Basic HTML Version
touchline feature
36 | Touchline issue 23 | April 2016
T
he problem of dealing with one member of a crowd is
simple: the stewards wade in and extract the guilty
person, whether it be for fighting, abuse or throwing
objects. When a whole section of the crowd, or even
whole stadia, starts behaving in a dangerous manner,
we are presented with a more difficult situation. Out-
numbering the stewards by an insurmountable margin,
there is not much organisers can do, unless they call in riot
police with pepper spray and water cannons.
This extreme option invariably puts an end to the match, which
brings with it the resultant points deduction, rescheduling and
loss of revenue. The last thing clubs want, these effects have put
a fire under sporting bodies and clubs to find a viable solution to
the problem of crowd behaviour.
Even outside of the stadium, fans can create havoc. They are
many examples of fans behaving badly, turning whole city
blocks into war zones and costing locals thousands of dollars in
damage. So the question has become one of responsibility. Who
should be accountable when fans run amok: the clubs or the
civil authorities?
The crimes that cause so much consternation fall into a couple
of categories. There is violence –coupled with the dangerous use
of flares and projectiles- and chanting, most significantly, the
use of racist abuse.
In recent years, clubs have been punished for the behaviour of
their fans, which have then redirected their chastisement to the
fans. A range of sanctions has been tried, but few seem to deter
fans who have decided to go a bit loco. Collective punishment is
a contestable response, because many fans will insist that it is
only a few trouble-makers responsible for all the uproar.
Turkish football is famous for the volatile nature of its fans. In
the past, the clubs have encouraged this knife-edged aggression
against opposition fans. At the Besiktas stadium in Istanbul,
when local rivals Galatasaray visit, the PA blares insulting songs
at the away fans, a sanctioned abuse that the home fans enjoy.
Once the match begins, the PA is turned off, but the abuse
flows from the home supporters for an unbroken 90 minutes.
Galatasaray players are subjected to hurled water bottles and
sometimes coins.
Turkish football has by no means been tamed, but incidents
have been significantly reduced through two measures. First,
Istanbul club Fenerbahce took the novel step of sanctioning
its own fans in 2013 by banning all men from a league fixture.
The stadium was crammed with 40,000 women and children
after racist chanting had sullied a Europa League match.
The atmosphere of the match was less aggressive but just
as passionate, and seems to place a nice balance between
collective and selective sanctioning.
The second measure put into place in Turkey makes
individual fans much more responsible for their actions. A
card called the Passolig has been introduced, and tickets for
the major clubs can only be purchased using this card. Seat
numbers are indexed through the card, and photographs and
fingerprints have to be taken before they are issued. Cameras
at the entrance of the stadia ensure that fans can be easily
recognised. The passolig system works, in that the fans cannot
hide behind anonymity.
SHOULD
CLUBS
PAY THE PRICE