The primary problem with the web of rules and diktats, though, is all the holes in it. Jeff Hutton, the general manager of Bromley — condemned to play without fans — said his club was focusing on how to staunch the financial damage from playing in an empty stadium. “It costs us to get the game on, to manage a livestream, as well as to pay the players,” he said. The British government has promised grants to help clubs like Bromley survive — several Premier League powerhouses recently floated a plan of their own — but the money has yet to appear.

At the same time and in the same place, Cray is enjoying a sudden attendance boom. “We’re the highest level you can watch at the moment,” Wright said. “On a day like Sunday, when there is no Premier League on television, we’re hoping we can be quite a big draw.

“It seems strange to say it, given the situation, but it is helpful for us as a club.”

Altrincham’s men’s team — in the same league, and therefore the same boat, as Bromley — is suffering, too, limited to selling a livestream of games to around 750 fans, rather than hosting several thousand people in its stadium. “But our women’s team are allowed a crowd,” said Bill Waterson, the club’s co-chairman, pointing out another absurdity in the rules. “And so are Manchester United’s women’s development team, who also play here. It has not been thought through.”

There are similar stories throughout the country. Bishop’s Stortford F.C. shares a stadium with Enfield: the former is allowed 600 fans at its games, and the latter only a little more than half that. The same applies to Radcliffe and Bury A.F.C., teams that play in the same place north of Manchester but at different levels.

And at a time when millions of fans are unable to watch their clubs play in person — but have been told to go the cinema and perhaps buy a ticket for the Royal Albert Hall, too — there are plenty of teams riding the same wave as Cray.

Source: New York Times

Powered by NewsAPI.org