Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. I , 29-32 (1991)

Commentary

Football Fans: Fanatics or Friends?

PAUL MATHIAS New Scotland Yard, Broadway, London S WlH OBG

The paper by Zani and Kirchler provides an account of the behaviour of football fans who attend the home matches of Naples and Bologna Football Clubs in Italy. It indicates the possible factors influencing violence and develops a profile of the football hooligan: the results obtained appear to support the traditional stereotypes held about football fans. For our present purposes it invites a comparison of the British football fan and facilitates an examination of Lord Justice Taylor’s recommen- dations made in light of the Inquiry into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster-the tragic event in England that claimed the lives of 95 football fans on 15 April 1989. This was an event that was so traumatic that not only have relatives successfully claimed compensation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but many others have snapshot memories of what they were doing on that afternoon. I myself was on duty at Arsenal Football Stadium in North London assisting in policing a League match-a task I have performed for two seasons at a premier League club, attracting crowds of 40,000 or more and possessing the potential for real hooliganism. The work of Zani and Kirchler (1991) presents an interesting backcloth against which to evaluate current trends in English football.

The ‘fans’ who travel to Arsenal Football Stadium come from the fullest variety of backgrounds. They may live in North London or travel several hundreds of miles. Some are out of work, others are national celebrities or extremely wealthy people. Many are aged 15-25 years although there are 3 and 4 year olds as well as those of 70 plus years. Many watch each match, others select particular games and some people come for the company. The mixture is fascinating and denies any true classifi- cation. Certainly to imply that football crowds are comprised of home and away supporters is misleading, there are many neutrals. At Arsenal matches there are sometimes 30CL500 Scandinavian visitors who do not necessarily have any team allegiance. To divide supporters into ‘fanatics’ or ‘moderates’ as Zani and Kirchler do would not fit easily with British fans.

Before each match the same group of supporters, wearing the clearest of uniforms; with hats, scarves, club tracksuits, wait at the main entrance before the match, and at the players’ exit after the game, in all weathers for long periods, and seemingly for the scantiest of rewards in terms of interest or attention from players and other

1052-928419110 10029-04$05.00 0 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 26 February 1991

30 P. Mathias

officials. Yet, this group is very territorial in where it watches the match, generates strong emotions, and is very close in respect of the relationships expressed between members of the group. A feature of their relationships within the group and beyond is one of friendliness. They have a strong desire to demonstrate that friendliness at every opportunity by engaging others in conversation, making light of adverse weather conditions and organising competitions to entertain themselves and others. Interestingly, in their openness towards others, they share the knowledge that many (a clear majority) are unemployed, are of low intellectual ability and are from poor social backgrounds. Their behaviour is clearly that of ‘fanatics’ but their attitudes are those of friendly fans.

Some would claim that their low social status and lack of contact with other groups accounts for their particular type of fanatical behaviour. However, the group is both very conscious of their actions, and the members often meet and relate to opposition groups. Both as individuals and as a group, they satisfy the ingredients associated with football hooligans, yet appear not to display or practise any forms of violence. The existence of such groups adds another dimension to the complex matrix of football fan groupings.

There are other group phenomena in which friendliness and humour are evident in activities off the pitch. The ‘Mexican wave’ is an intriguing example of total group expression and involvement. While perhaps capturing and reflecting the com- mon norm of the group (Sherif, 1986), it seems more than that in terms of its coordi- nated expressive style and physical energy. Another example is the spontaneous chant, joke or comment that can be made by the whole crowd. While sometimes directed at a player, official or some independent incident, I have also witnessed the crowd laughing at themselves. The spontaneity, infection and speed of response demonstrate a unity and friendship that should not be overlooked.

It does not mean that violence is not present or should be ignored. Certainly there is aggressive behaviour but it is more isolated and often triggered by particular incidents. On the North Bank at Arsenal where some 17,000 home fans stand, pre- match chanting and surging can seem very aggressive and intimidating. Closer exam- ination shows that it is not directed at any opposing group, but is a form of ritualistic behaviour that is performed each home game (cf Marsh et al., 1978). It may serve to consolidate group identification and affirm territory, but has no violent outcome. However, on the South Bank of the ground, where home and visiting supporters stand there are moments of incitement, testing of strengths and actual battles. Much of what Zani and Kirchler, and others describe does take place. It may be preceded by the apparent arrival of ‘apprentices’, much younger predominantly male fans, who occupy strategic areas in the middle of terraces close to the dividing line with opposing fans. This happens, perhaps, two hours before the start of the game and serves as a focal point for others to group around them. Early activities centre on ‘eyeing’ the opposing fans as they arrive and then posturing with chants and taunts. Rarely is any actual physical contact made. On extreme occasions missiles have been thrown but there is often little reaction from visiting fans. The very small number of hard core trouble makers then arrive and position themselves to the rear and some little distance from the ‘apprentice’ group. They form themselves into a noticeable tightly knit group in terms of physical closeness. Then just before the start, in the early part of the game and towards the end of the game attacks are sometimes made. The hard core at the back start jumping about and then surge

Footbal1fans:fanatics or friends 3 1

forward. The momentum gathers as people in front are pushed forward and ignite the ‘apprentice’ group. This has the effect of an explosion whereby the latter group explode outwards and make contact, physically, with the opposing fans. Pushing, punching, pulling and verbal abuse increase in intensity and football violence occurs. It is often short-lived due to police intervention or police strategies which reduce the likelihood of it happening or restrict its actual escalation.

At such times the features of ingroup identity are manifested and in line with those described by Zani and Kirchler. Social identity emerges more strongly than does personal identity in what are clearly ‘deindividuating’ circumstances. Placing police officers in physical proximity to the key group, clear presence of police officers videoing the group and closeness of the police control room does not significantly discourage the group preparation or always prevent violence. The understanding of the dynamics of such groups with respect to communication, relationships between key groups eg ‘apprentices’ ‘core’ and ‘splinter’, and the relevance of timing, are all matters requiring further examination.

Lord Justice Taylor in his interim and final reports (1989; 1990) arising from his inquiry into the Hillsborough Stadium disaster concluded that safety was more of an issue than was the violence associated with football. Preventing violence has been emphasised in recent years rather than ensuring safety. It is notable that a majority of the 76 recommendations made by Justice Taylor related to improving safety, through better communications, information, assessment, medical provision, accommodation and design. Only a minority of the recommendations referred to introducing new penalties to deal with aspects of crowd disorder. Government moves to introduce identity cards was effectively stopped by Taylor’s disapproval of the proposed scheme, mainly because it would not necessarily improve safety.

Lord Justice Taylor also noted the appalling conditions and lack of facilities at many football grounds. Open air lavatories, food cooked and consumed in the open, no pre-match entertainment, no shelter from the elements, and standing on sloping concrete terraces, were seen as inevitably lowering of self esteem, responsibility and reflecting an abandonment of social norms and values. Certainly conditions had changed little in the last 60-70 years for a majority of fans who in their own way were being abused and assaulted by the national game of football.

More recently the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee report on Policing Hooliganism, released on 7 February 1991, somewhat redressed the current thinking, claiming that new offences should be created and new efforts made to tackle the problem of disorder at football matches. While safety was acknowledged as being a paramount concern, the need to eradicate violence was also restated. However, the report also recommended that new attempts be made to support clubs and their supporters. In respect of the fans it argues they should be treated with dignity, not exploited and that they should be treated as partners by the clubs. Of particular interest was the proposal that desegregation of fans should now be pursued. The report mentions that only one in 17,000 fans is convicted of violence, and that criminal gangs have become ‘leeches’ at football matches.

The current philosophy reflects a new emphasis on partnership. The fan is a friend of football and in most instances is helpful, supportive and pcepared to tolerate the good and the bad. Fans predominantly deserve to be treated with respect and afforded the rights that their support has earned. Of course, there are fans who exploit the current conditions and use them to exploit violence. The work of Zani

32 P. Mathias

and Kirchler adds to the understanding of features of the individual and of the group and that promote such behaviour. However, there is a danger in seeing fans primarily as ‘fanatics’, rather than as friends of football and partners in the game itself.

As Harper (1991) suggests, greater knowledge of the many groups who attend football matches will be vital before the violent fans can be controlled and their behaviour eradicated. This is not a new problem but one whose expression changes over time. Future work should ernphasise the positive features of friendship shown by groups of fans at football matches.

REFER EN CES

Marsh, P, Rosser, E. and Harre, R. (1978). The rules of disorder. London: Routledge &

Harper, C. (1991). ‘Casual encounters’, Police Review, 272-273. Lord Justice Taylor (1991). ‘The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster-IS April 1989’. Inquiry

Lord Justice Taylor (1 990). ‘The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster-IS April 1989’. Inquiry

Kegan Paul.

by the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Taylor. Final Report, January, 1991.

by the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Taylor. Interim Report, August, 1990.