Sharing land is not unusual. Not even in the heat of football rivalries. Some of the fiercest derbies on the planet have their respective groups in the same stadium.
Inter and AC Milan, Lazio and Roma, Flamengo and Fluminense are just a few examples that show that even the most bitter rivals are capable of going toe-to-toe.
Permanent pitch stocks are much rarer in English football. Today, any attempt to merge two major rivals into a single venue would likely end in a scandal for those opposed to the European Super League.
However, this momentarily drew attention when a proposal was put forward regarding the option for Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal to move to a new stadium at Alexandra Palace.
In 1977, the Greater London Council (GLC) became interested in redeveloping the well-known Alexandra Palace recreation venue into a trendy sports complex.
Now known for hosting darts and billiards (and the Red Bull Soapbox Race), the plan is to redevelop the surrounding field into a multi-purpose space, featuring the logo of a new football stadium.
GLC had in mind to buy the grounds of Tottenham and Arsenal and the two north London rivals from Ally Pally.
The Daily Express caught wind of the story and ran a provocative headline: Arsenal Hotspurs!
With an expected capacity of 75,000 people, it would be about 3 miles (4. 8 km) from White Hart Lane and Highbury respectively.
In addition, England national team matches would be played there when domestic seasons were interrupted for internationals.
As with most things, one of the main reasons for this proposal is economics.
The Football Association’s agreement with Wembley Stadium was finalised in 1982 and considerations were raised about the viability of the stadium as a national stadium.
The modernisation of the Empire Stadium is desperately needed, with at least £1 million (over £5 million in 2024).
And being identified as a proverbial “white elephant,” not much could be done about it.
Discussing mandatory redevelopments, Wembley chief executive James Harvie-Watt said that “if we didn’t have a strong parent company, British Electric Traction, we wouldn’t be able to get the money. “
In addition, it was feared that even if renovations continued, Wembley would still be in the right condition to remain the national stadium.
Modern design features wouldn’t be a challenge at Alexandra Palace. From a monetary point of view, there would be nothing to worry about either, as Arsenal, Spurs or England would use the stadium almost every single week of the year.
From a purely financial point of view (as damaging as it may be in football), it makes sense that North London clubs would be attracted to such a project.
Their stadiums didn’t generate much profit outside of home games, and even so, attendance declined in the 1970s.
The increase in vandalism meant that the stands became hostile towards casual enthusiasts and the general public, who were understandably put off by the sport’s damaging reputation.
On the other hand, the Alexandra Palace complex is said to be not so focused on rogues and includes restaurants, shops, theaters, and an ice rink in the surrounding area.
In hindsight, it’s a very progressive vision and not unlike the billion-pound giants of today’s stadiums.
Thus, while the proposal had potential positive aspects and genuine motives, the concept itself and its intended implementation were also fraught with problems.
Apart from football politics (which we will discuss), one of the arguments against it was that Alexandra Palace did not have the shipping links that White Hart Lane and Highbury had.
Additional paint work is expected to be done to build a transport system to the stadium, although this is considered part of the proposal.
First, a branch railway would be added at nearby Wood Green Station to run along the Piccadilly line to the Great People’s Hall.
Secondly, coming from Finsbury Park or central London, a monorail would be installed. A mode of transportation that put Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map.
However, Leonard Nimoy’s help would not be needed, as GLC leader Horace Cutler rejected the idea, stating that it is “neither desirable nor practical”.
The length of the industry and the money needed for the good fortune of the task were one of the reasons why the whole proposal abandoned in 1979.
Another reason, more applicable from a football point of view, is the negative reaction from both sides of the Tottenham-Arsenal division.
“The reaction from citizens and local politicians of all parties is instantaneous and absolutely unfavorable,” Cutler said.
Arsenal and Spurs enthusiasts protested vehemently against the concept when rumours began to circulate. The very concept of bringing the two groups together in one stadium, regardless of the positive aspects, was, as it turns out today, absurd.
There has been acrimony between the two since the Gunners left Woolwich north of the Thames in 1913.
The decision to choose Arsenal for the First Division in 1919 before Tottenham’s relegation was also in the progression of the dispute.
Since then, each team has had its own successes, which has only intensified the conflict. In the early 1970s, the North London Derby became one of the biggest rivalries in the country.
Despite this, there have been events in which clubs have moved away and become, even at the strangest moments, tenants of the same stadium.
The first instance of a land department between the two adversaries occurred in World War I.
White Hart Lane was acquired by the British government and converted into a munitions factory. As a result, the Spurs have discovered other places to play their home games.
Although competitive football ended after the Great War, clubs can still play friendly matches and reserve team competitions, such as combined football.
Tottenham’s main apartments at the time were Millfields Road (the former home of Leyton Orient) and Highbury, then newly built.
Twenty years later, Arsenal found itself at the other end of the same situation when Highbury moved to a patrol centre to take precautions against air raids.
White Hart Lane remained largely open, so Arsenal opened it as a stadium during World War II.
Manchester United hosted matches at Maine Road, home of Manchester City, when Old Trafford was partially destroyed in an air raid.
These might be acts of wartime camaraderie, but in the 1970s there was at least some semblance of fun for would-be developers.
As is established, some of the biggest clubs in Europe share the same ground. Often, this is only due to monetary and logistical reasons.
San Siro, for example, has been shared since 1947. It was originally owned by AC Milan when it opened in 1926 before Internazionale became a co-owner just after World War II.
This is simply because it is more suitable for a team like Inter than its original home, the Civic Arena, which can only hold 10,000 people.
It also reduced AC Milan’s maintenance prices and made it hassle-free available to any of the fan teams.
Italy, in particular, has a very open attitude when it comes to sharing stadiums.
Roma and Lazio have the Stadio Olimpico, Genoa and Sampdoria have the Luigi Ferraris Stadium, and Chievo Verona and Hellas Verona have their home at the Stadio Marcantonio Bentegodi.
Unfortunately there is no monorail in sight.
The Maracanã is basically used through Flamengo and Fluminense Rio de Janeiro, two of the fiercest rivals in Brazilian football. The equally iconic Estadio Azteca in Mexico City is used through Club America and Cruz Azul.
Sharing the land is used almost for convenience.
Conversely, in the UK, stadium sharing is just as widespread or accepted in football. This practice is not much less unusual in non-league divisions and multi-sport rentals.
In British football, professional clubs only distribute the pitch on a temporary basis if the need requires it.
Think Charlton Athletic to Upton Park, Wimbledon to Selhurst Park or, more recently, Coventry City to St Andrew’s.
The discussion over a flat apartment between the Gunners and the Lilywhites was never on the table in the same way as it was in 1977.
Even when both groups demolished and rebuilt their stadiums in the 2000s and 2010s, sharing the box was never seriously considered.
In 2002, however, Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy completely ruled out a move to Arsenal.
“We don’t have any aim to share the pitch with Arsenal or anyone else, but it’s clear that if someone were to contact us and it was in the interest of the club and the fans, we’re not dogmatic. We would look into it. “
It should be noted that it was at this time that Arsenal’s move to the Emirates Stadium was starting to materialise, likely alongside Levy’s early visions of redeveloping White Hart Lane.
“But my point of view is the same,” Levy continued. “If it was an impartial venue, then it’s anything we’d do, it’s anything one could imagine any of the clubs would do at least. “
“But in something as emotional as this, our enthusiasts have a genuine sense of whether it would be something they would be willing to accept. “
As is well known, this did not come true either. Arsenal moved to the Emirates as soon as it opened in 2006, while Tottenham used Wembley as a base for the 2017/18 campaign.
Now that they both enjoy the comforts of their own homes, that is to say that any option to share the ordinary land to the fullest will remain a relic of the past.