#ted lasso rant

[ericeffiorg]

another week, another ted lasso rant (lol)

this latest episode had so much potential to do something of importance. they set everything up so well for colin to have a meaningful coming out story with a supportive team that made it about him, but there’s this thing that straight creatives do where they try to make being gay not seem like a big deal and try to normalise it, but their method of normalising it is to remove its importance and try to minimalise the dangers, fears and liberation that comes with coming out.

they spent half the episode dealing with colin and isaac’s issues fairly well, as isaac was processing it. it was a bit on the nose and felt more like how a parent would react initially rather than a 20 something man in 2023, but whatever, it still felt like it was going somewhere.

but then the fight happened, and suddenly it was all about isaac. everyone was talking about isaac’s anger, his ability to be team captain, what that means for richmond, and whether he is gay. 

and then it came to colin actually coming out, and instead of getting colin to say the words “i’m gay”, we cut straight back to isaac, who gets comforted by roy, and we then focus on roy and isaac, the former of which is only here so he can develop his own personal story. so again, nobody here’s story is relevant to the actual queer person in question.

we then go back to colin coming out, and ted makes a stupid story about someone being a fan of a different football team and they even point out how irrelevant it is, so literally what was the point? colin had so much time taken away from actually coming out and it was given to his straight friend and straight coaches. and then they make these references to oprah and “what’s a top or bottom?” which feel like they’re being written by a 50 year old who googled some gay forum from the 2000s to get his knowledge.

the whole story was just silly because we spent so long focusing on isaac, and even then, that wasn’t even about isaac. it was about isaac worrying about colin and in turn taking away time from colin so who was this whole story even about? who benefitted? because we know nothing more about either man, and there was next to no development that came from it. just isaac acting out and colin being silenced. roy and ted got more from this than isaac or colin so what was the point of it all...

a big issue this show has is that it doesn’t know how to tackle toxic masculinity without making it a big joke. homophobia in football is something we’ve seen in real life a few times, and we know horrific it can get. and this show - based in a very male dominated avenue and constantly dealing with toxic masculinity - had a huge chance to do something but because their take on the topic never goes beyond “isnt it funny how anti toxic masculinity i am?”, they couldn’t hackle.

isaac’s dialogue was written like he was a freshman from high school (because what man in their 20′s reacts to his friend coming out like that?) this show constantly infantilises these men as a way to “challenge” toxic masculinity, and it’s just so irritating. why are ted and roy the only men allowed to actually confront anything in a serious way?

atp, i just don’t want ted lasso to touch queer stories ever again. they don’t know how to handle it without putting in some dumb joke that takes up half the screen time just to get to the punchline.

colin and isaac had so much potential and neither of them benefitted. it was just a way to give jason a “funny” monologue for his emmy campaign and for roy (a grown man who has been in this business for decades) to learn how to speak to people. 

[shebeafancyflapjack]

Ugh, how hard is it to send a text saying "Hey babe, Barbara is gonna give you a statement that my dad's lawyers advised you put out but just for the record I don't agree with it and if you don't wanna use it I'm totally on your side xx" ?!

*fumes in lack of communication for tension trope*

EDIT: Oh okay it's going to be a reoccurring issue.

EDIT 2: DUMP HER, KEELEY.

[seriouslybelieveinbelieve]

On one hand I'm all, maybe the show IS leading to Ted and Rebecca getting together, maybe not? It doesn't matter I just want to enjoy this show. But on the other hand...

"I need to be brave enough to let someone wonderful in without the fear of getting hurt." SHE'S DOING THAT WITH ONE TED THEODORE LASSO.

She goes to him to tell him the hardest truths...I hired you because I wanted you to fail... I slept with Sam.

She's opening herself up to him and isn't worried about being judged.

On the other end of things with Ted. Rebecca was one of the first people to know about his anxiety attacks*. He tells her all about his marriage issues. He's slowly letting her know about his darker sides.

They are a support system for each other and at this point I don't think they even realize how much they help each other out. Both of them know that they can share things without being judged, but they haven't connected the damn dots on how amazing that really is.

OTOH Ted's an amazing dude, who's energy and wisdom has inspired many people to be their best selves. Ted also has learned that his journey in self improvement isn't over and he's slowly figuring out the people he's inspired are also inspiring him. That's what this show is about, so great. Awesome!

...But is there a love story in there as well?

*Since moving to England. We don't really know if Michelle knew about them?

[coachbeards]

Haha, so much passion!

ted lasso, 1.07 | 3.09.

[roughroadhaley]

this is why I HATE the end of Jamie’s arc with his father so much. Jamie didn’t need to mature to forgive his abuser. Jamie forgiving his abuser is not a good thing. It is neutral at best, and is only “good” in terms of how it affects Jamie’s healing journey and his future. This is not something that shows that he’s grown up.

Also Jamie’s father isn’t given an “arc” he doesn’t have a single line in season 3. They show him looking proud in rehab (as his son who he only ever loved when he was scoring goals, scored a goal) and then had Jamie show up at the rehab in the finale. Jamie’s final shot in the show is him smiling with his abuser who was a major factor in turning Jamie into the man he was in season 1. We saw him be evil towards him emotionally and physically, heard an awful story about pressuring Jamie into sex, and watched him beat Beard up with a metal pipe.

Jamie hating his father wasn’t because he was immature, it was the natural feeling you have towards someone who torments you for fun, for money, for clout and to get back with your mum.

[church-of-lilith]

Ted Lasso winning a GLAAD award for Outstanding Comedy is probably the funniest joke to ever come from that show.

I love the show dearly, the characters will always have a special place in my heart, but their queer rep was a joke—and I don’t mean in an award winning way.

Colin’s storyline being focused around his straight counterparts rather than his actual journey and coming out

Keeley entering into a toxic relationship with a questionable power dynamic that ends up almost destroying her career

Trent’s two throwaway lines about coming out to someone twice and having a daughter that literally never got elaborated on

Ted’s seven layer dip story.

I may not be actively posting for that fandom anymore but any time someone tries to give them accolades for ‘queer rep’ I am activated like a sleeper agent. Don’t try to rewrite history on me. I was there when it aired. Sorry to all of the comedies with great queer rep who lost.

[lunar-years]

Can I also say that the worst thing to happen to the roykeeley (and to a smaller extent royjamiekeeley) ship was the episode where Keeley expresses a desire to have like, even TEN Roy-free minutes in her day, which too many people took to mean Keeley (extrovert, social butterfly, move-maker, lover) hates quality time in both concept and execution and only wants to see her significant other on the weekends, maybe, and would probably sleep in a separate room, whereas Roy is a permanently needy fucker who needs to be attached at the hip to his significant other 24/7 in order to survive, and that therefore they are ~Fundamentally Incompatible.~ Instead of what I think the episode was trying to convey, which is that Keeley desires a very extremely normal amount of time to herself especially while she is focusing on Getting Tasks Done/Literally Working Her Job and that Roy had spent the last several months being insanely clingy largely because he was bored and angry and aimless without football and using his girlfriend as his singular purpose for living (which is not sustainable or healthy behavior with ANY partner, even one as equally attached at the hip) only for him to then get a job at the same place Keeley works, so that she could literally never get any time away from him even At Her Job. Thus tipping the scale beyond “Roy’s love language is Quality Time and he can be a bit clingy, which can be reasonably accommodated by a willing partner” to “Roy is Driving Keeley Actually Motherfucking Batshit Crazy” a problem which then gets solved by Roy leaving Keeley alone for the length of one (1) singular self care bath.

[here-there-everyfuckenwhere]

Trent “and then there’s Roy Kent, who played dismally last match” Crimm and Roy “Trent you’re a colossal prick, you always have been” Kent entering their besties era we love to see it

[justsomefunshit]

About the Roy and Jamie fight:

I think people forget Jamie used to be a real prick. He’s done a real 180, but people who have actually worked on the really bad parts of themselves know that those parts of us don’t just leave. For a character that was introduced as The Prince Prick of All Pricks, his first instinct being lashing out and putting people down, to change so much after so much turmoil in his life (going to Richmond, leaving Richmond, doing the reality show and coming back to Richmond) is beautiful to see. But even after he came back we see a little bit of that instinct coming back. When the team gives him the signal, he starts by saying “I’m no doing it wrong, you’re doing it wrong”. He’s frustrated, but there no need for him to say that. He could just start by explaining. To part of him LIKES being a prick. Because is part of who he is.

Roy was introduced as a rude and angry captain in the end of his legendary career whose response to the world is rage and violence. He’s watching his career end in a mediocre team and doesn’t have any connections with his teammates. The closest relationship he has within the team is with Jamie. The asshole who’s rude to everyone, who has a funny and kind girlfriend, the one who he already knows is going to be a legend. Roy’s change comes later, slower, because, just like Zava could, legends can get away with things other people can’t. Nobody asked Roy to change. Richmond didn’t care that Roy was an absent captain. That he was violent. Sky sports didn’t care that he swore on live tv. Ted didn’t ask him to change when he asked him to come back. It was only in the middle of this season that Rebecca gave him a real talk.

And then we come to their interactions this episode. Roy sees jamie and keeley hugging and assumes the worst. He asks jamie out for a beer, something we know never happened bc jamie hasn’t had beer in months. We have the callback of the fist bumps, now offered by Roy. In the bar, Roy is obviously sincere when he says that he’s proud of jamie (but I honestly think he was going for a compliment sandwich), but he immediately segways into the subject of keeley. He’s so insecure in his relationship with keeley (and probably with Jamie) that it comes of possessive and dismissive of Jamie. We can see in his face that he means it as a competition, as if HE won. And Jamie responds in kind, reaching for the prince pricks of all pricks that lives in him, and that Roy can access easier then anyone. They have more equal ground now, they both like and respect each other. But they are both also highly competitive, both insecure, both known for lashing out when cornered, Jamie with his words and Roy with his fists. Jamie knew what he was doing when he talked about the video. He WANTED to hurt Roy. And roy responded how he used to, because Jamie acted like he used to.

And that is the nail on the coffin to Roy. The next morning he asks to be a diamond dog. Because he baited Jamie and he knew it. And when jamie baited him back, he fell for it. He asked for everything that happened the night before, and I can bet you that it was jamie that suggested they go talk to keeley. And it was jamie that offered dinner. Because jamie HAD to change, and Roy witnessed him doing it. He knows is possible, he’s seen it, and he finally realized he can’t do it alone, bc he’s been trying and fell back as soon as his insecurities hit a little harder. And he brought his best friend down with him, even after seeing and experiencing his change. He asked for help because he doesn’t know how to deal with having a best friend, someone who knows you, who challenges you, who makes you feel like you can do better.

Because that’s what happens when you have real and vulnerable relationships. No one can hurt you more then your best friend, because they know you better then anyone. The people who know you are the ones that can bring the worst out of you. And you cans also bring the worst out of them. Roy already knows Jamie tries very hard not to do this. The least he can do is try to learn too.

(This is not a defense of the behaviour, it’s just been driving me insane that people are saying it out of character. It’s not. It’s a natural response and a callback and a demonstration of HOW MUCH their relationship changed that they stop fighting to come to a “better”conclusion (it’s not), and then get dinner together. No hard feelings.)

[francesderwent]

overall I just have so much less patience now for shows that once upon a time had something interesting going on and then betrayed the specific thing that was good about them. sometimes it’s a sudden death, like Veronica Mars or The Good Place (or HIMYM). sometimes it’s a slow transformation, like Gilmore Girls or Ted Lasso. sometimes you get through a whole show and only realize later that the things you loved were only there accidentally (Community was a bit like this for me). and I’m just. so. tired of it! it’s okay to lose your way a little bit, it happens to the best of us and a good ending can blot out a multitude of sins (Vampire Diaries). but the bottom line is I don’t wanna do all the work of finding coherence in your story!! I’m not listing shows that crashed and burned as favorites anymore! only shows that lived up to their potential!!

[oh-surprise-its-me]

I’m tipsy at a family gathering and have a cat in my lap and I’m having lots of feelings rn.

Jamie’s mom always went full out for holidays and birthdays. They didn’t have much money but my god did she never have Jamie think that.

Obviously when he got older he knew and would watch her take a second job or sometimes around holidays a third job. He would secretly try to pay things his own way sometimes.

So even back when Jamie was a prick he would drop an insane amount of money for charity anonymously for kids who need it.

He signs everything he can because he remembers and treasures how important getting Roy to sign his poster was for him.

He bought his moms house from the landlord. He bought her a car. He fucking did everything in his power to make sure his mom never looked how exhausted as she did growing up.

And while I love prick Jamie I also love soft Jamie who is curled up on a couch under Roy’s arm with a (hairless) cat. He texts with his mom almost every day, even little things like “Roy got Marigold a new sweater losing my mind rn !!” And she will always text back a “oh baby send pics of my grandcat I love u!”

[shebeafancyflapjack]

Fuck this episode, they're not even gonna give us the catharsis of having Keeley tell her to leave?!

[faramirsonofgondor]

Jamie’s the type of friend who actually tries to pack himself in a suitcase so he can go on trips with you. Or he just genuinely considers kidnapping his friends so they don’t leave. I’m pretty sure half of the team would be happily kidnapped too.

[coachbeards]

Never forget that what beard added to Trent’s book probably weren’t criticisms, it’s just one book nerd to another expressing their interest!!! i bet he liked Trent’s book,,,

[andi-o-geyser]

on my anti dr. jacob agenda sooo hard you don't even know. like the level of just how unprofessional, unethical, and fucking infuriating his choices are is putting me into so much of a rage i can no longer maintain my danny rojas level of live laugh love in this economy. bastard. bastard man. my worst enemy. im calling the kansas college of registered psychotherapy and regulatory board of ethics on him don't test me

[mindibindi]

The Failure of Ted Lasso's Unconventional Politics

SOCIAL CONDITIONING:

According to Brendan Hunt, shippers interested in a second chance, mature-age romance between Ted and Rebecca were being blindly, un-self-reflexively led about by their “social conditioning”. Presumably, however, the writers who wrote Ted returning to his heteronormative family unit – as well as all the viewers who enjoyed this ending and have defended it since – are completely free of social conditioning? No social conditioning is involved in reifying the white heterosexual family unit? No social conditioning is involved in deifying parenthood, fatherhood and patriarchy at the cost of all else? There is no social conditioning involved in a conclusion that values good ole working class Americana while rejecting the big, queer, complicated, multicultural world?

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid):

If the creators wanted to gesture to “Cheers” as a classic American sitcom, then at least learn from its example. This show worked best when it worked with familiar, beloved characters in a familiar, beloved, but confined setting. "Ted Lasso" had a near-perfect first act, doing a simple thing well. But from s2 onward, the show started straying out of bounds. The cast of characters kept expanding and contracting: people were in, people were out, characters were coming and going and changing (what was the point of that whole Zava plotline?). We had multiple workplaces and workplace dramas (grew to like Barbara tho). Episodes got long and unwieldy. Themes got convoluted as the show took a long trip, imo, up its own arse. The folksy wisdom of s1 became grating self-indulgence and cliched “moment” manufacturing.  

SUPERFICIAL UNCONVENTIONALITY:

TL employed a familiar 3-part structure but ultimately its supposedly radical, unconventional politics was not reflected in the show’s structure. Since the first act started with Ted's arrival, you could see his departure coming from a mile off. Some folks are acting like returning Ted home constitutes some super brave move by the writers that we've never seen before. But if you want to talk social conditioning expressed through narrative expectation then you really couldn't get anything more conventional than this ending.

We've seen it all before:

Act I: Fish-out-of-Water character arrives and begins winning over a dubious, dysfunctional community Act II: Bonding, hijinks, missteps, complications and development Act III: Revelations of growth. Community sadly waves goodbye to teacher they love but no longer need. Cue credits with moving song choice.

It's as cliche, conventional and predictable as it gets. And I could condescendingly accuse every viewer who enjoyed this ending as being blindly and un-self-reflexively led around by their social conditioning. But even if I'm not one of the showrunners who also played a beloved character and who is speaking on a public forum, that would be a pretty fucking shitty move. What I am saying is that the disagreement over this ending speaks to some core ideological differences currently playing out across the globe around patriarchy, feminism, queerness and privilege. There is an opportunity here to examine what we socioculturally view as “good’ and “right” and “happy”. These ideas of good, right and happy are not necessarily benign and will be inevitably reflected in and reproduced by our art.

PATRIARCHY:

In the end, “Ted Lasso” literally chose patriarchy (but what kind is the question). Just because this show was working with a familiar 3-part structure, that doesn't mean it didn't need to justify Ted's inevitable departure. For many people, his son is enough. That's it. End of conversation. Henry trumps all. And yes, this was always going to be the justification used by the series. But I think this disagreement highlights changing attitudes to modern parenting. Everyone agrees that parenting requires sacrifice: large and small, everyday and lifelong. But how much sacrifice is too much?

For some people, this was too much sacrifice. Others seem to think it was Ted's duty to sacrifice for his son his own sense of family and community, his continued health and growth, his professional fulfilment. Imo, he could have shared all of this with him but chose old-school parental sacrifice instead. I consider this kind of sacrifice to be something that culturally we’re coming to recognise as unhealthy, for both parent and child. In reality, parents are more than one thing. Parents have jobs, interests, relationships, needs, limitations and struggles. Parents are people.

In the series, Ted was established as a person: a person with a sad past, a tortured inner world, a strong desire to connect with others and, potentially, a brighter future than his past. From the beginning, his relationship with Michelle was established (and often reinforced) as over, dead, absolutely no route back in. But his relationship with his son was loving and important to him. Of course it was. He’d be a bad man and unlikeable character if it wasn’t. Even so, Henry isn’t a major or fully realised character in this show. We care about him, relate to him through Ted. He matters to us because he matters to Ted. But frankly, we are far more attached to Ted’s other adopted “children”, the relationships we have watched him develop over 3 years, than the relationship we only saw glimpses of. That’s just narrative reality. In reality, yes, Henry would and should be Ted’s first priority. This is only right. In fiction, the team at Richmond should have been the first priority of Jason and the rest of the writing team. They are the ones we want to see and want to see happy and settled.

As many frustrated viewers have stated, it's not Ted's departure that is so disheartening but how it was done. If the TL team wanted to make this choice seem like a healthy one for Ted then they needed to establish other things waiting for him in Kansas: friends, community, employment, fulfillment. As it was, literally nothing tipped the scales in favour of Kansas. There were no romantic, community or larger familial relationships to get back to. Far too much was just left to inference or imagination. Yes, we can assume that Ted has community in Kansas, that he will probably get a great job after his success in Richmond. But all the people and opportunities we would like to infer/imagine will never tip the balance towards Kansas when we consider all we KNOW is already established for him in Richmond. The homeworld and beloved characters of a show will always hold more emotional weight than anything undefined and hypothetical. If viewers were to be happy with Ted’s exit then the writers needed to take the time to lovingly define his future away from the club.

Instead, it seems like a deliberate choice to shut Ted down and perform (and I do mean “perform”) this marvelous sacrifice for his son that so many think is admirable. It’s this shutdown that is so inconsistent and confusing. Because at any time in the hour, Ted could have said to Rebecca, the Diamond Dogs and/or his team:

“Look y'all this ain't the end. We’re family now. I'll be back. I'll show y'all round Kansas anytime you wanna visit. My mom will cook a dinner that will clog your arteries. And every so often, what say we do a long-distance movie night, huh? I'll miss you all but I’ll be watching every game and I can't wait to come back and see you win the whole fucking thing!!”

Ted could have been a model of honest, expressive, emotionally forthcoming, relationship-maintaining masculinity. But nope. Not a word. Just brave male sacrifice. It's straight up patriarchal propaganda. And truth is, fathers sacrifice way less than mothers do in heterosexual parenting relationships. Mothers are generally the ones making those small, everyday sacrifices that our society rarely acknowledges or admires. But I bet this ending makes all those lazy husbands and boyfriends feel real good about themselves. I bet it makes many female partners feel all warm and fuzzy to know that even though their kids’ father won't share half the labour that goes into raising a child, when it comes time for him to perform a massive manly sacrifice for his family, he toootttaaally will. I'm sorry, what were you saying about social conditioning Mr. Hunt?

FATHER GOD or WHITE SAVIOUR?:

Patriarchy needs its Father Gods and its Mother Gods to play certain roles (tho, to paraphrase Angela Carter, both are as silly as each other.) These magical figures materialise at pivotal times then dematerialise when the narrative is over, the pivotal lessons learned. They never themselves learn or alter. Think Mary Poppins or Nanny McPhee. These figures are not entirely human, they possess an element of the supernatural. They serve others, serve a higher purpose. Nanny McPhee's appearance changes only as a reflection of her charges’ growth. Mary Poppins – the figure to whom Ted is most likened – learns to care about her kids but she doesn't engage in any self-introspection. Her duty and trajectory remains unchanged. When she arrives at her next job, she will do so exactly the same as she was.

These otherworldly mother deities are not unproblematic feminist figures themselves. But creating a male, fatherhood deity becomes even more problematic when he is white, cis-het and pretty able. Ted arrives to teach all the black and brown lost boys, to unite the disconnected women, liberate the closeted gays and to update the bumbling English gentlemen (there is, I feel, a special relish in these American bros educating their former colonisers on modern manhood). Here, we start to stray into white saviour territory. Frighteningly, this kind of patriarchal demi-god implies that white men are the most progressive figures in a society, they are in the political vanguard, championing the needs of the disconnected and downtrodden. White men are the ultimate source of wisdom, kindness and progress. It represents them as a group as progressive, when in reality the attitudes and politics of this group represent conservative politics and regressive values that impede the progress of every other marginalised group. If we buy this myth about white men, then we are more likely to accept what they say to us from their positions of power and privilege as right, wise, kind and progressive, even when it is the opposite.

So, if you are going to put forward a white man as a model of progressive politics, then you need to embrace unconventionality, not just superficially but down to your bones. “Ted Lasso” tried to structure s2 and s3 differently but just ended up making a mess of allusions and ideologies that did not connect, cohere, develop or conclude. In fact, sometimes they straight-up contradicted.  Employing a magical 3-part structure and making a bunch of meaningless allusions to well-known classics does not another classic make. They did not engage with any of these classics (“Cheers”, “Mary Poppins”, “The Wizard of Oz”) in any deep or critical way. Classics may be loved but they are not faultless. If you simply repeat what has already been done, even in celebrated classics, you may just end up repeating mistakes someone already made for you to learn from. TL repeats the central feminist problem of parental deities in “Mary Poppins”, just as it repeats the irreconcilable ending of “The Wizard of Oz”.

LIMINALITY:

Both “The Wizard of Oz” and “Mary Poppins” take us into strange liminal worlds. “Ted Lasso” could be read similarly, except that Ted doesn't take any magic home with him. In fact, he seems to actively forget it, reverting to the Ted he was before leaving. No queerness or feminism follows him home, no traces of the various cultures he's come into contact with. The liminal remain liminal with no indication that these two worlds will communicate or can integrate. The non-white, female, queer and otherwise bizarre are left outside of Ted’s squeaky clean hometown heteronormativity. And I really don’t think I have to explain why that is so deeply irresponsible. Because again, this is a writing choice.

That epilogue at the end was brief but imagine if it included more detail: Ted texting with Rebecca, or facetiming with Roy, Jamie giving Henry advice. They didn't take the time to honour and continue these relationships or integrate these two worlds. They didn't suggest that responsible fatherhood could entail many things, could look different. “Sacrifice,” they said profoundly. “Fatherhood,” they murmured mistily. “Patriarchy” was their final word to which this feminist says, “Bullshit.”

PRIVILEGE:  

I only did one film unit at uni but it really doesn't take much to deconstruct the absurdly inconsistent ending of “The Wizard of Oz”. It was 1939, the end of the Great Depression and the start of another devastating world war. People needed to be convinced that their small ramshackle b/w lives surrounded by loved ones were stable, noble even. They already had everything they needed. They didn't need Oz. They didn't need bright futures, big adventures or exciting opportunities. Monochrome Kansas was all a good American should ever hope for. There was danger in difference, safety at home.

Well, here we are in late-stage capitalistic hell, having come through (???) a pandemic and it takes a special sort of privilege to say to an audience: you don't need money or opportunity or community, they won't make your life any better than before. Be happy with the muddy and mundane. Be happy with what you've got. Turn away from larger community, greater knowledge, continued stability, and isolate yourself in a bubble of you and yours. Look, it's not a sweet or familiar narrative conclusion but the truth is, Ted’s, Henry’s and Michelle’s lives would have all been better if they'd relocated to London. Do these dolts have any idea what teachers (in the USA esp) are currently going through? How overworked and underpaid and undervalued these people are? The burnout rates?? Ted didn't have to take the highest salary Rebecca offered but, had the writers been willing to put in the effort, a more unconventional, more modern ending to this series could have been crafted.

Not that I'm surprised they took the easy road to glory. All indications from the beginning of s3 suggested that this would be the rather predictable conclusion. Indications do not, however, constitute development. This team had the opportunity to write a new ending to an old story, one that incorporated queer, feminist and anti-capitalist values. One that defined a different, new version of patriarchy. They didn't even think to. In their white boi hubris, they just assumed that they and tradition knew best. Considering how many viewers would be struggling right now for food, housing, employment and opportunity, an ending in which Ted turns down an opportunity like this hits a false, rather virtue-signally note. Literally, nobody would have come out worse. Everybody would have benefitted from Ted staying in Richmond. Which means this decision was made purely to manufacture a “moment” that celebrates patriarchy.

ANTICAPITALISM: There’s a reason they had Rebecca offer Ted the biggest salary in his industry. They wanted to make it NotAboutTheMoney! Ted doesn’t say so (doesn’t say anything) but, because this narrative idea is so fucking familiar, we can assume the thoughts behind his oh-so-sage expression are: “Well, shucks now, boss, I rightly do appreciate the kindly offer but that there kid o’ mine is more important to me than any cash you could put in my silly lil handy-hands.” Good Lord. The cringe is real. I really, really can’t with this mighty, manly silence and sacrifice. My problem isn’t that Ted values his son over money (not that it has to be a choice because that money could benefit Henry and his mother, who is owed a heck of a lot of child support esp since she’s been raising their son solo for 3 years). Again, that is how it should be. My problem is that the show actively established Richmond as an anticapitalist landscape, then suddenly at the eleventh hour, tried to walk that back and imply it was actually a capitalistic landscape (in contrast to homey ole Kansas).  

Capitalism teaches us to sniff at money. We've been told by the monied and privileged that it won't buy happiness. (This is of course, utter bullshit because money can buy you a hell of a lot of wellbeing, security and opportunity). At the beginning of the series, Rebecca Welton stands for this principle. And by the end, she has found a way to use her extreme wealth and privilege in an ethical way. She gives it away. She supports others. She lets Sam out of a promotional contract, she funds Keeley’s business, she sells half the club to fans. The most obvious example of Rebecca’s anticapitalist politics is her confrontation with all the richy riches who want to take soccer away from the people. Here, she becomes an anticapitalist leader, one who has been positively influenced by the anticapitalistic politics of The Lasso Way.

The Lasso Way is anticapitalistic in that it stresses that winning isn’t everything. You try but you try together. You play hard, not in order to beat the other guy, but to be the best (player, teammate, man) you can be. There are no individual stars, only collaborative team players. You give due credit to others, the team, the support staff. The club functions well when it functions as a unit. Over the course of the series, it becomes a commune that protects and nurtures its citizens. A socialist haven that values people over profits, prizes and meaningless acquisition. The Greyhounds don’t want to win the league for the money or the top spot. Winning the whole fucking thing is an expression of their regard for each other, the game and the new, kinder ethos they all now live by.

Because they spent 3 years establishing all of this (during a time when we really needed to hear it), there is something v disingenuous about them then having Rebecca offer to go to extremes to pay Ted more money than any man should have. It is not consistent with the show’s themes, the ethos of the club, Rebecca’s attitude or what she knows of Ted. She knows it’s not about the money for Ted. It never was. It’s an act of desperation on her part, but why did they need to make her ridiculous, desperate, so inept in this moment? Hannah plays it beautifully but I can’t help but feel this is part of them diminishing Richmond, (re)casting it as excessively capitalistic in relation to Kansas so that they can turn Ted’s decision into a simple Money < Son choice. Because if it is a Money < Son choice then he has no dilemma. There is no other choice. He goes home to his son. The problem is, they’ve just spent 3 years proving that it is not a simple Money < Son dilemma. Money was never actually part of this equation. Ted left to give Michelle space, to find himself, to find a new life and community, to extend himself beyond what he knew as normal. As such, there is now far more than just money for Ted in Richmond (which tbf, Rebecca also points out, but I still think this point stands).  

The other major problem is that, here in the real world, middle-class America (which btw does not exist) is far from being a haven of peace and prosperity comparable to nowhere in the world. This is a lazy cliché than any amount of travel should quickly disabuse you of. And yet in Kansas, we are supposed to believe, despite everything happening in America (referenced by Henry in ep 3.01), Ted will find community, opportunity and stability. To pull off this ending, they needed to establish a Kansas unlike the one currently in existence. This is what they did with Richmond. The UK is no better than the US currently, but they nevertheless established an ideal society, one with values very contrary to the world we now live in. Is it any wonder that people saw the desertion of this world as a rejection of feminist, queer and anticapitalist values? Right now, more than ever, people want to believe in a society that isn't all about triumph, success, competition, acquisition, individualism and aggression. They want to believe in a society that emphasises community, values people, shares wealth, offers opportunity, encourages difference, improves lives and moves onward, forward, in circumspect but ethical steps. These themes were all there in the series. They just weren't utilised when it came time to shape its conclusion.