Last edited by a moderator:
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Soccer fan violence
- Thread starter RoosTah
- Start date
I had to write a 30 page paper on this a few years back, so I'll lend my opinion. I'm from the US, but I've got a father who's from Liverpool, and we're all massive Everton supporters. I've been to the UK and Australia quite a few times for good periods of time to see family as well, so I'm not writing from a totally American perspective.
First, to explain soccer's atmosphere, you need to look at the game itself. Compared to sports like rugby, it's a lot harder to see whats coming. Soccer can be a long stream of passes followed by a shot or breakaway out of nowhere. Rugby has this type of thing too, no doubt, but a sudden breakthrough in a gap is a lot more rare in rugby than it is in soccer. This kind of constant anticipation in soccer lends itself better to getting a crowd riled up. A good analogy is running -- rugby is constant cardio, whereas football is cardio broken up by sudden sprints. Obviously there are always exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, football has a lot more anticipation and unknown than sports like rugby (in rugby you can drive the ball down the field in phase after phase, in football it only takes seconds).
The second thing you need to look at is the origins of football, specifically when the modern game came into existence in the late 19th/early 20th century. This is a point in time where the class argument cannot be negated. With football growing in popularity and largely becoming a sport of the working class, football clubs became more than just football clubs. Each club took on a distinctive class, regional, or religious identity, and represented the community of that identity. For example, Everton was (in the early 20th century, not so much now) considered the working class Irish team of Liverpool, Celtic was the Catholic team of Glasgow, Tottenham was a Jewish North London team, and so on. However, as you moved into the 1900s, these identities still existed, but failed to result in mass football violence until the later half of the 20th century, as British culture was "distracted" during the first half -- World Wars, various political movements, and so on, all prevented Britain's culture from "needing" soccer violence.
At this point I'd just like to clarify that I'm focusing specifically on English speaking countries here. I haven't looked into places like South America enough to explain why they see violence as well, so I'm not going to try to.
But anyway, fast forward to post second world war and Britain was changing rapidly. Old social norms were being destroyed. The traditional class structure was crumbling. The Empire was collapsing, and with it Britain's sense of national pride and identity. Immigration to Britain rose, the country liberalized, and suddenly, the formerly clear definition of what was "British" was being called into question. Despite all these changes, one thing stayed the same -- football clubs. Even with the world changing around you, your football club was still your football club, and as such it became an outlet to express frustration. Social movements got mixed into football support, leading to the rise in hooliganism. A notable example is the skinhead movement, which became intertwined with football support (I'm talking about both the racist and non-racist skinheads here).
Going in to the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the collapse of the collective consensus in British politics, turn towards a neo-liberal economy, and further changes in society led to further frustration, and therefore more hooliganism. People saw football as a place to express their "Britishness" and working class identity, whether it was real or perceived. There's some irony to this as well -- although the majority of hooligans saw themselves as working class and "real" British, many of them held steady jobs, had disposable incomes, and some of the hooligan leaders were actually pretty well off and even non-white (Bill Bufford noted that some of the Man United firm leadership was black in his book among the thugs -- ironic because of the "Britishness" many of the hooligans wished to preserve). When all these factors came together, soccer became an outlet for violent frustration, only tapering off in the 90s and 2000s with a mass government response and negative response from society.
But as other people pointed out, why, in places like Australia, do we see violence without any sort of class component? Well, the answer to that lies in mass-media. If you took a poll and asked these "hooligans" if they had seen football movies like Green Street, Football Factory, the Firm, and so on, I bet most of them would say yes. Through movies and the news media, football support became associated with hooliganism, and people in places such as Australia began to imitate the stereotypical British model. And there is a class component, if you ask me. But it's not the fault of the working class. Many of these middle class hooligans want to express how tough and "working class" they are, and try to do it through hooliganism. So there is a class problem, but it's from the middle class down, not the working class up.
As to the question of why rugby support does/doesn't see the same type of violence, dependent on where you are, if you can answer that I know a few sociology professors who would love to talk to you. As others have pointed out, however, the idea of rugby being this "good ol' boys" sport with a code of honour is completely false in certain places -- somebody mentioned some New Zealand players had the mentality that they were going to rough up the "posh" British players. If you look at the incidents of where violence does pop up in rugby, I bet you can almost always find deeper reason for the violence than the sport itself. It can be racial problems, traditional regional rivalries extended into rugby, all sorts of things (or, in the example above, a perceived class divide between British and New Zealand rugby).
In conclusion, football has a long history in which outside factors caused it to become and outlet for violence. If you ask me, for the most part, sports support is not inherently violent. As with any situation where you assemble a crowd, there can always be violence, and things that happen on the pitch can cause violence off of it, but for any mass movement of violence to occur, you need factors exterior to the sport that are expressed within it. Using that model you can usually explain the majority of sports violence.
If anyone disagrees please do so. I'm interested to hear what other people think.
First, to explain soccer's atmosphere, you need to look at the game itself. Compared to sports like rugby, it's a lot harder to see whats coming. Soccer can be a long stream of passes followed by a shot or breakaway out of nowhere. Rugby has this type of thing too, no doubt, but a sudden breakthrough in a gap is a lot more rare in rugby than it is in soccer. This kind of constant anticipation in soccer lends itself better to getting a crowd riled up. A good analogy is running -- rugby is constant cardio, whereas football is cardio broken up by sudden sprints. Obviously there are always exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, football has a lot more anticipation and unknown than sports like rugby (in rugby you can drive the ball down the field in phase after phase, in football it only takes seconds).
The second thing you need to look at is the origins of football, specifically when the modern game came into existence in the late 19th/early 20th century. This is a point in time where the class argument cannot be negated. With football growing in popularity and largely becoming a sport of the working class, football clubs became more than just football clubs. Each club took on a distinctive class, regional, or religious identity, and represented the community of that identity. For example, Everton was (in the early 20th century, not so much now) considered the working class Irish team of Liverpool, Celtic was the Catholic team of Glasgow, Tottenham was a Jewish North London team, and so on. However, as you moved into the 1900s, these identities still existed, but failed to result in mass football violence until the later half of the 20th century, as British culture was "distracted" during the first half -- World Wars, various political movements, and so on, all prevented Britain's culture from "needing" soccer violence.
At this point I'd just like to clarify that I'm focusing specifically on English speaking countries here. I haven't looked into places like South America enough to explain why they see violence as well, so I'm not going to try to.
But anyway, fast forward to post second world war and Britain was changing rapidly. Old social norms were being destroyed. The traditional class structure was crumbling. The Empire was collapsing, and with it Britain's sense of national pride and identity. Immigration to Britain rose, the country liberalized, and suddenly, the formerly clear definition of what was "British" was being called into question. Despite all these changes, one thing stayed the same -- football clubs. Even with the world changing around you, your football club was still your football club, and as such it became an outlet to express frustration. Social movements got mixed into football support, leading to the rise in hooliganism. A notable example is the skinhead movement, which became intertwined with football support (I'm talking about both the racist and non-racist skinheads here).
Going in to the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the collapse of the collective consensus in British politics, turn towards a neo-liberal economy, and further changes in society led to further frustration, and therefore more hooliganism. People saw football as a place to express their "Britishness" and working class identity, whether it was real or perceived. There's some irony to this as well -- although the majority of hooligans saw themselves as working class and "real" British, many of them held steady jobs, had disposable incomes, and some of the hooligan leaders were actually pretty well off and even non-white (Bill Bufford noted that some of the Man United firm leadership was black in his book among the thugs -- ironic because of the "Britishness" many of the hooligans wished to preserve). When all these factors came together, soccer became an outlet for violent frustration, only tapering off in the 90s and 2000s with a mass government response and negative response from society.
But as other people pointed out, why, in places like Australia, do we see violence without any sort of class component? Well, the answer to that lies in mass-media. If you took a poll and asked these "hooligans" if they had seen football movies like Green Street, Football Factory, the Firm, and so on, I bet most of them would say yes. Through movies and the news media, football support became associated with hooliganism, and people in places such as Australia began to imitate the stereotypical British model. And there is a class component, if you ask me. But it's not the fault of the working class. Many of these middle class hooligans want to express how tough and "working class" they are, and try to do it through hooliganism. So there is a class problem, but it's from the middle class down, not the working class up.
As to the question of why rugby support does/doesn't see the same type of violence, dependent on where you are, if you can answer that I know a few sociology professors who would love to talk to you. As others have pointed out, however, the idea of rugby being this "good ol' boys" sport with a code of honour is completely false in certain places -- somebody mentioned some New Zealand players had the mentality that they were going to rough up the "posh" British players. If you look at the incidents of where violence does pop up in rugby, I bet you can almost always find deeper reason for the violence than the sport itself. It can be racial problems, traditional regional rivalries extended into rugby, all sorts of things (or, in the example above, a perceived class divide between British and New Zealand rugby).
In conclusion, football has a long history in which outside factors caused it to become and outlet for violence. If you ask me, for the most part, sports support is not inherently violent. As with any situation where you assemble a crowd, there can always be violence, and things that happen on the pitch can cause violence off of it, but for any mass movement of violence to occur, you need factors exterior to the sport that are expressed within it. Using that model you can usually explain the majority of sports violence.
If anyone disagrees please do so. I'm interested to hear what other people think.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,397
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
only tapering off in the 90s and 2000s with a mass government response and negative response from society
Wrong it was the rave scene in the early 90s that caused it to taper off.
Many of these middle class hooligans want to express how tough and "working class" they are, and try to do it through hooliganism. So there is a class problem, but it's from the middle class down, not the working class up.
Excellent point well made.
In conclusion, football has a long history in which outside factors caused it to become and outlet for violence. If you ask me, for the most part, sports support is not inherently violent. As with any situation where you assemble a crowd, there can always be violence, and things that happen on the pitch can cause violence off of it, but for any mass movement of violence to occur, you need factors exterior to the sport that are expressed within it. Using that model you can usually explain the majority of sports violence.
Wrong! The only major sport that has crowd violence is Football. Its the only major sport where rival fans are kept apart. This only happens in Football not in any other sport and frankly they can keep it.
PS Green street is possibly the worst film ever made.
Wrong it was the rave scene in the early 90s that caused it to taper off.
Many of these middle class hooligans want to express how tough and "working class" they are, and try to do it through hooliganism. So there is a class problem, but it's from the middle class down, not the working class up.
Excellent point well made.
In conclusion, football has a long history in which outside factors caused it to become and outlet for violence. If you ask me, for the most part, sports support is not inherently violent. As with any situation where you assemble a crowd, there can always be violence, and things that happen on the pitch can cause violence off of it, but for any mass movement of violence to occur, you need factors exterior to the sport that are expressed within it. Using that model you can usually explain the majority of sports violence.
Wrong! The only major sport that has crowd violence is Football. Its the only major sport where rival fans are kept apart. This only happens in Football not in any other sport and frankly they can keep it.
PS Green street is possibly the worst film ever made.
1. Got that mixed up, you are correct.
2. Thank you
3. Not sure if I was being 100% clear here, but I think we're making the same point. I'm saying that assembling a crowd to watch a sporting event does not necessarily make the crowd any more violent than a crowd assembled for any other purpose. If you put a large number of people into a single space, there is always the potential for violence (which explains some of the isolated incidents we've seen in sports such as rugby). However, this potential is usually low enough to not require fan segregation. You are correct, however, that football is the only sport that does require it (a result of the sports history and other factors, as explained in the previous post).
What I was trying to say is that violence can still happen in other sports, but it's almost always a result of the inherent potential for violence in a crowd, not a result of a prevailing trend in the sport. You put enough people together, some of them aren't going to like each other, but it doesn't mean the sport causes violence. In football though, because of the history, there is a much higher potential for violence than with any other sports crowd, leading to segregation, as you pointed out.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,397
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Why is it then given the histories of England and Scotland that there is never violence between the fans at Calcutta cup matches? Yet England Scotland football home internationals were stopped because of crowd violence? This is in England at least a Football only problem.
First of all, let me just restate my point. As TRF_Littleguy pointed out, the majority of the violence he has seen in places such as North America (and I agree with him) has been the result of alcohol, drug, or idiot related. This is an example of how a sports crowd can experience violence without the sport itself actually being the cause for the violence.
That's a good question, and not one with an easy answer. You are correct that football has a much higher incidence of violence. That's a point we both agree on. In my opinion, it's most likely a result of football becoming an outlet for social frustration. In the early 1900s, regardless of what was actually true or not, football was seen as the working class sport and rugby the upper class sport. As such, football fans were generally given a rougher and more violent image, which led to football fans feeling more comfortable with acting violently as it was stereotypically what they were supposed to do. Football violence became a self sustaining model: Original incidents of football violence ----> Football fans portrayed as violent ----> Other football fans try to fit in to this portrayal ---> more football violence. Rugby never saw this type of mass violence, and therefore never gained the violent image, causing rugby crowds to become much better behaved. So yes, you are correct, this is a football specific problem.
None...perhaps it's the wrong tone I'm putting across. I'm merely outlining the differences in behaviour of the three sports. One being rooted in the working class is more tribal, the other two being middle class are more refined. I should add that football could do with a touch of middle class refinement, post match interviews.."at the end of the day"..."game of two halfs"..provide little or no analysis in comparison to Rugby players.
Football spread in a huge variety of ways...read up about the origin of AC Milan, Barcelona, Juventus...different story to each one.
Oh I know it's from an England persective...I can only really speak of what I've seen.
"Euro snobs" who riot?....sounds like a contradiction there. Cricket and Rugby are very English (thus European) so I guess the Aussie rugby folks are snobs too? You've lost me mate
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
It does sound like a contradiction doesn't it? But it's true, which is why a lot of Australians like me can't help but conclude that there is an almost violence inducing element to the nature of the sport itself. How else to you explain the lack of violence in the quintessential working-mans game of Rugby League in Australia compared with the middle class euro-wannabe white collar tossers who watch soccer here? It's baffling. I mean, I sorta get it with the Western Sydney crowd, as they're a little less white collar, but the Sydney FC guys have been carrying on just as bad lately, and they're represent some of the wealthiest parts of Sydney.
And whilst all the games are originally English, soccer in Australia is viewed as almost a symbol of the European Union. The people who follow it all carry on about how their patronage of the game is a cultural pursuit and think that it makes them sophisticated. They have the most pompous attitude of any set of fans in the country, and they don't seem to realise the irony of their position.
Interestingly enough, Rugby isn't viewed as particularly English and neither is League. Perhaps it's because Australia has driven many of the rule changes that have transformed both games we consider them just as much Australian inventions as English ones. Soccer has never really been 'our' game though - it's always been a very foreign pursuit for those not tough enough for contact sport.
Also, as getting back to class - I'd argue that Australian Football is even more quintessentially working class in its history. Indeed, the game was so anti-establishment and anti-authority that they initially rejected the use of referees out of a distrust for authority. Instead they agreed that the captains of both sides would jointly perform the function (the idea being you had to be fair to prevent reprisals.).
Lastly, why are you writing from an English perspective? You're Irish aren't you? Half my family is Irish and most of them I know call the game 'soccer' like we do and reckon it's too pommy to get into (yet strangely still don't mind Rugby - even if Gaelic Footy is their first love).
Last edited:
FCBayernDM
Academy Player
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 23
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I'm quite a big football fan, and in my experience in German Football people who are violent towards other fans/the police are almost always associated with either Neo-Nazis groups or the extreme left. They use football as a means to push their agenda and as a way to get into confrontations.
I think rugby in New Zealand tends to be less violent because most of the munters who are affiliated with 'gangs' and enjoy holliganism...play and watch rugby league. The Warriors have by far and away the most annoying and aggressive sports fans in New Zealand. Not everyone is obviously - lots of great Warriors fans - but you do tend to find that there is a rougher crowd that enjoys the nature of league than union (within New Zealand).
Soccer fans here tend to be middle class dudes or imagrants, but they're not really all that roudy or salient - just usually pretty fickle.
There is no real association of rugby as an 'English' sport in New Zealand. Many I think in New Zealand, feel its just as much ours as anyones because the important parts its played in our culture and national identity as well as our historical success. I guess it's probably similar to how India would percieve of cricket.
Soccer fans here tend to be middle class dudes or imagrants, but they're not really all that roudy or salient - just usually pretty fickle.
There is no real association of rugby as an 'English' sport in New Zealand. Many I think in New Zealand, feel its just as much ours as anyones because the important parts its played in our culture and national identity as well as our historical success. I guess it's probably similar to how India would percieve of cricket.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
The other important point you're missing is that NZ and Australia have driven virtually every rule change in the game (whilst Australia has pretty well driven every post WWII change in RL), so the sports are quite literally more collaborative efforts at this stage than straight British exports like soccer. I'd say Cricket too, but again, Australia has been heavily involved in almost every development in the sport as well.
Nah, Cricket and Ruggers are as English as an English garden.
Tbh it has always baffled me how cricket, the most genteel game on the planet, became so popular in Australia. The game seems like the total opposite of what you'd expect of an Aussie ruffian. Folks in their "whites", lots of walking around..then a little gallop and bowl, after a few gentle overs they "come off for tea". I can't wrap my head around this riddle. Perhaps it's tradition?
When you mention the EU I'm guessing it's Aussie Croats?, Greeks?, Italians?...now that I could quite understand. Eastern Europeans ain't as civilised as us in the west and haven't yet grasped to how to behave properly. They also have a race problem.
Yes I'm Irish...and dominated by British culture. We have Gaelic football (come on Tyrone) and hurling, but British sports (football and Rugby) are big here also. The amount of people who travel over to England on a weekly basis to watch Premier League games is huge. There's more Man United and Liverpool fans (and Celtic if we include Scotland) here than fans of teams in any other sport. In PE at school, I'd say 80-90% wore football jerseys (again, mostly those three teams...as well as the Ireland national team obviously), the remainder would primarily be gaelic tops.
Tbh it has always baffled me how cricket, the most genteel game on the planet, became so popular in Australia. The game seems like the total opposite of what you'd expect of an Aussie ruffian. Folks in their "whites", lots of walking around..then a little gallop and bowl, after a few gentle overs they "come off for tea". I can't wrap my head around this riddle. Perhaps it's tradition?
When you mention the EU I'm guessing it's Aussie Croats?, Greeks?, Italians?...now that I could quite understand. Eastern Europeans ain't as civilised as us in the west and haven't yet grasped to how to behave properly. They also have a race problem.
Yes I'm Irish...and dominated by British culture. We have Gaelic football (come on Tyrone) and hurling, but British sports (football and Rugby) are big here also. The amount of people who travel over to England on a weekly basis to watch Premier League games is huge. There's more Man United and Liverpool fans (and Celtic if we include Scotland) here than fans of teams in any other sport. In PE at school, I'd say 80-90% wore football jerseys (again, mostly those three teams...as well as the Ireland national team obviously), the remainder would primarily be gaelic tops.
Last edited:
:lol:
In tears....had to pause it after 30 seconds to catch my breath. That sir is the funniest thing I've seen in yonks.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
It's not complicated really; it's just little brother syndrome. Australians have always relished beating England at sports, and there's little more satisfying than beating their gentry at their most 'genteel' sport. That's how it started in any case - Australia and England have since turned cricket into an aggressive and bitter pursuit of threats, attempts at physical harm and just down right nasty name calling.
Not really... I would say that most of the Sydney FC fans are Anglo-celtic ethnically, whilst the WSW are more Lebanese than croats and greek. The common theme with your average white anglo Australian soccer fan however, is that they act like being a soccer fan is being a curator in a fine art museum that houses the works of all the greats around the world. That's why their hooliganism is so ridiculous; they're snobs through and through for the most part. In fact I'd argue they're much more like the cliche of a British Rugby fan.
I'm baffled tbh...can't really offer an explanation. The Lebanese one would make sense, but Anglo-celts has me puzzled. I'd need to experience whatever goes on for myself to work it out.
On to cricket...so tradition (and to beat the English) is the reason then. Shane Warne...great character, surfer type bloke, likes a beer and a barbie...the sport he plays is the polar opposite of his character. How does he keep his mind occupied over a five day marathon? The same question applies to Aussie fans. The game seems so out of character with Australia. The 20-20 game is much more Australian...bish bash over and done in a couple of hours, no stuffy dress codes, bit of rock music between intervals, a few pools in the outfield with people diving in..the game is a happenin.
On to cricket...so tradition (and to beat the English) is the reason then. Shane Warne...great character, surfer type bloke, likes a beer and a barbie...the sport he plays is the polar opposite of his character. How does he keep his mind occupied over a five day marathon? The same question applies to Aussie fans. The game seems so out of character with Australia. The 20-20 game is much more Australian...bish bash over and done in a couple of hours, no stuffy dress codes, bit of rock music between intervals, a few pools in the outfield with people diving in..the game is a happenin.
I don't think the segregation in football helps either. I know in some games it is essential due to rivalries but when you stick a large groups together it's inevitable a lot of the people will conform to the attitude of a small group around them and get aggressive.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Cricket's popularity in the Commonwealth probably has a lot to do with the weather...
When it's 35 degrees+ the last thing you want to be doing is running around.
When it's 35 degrees+ the last thing you want to be doing is running around.
Similar threads
