shrewd and considered move. A model pro (thus far), untainted by previous scandals and tournament failures, Hart has shown a level-headedness that has resonated with the public. In addition, players like Rooney have managed to stay on message, talking with apparent pride at their involvement with the national team. Finally, more divisive figures, who shall remain nameless, have been largely allowed to operate in the shadows.

Thirdly, the FA has demonstrated an understanding of the importance of internal communications and getting internal audiences on-side (excuse the unintentional pun). The organisation has clearly listened to England players’ criticisms of the planning for South Africa. Two years ago, players found themselves living in a complex shut off from the public. This was done deliberately to provide a protective bubble around the squad, allowing them to focus purely on football. But this prevented the essential ‘letting off of steam’ and led to a sense of isolation, boredom and nervousness. In Poland, England have already embarked on a far more effective charm offensive. A banner to thank local residents for their warm welcome was an obvious and positive place to start. But it was the visit to Auschwitz, a move undertaken by a number of teams at Euro 2012, that has helped to demonstrate a humility and willingness to engage with people outside of their immediate sphere.

Will any of this matter if England are thrashed by France today and go out in the group stages? Probably not. But it is encouraging that the FA has taken on board some important communications principles, and it may mean they limit the opprobrium heaped on the team should they fail to lift the trophy.