RCM
When football fans behave badly we are treated to a depressingly familiar series of events. The clubs will immediately back cover. We will hear ''it was only a small minority''. In fact, it is usually a ''very small minority''.
Of course, it is usually a minority of fans chanting filth and bile but by focusing on the small numbers we see mitigation, we see obfuscation, we see back-covering. It attempts to suggest it isn't a big issue. It seeks to minimise reputational damage. It is important to remember that groups that are loud enough to be heard around a ground of tens of thousands of people making noise are probably larger than we think.
Roberto di Matteo should be commended for condemning Chelsea fans when they didn't respect the Hillsborough moment's silence at the FA Cup Semi-Final. Chelsea should also be commended for issuing a statement. That said, we should note that both have the touch of the spin doctor about their statements.
Once we get past those couched clichés, we move on to the next stage. We will hear ''these people aren't real fans'' or that ''they are so called fans''. We hear that these ''so called fans'' ruin it for everyone else. That they besmirch the good names of a great support and of a great club.
This is a nonsense. These are the sorts of people who buy season tickets. They go to away games. They are real fans. I'm a lifelong Liverpool fan from just outside the city. I rarely get to games these days (sadly). These people go every week. As Steinberg says ''They were at the game supporting West Ham. Sounds like a West Ham fan to me''. Amen to that.
Types of idiot
Football idiocy comes in many variants. There is the lone nutter. There are small groups. Less often, there is a majority of fans at a ground behaving badly.
The first group is relatively easy to deal with after the fact. Most of us can separate out the actions of a lone individual from those of a group and we recognise that even the best pre-emptive measures might not stop a lone loon. The sickening assaults on Neil Lennon and Chris Kirkland couldn't easily have been stopped. The idiot doing the monkey gestures at Anfield is probably in that bracket too. We can ban them after the fact and report to the police but we may have to live with the fact that lone idiots are just that.
Groups, however, are different. It is difficult for police and stewards to stop a few hundred people singing songs. They also have to navigate the tricky minefield of knowing what contravenes the law (or other competent regulations) and what doesn't. It might sound strange but it shouldn't. We do have a qualified right to free speech and, sometimes, we will have to put up with chants that are offensive.
What is acceptable? What is unacceptable?
To show what I mean, look at the following questions:
- Should fans be allowed to chant through a minute's silence? Are all minute's silences the same? What is the appropriate response from a club whose fans chant through a minute's silence?
- Should football fans be allowed to support political causes? For instance, should Celtic fans be allowed to sing about the IRA? Some - for instance the victims of IRA terror - might view this as offensive. Some might view support of the IRA as a legitimate political statement.
- Should football fans be allowed to sing about footballers, managers and fans? Is ''Arsene Wenger is a paedophile'' ok? Is ''Big Jock Knew''? Is ''The Famine Song''? Are songs about Munich, Hillsborough or the Ibrox Disaster? Is ''Always the Victim?''. Is hissing at Spurs fan like West Ham fans did yesterday? Is the vicious song about Sol Campbell? Is Liverpool fans booing Patrice Evra? Or Chelsea fans booing Anton Ferdinand?
- Should football fans be allowed to sing about the private lives of players? Is ''The Baby's not yours'' song which is sung at Steven Gerrard acceptable? Is ''Posh Spice takes it up the arse?''. Is singing about Billy Sharp's dead child?
- Should football fans reclaim certain words? Should Spurs fans sing ''Yid Army''? Does, as Peter Herbert suggests, the use of ''Yid Army'' legitimise anti-Semitic chants by other fans?
Some will be very offended by some of these. Some will argue that some of these are legitimate. That's the problem with offence, after all. Some would say all of the above should be banned. Others wouldn't agree. Some defend Spurs sing ''Yid Army''. Some attack at it. Both cannot be right.
Starting with question 5 as it is slightly trickier and more nuanced. I believe Herbert is well-intentioned but wrong. His argument suggests that the band NWA (Niggaz Wit Attitudes) legitimises racism towards black people. His argument suggests ''Four poofs and a piano'' legitimises homophobic abuse. His argument, or at least the logical extension of it, suggests that women who go on slut walks (perhaps wearing a t-shirt which says 'slut') legitimises people calling them, and treating them as, sluts. This, to me, is a nonsense. (Some thoughts from me on this last year).
We need to be wary of victim-blaming. What I would say is that Herbert doesn't understand Tottenham Hotspur heritage; doesn't understand the fairly simple point that Spur's fanbase is using the word to identify with the club's Jewish base (a base, remember, that has for many generations had to put up with bile from other fans - years before Spurs started chanting Yid Army); and doesn't understand the historical significance of non-Jews identifying with, supporting, and showing solidarity with Jews. This, since roughly 35AD, hasn't exactly been the norm in western civilisation. For on this I point you to the superb Dispatches From A Football Sofa.
Criminality and corporate responsibility
Moving to questions one through four, I'm tempted to answer ''Yes, within the boundaries of the law''. However, it is slightly more nuanced than that.
Sometimes chanting will be a criminal act (e.g. racist, homophobic, sectarian or anti-Semitic abuse). Sometimes filthy chanting won't be against the law.
There is nothing within the laws of the land which criminalises me making allegations about a footballer's wife's sexual peccadiloes (bar, I suppose, libel law in England and Wales or defamation in Scotland. It is unlikely a player would pursue a libel case about his wife's sexual activities). It is not, as far as I am aware, a criminal offence to chant through a minute's silence or chant disgusting things about the Munich Air Disaster. (I suppose an argument could be made this is breach of the peace but that is tangential at best).
We might agree that those chants are disgusting but it would be difficult to say that these are criminal acts.
The law is a red herring and it is clubs that have the power. Clubs are private businesses, games are optional to attend, and games take place on private property. When I go to The Oval to watch cricket I am not allowed to make a beer snake (which I could do, if I so wished, in the street).
Clubs could use similar provisions to eject supporters. They often make a plea at the start of the match but people are rarely ejected. If, for instance, Manchester United stewards randomly selected a few individuals singing about Hillsborough or Liverpool stewards randomly selected a few individuals singing about Munich and ejected them we'd probably see swift progress. We'd swifter progress if that led to season-long or life-bans or the removal of a season ticket. Fans may say this is unfair. As long as clubs made it perfectly clear this behaviour was unacceptable (and that it is up to the stewards to decide), that the likely consequences of the behaviour were clear, and there was a fair and just appeals procedure: who loses?It is impossible to make a list of songs that are banned. Football fans are generally innovative and they'd just come up with a new abusive song (presumably to the tune of Sloop John Bloody B). However, officials can make that call on the day reasonably sensibly guided by the police.
And if clubs can act and do not, the authorities should get involved. Points deductions, fines (proper fines - not Wayne Rooney's daily wage but a proper fine), banning teams from certain competitions, banning away fans, playing games behind closed doors, women and children only games and many other sanctions could be used. Referees could abandon games and award the win a certain way if the chanting was unacceptable. All of these might work especially if built up over time (e.g. initially a sanction might be a fine; then banning fans; then a points deduction).
Finally, let's acknowledge that we all have a part to play. On Sunday I asked a Chelsea fan to admit that their comrades' behaviour during the minute's silence last year was ''classless''. She refused to do so saying that enough people attack Chelsea fans without them turning on their own. Whilst this is understandable it misses the point.
If an outsider attacks a group of fans the natural reaction is to defend. ''It was a minority''. ''What about your own fans, eh?''. ''We aren't the only ones''. 'It wasn't that bad'. 'Freedom of speech' or some pitiful defence of the behaviour ''Actually booing the player who complained of racial abuse was justified because A, B, and C'. This is understandable. If someone attacked Liverpool's fans - as they inevitably will in the comments to this blog - many, including myself, would rush to defend.
Sometimes this is necessary and fair. Sometimes we should consider it, like Steinberg did, and say ''actually, that's disgusting''. Things are much more likely to be discussed properly if it happens within a fanbase.
As well as fans, players need to start speaking out as Yossi Benayoun did. Managers do as Roberto di Matteo did.
If the well-behaved majority began putting pressure on the minority they might just crawl back under their stone. It is time we stepped up. It is time we spoke out. It is time that we purged the game of bile.
There is a legitimate argument to say ''people have freedom of speech, let them chant''. Fine, I suppose, and one that is intuitively pleasing. But then football is about enjoyment and sometimes we have to balance people's rights. If it came to a choice between the old Jewish Spurs fan enjoying his afternoon at the football and the moron who enjoys chanting about ''Hitler's coming after you'' enjoying his, I know who'd I'd choose.
RCM
Starting with question 5 as it is slightly trickier and more nuanced. I believe Herbert is well-intentioned but wrong. His argument suggests that the band NWA (Niggaz Wit Attitudes) legitimises racism towards black people. His argument suggests ''Four poofs and a piano'' legitimises homophobic abuse. His argument, or at least the logical extension of it, suggests that women who go on slut walks (perhaps wearing a t-shirt which says 'slut') legitimises people calling them, and treating them as, sluts. This, to me, is a nonsense. (Some thoughts from me on this last year).
We need to be wary of victim-blaming. What I would say is that Herbert doesn't understand Tottenham Hotspur heritage; doesn't understand the fairly simple point that Spur's fanbase is using the word to identify with the club's Jewish base (a base, remember, that has for many generations had to put up with bile from other fans - years before Spurs started chanting Yid Army); and doesn't understand the historical significance of non-Jews identifying with, supporting, and showing solidarity with Jews. This, since roughly 35AD, hasn't exactly been the norm in western civilisation. For on this I point you to the superb Dispatches From A Football Sofa.
Criminality and corporate responsibility
Moving to questions one through four, I'm tempted to answer ''Yes, within the boundaries of the law''. However, it is slightly more nuanced than that.
Sometimes chanting will be a criminal act (e.g. racist, homophobic, sectarian or anti-Semitic abuse). Sometimes filthy chanting won't be against the law.
There is nothing within the laws of the land which criminalises me making allegations about a footballer's wife's sexual peccadiloes (bar, I suppose, libel law in England and Wales or defamation in Scotland. It is unlikely a player would pursue a libel case about his wife's sexual activities). It is not, as far as I am aware, a criminal offence to chant through a minute's silence or chant disgusting things about the Munich Air Disaster. (I suppose an argument could be made this is breach of the peace but that is tangential at best).
We might agree that those chants are disgusting but it would be difficult to say that these are criminal acts.
The law is a red herring and it is clubs that have the power. Clubs are private businesses, games are optional to attend, and games take place on private property. When I go to The Oval to watch cricket I am not allowed to make a beer snake (which I could do, if I so wished, in the street).
Clubs could use similar provisions to eject supporters. They often make a plea at the start of the match but people are rarely ejected. If, for instance, Manchester United stewards randomly selected a few individuals singing about Hillsborough or Liverpool stewards randomly selected a few individuals singing about Munich and ejected them we'd probably see swift progress. We'd swifter progress if that led to season-long or life-bans or the removal of a season ticket. Fans may say this is unfair. As long as clubs made it perfectly clear this behaviour was unacceptable (and that it is up to the stewards to decide), that the likely consequences of the behaviour were clear, and there was a fair and just appeals procedure: who loses?It is impossible to make a list of songs that are banned. Football fans are generally innovative and they'd just come up with a new abusive song (presumably to the tune of Sloop John Bloody B). However, officials can make that call on the day reasonably sensibly guided by the police.
And if clubs can act and do not, the authorities should get involved. Points deductions, fines (proper fines - not Wayne Rooney's daily wage but a proper fine), banning teams from certain competitions, banning away fans, playing games behind closed doors, women and children only games and many other sanctions could be used. Referees could abandon games and award the win a certain way if the chanting was unacceptable. All of these might work especially if built up over time (e.g. initially a sanction might be a fine; then banning fans; then a points deduction).
Finally, let's acknowledge that we all have a part to play. On Sunday I asked a Chelsea fan to admit that their comrades' behaviour during the minute's silence last year was ''classless''. She refused to do so saying that enough people attack Chelsea fans without them turning on their own. Whilst this is understandable it misses the point.
If an outsider attacks a group of fans the natural reaction is to defend. ''It was a minority''. ''What about your own fans, eh?''. ''We aren't the only ones''. 'It wasn't that bad'. 'Freedom of speech' or some pitiful defence of the behaviour ''Actually booing the player who complained of racial abuse was justified because A, B, and C'. This is understandable. If someone attacked Liverpool's fans - as they inevitably will in the comments to this blog - many, including myself, would rush to defend.
Sometimes this is necessary and fair. Sometimes we should consider it, like Steinberg did, and say ''actually, that's disgusting''. Things are much more likely to be discussed properly if it happens within a fanbase.
As well as fans, players need to start speaking out as Yossi Benayoun did. Managers do as Roberto di Matteo did.
If the well-behaved majority began putting pressure on the minority they might just crawl back under their stone. It is time we stepped up. It is time we spoke out. It is time that we purged the game of bile.
There is a legitimate argument to say ''people have freedom of speech, let them chant''. Fine, I suppose, and one that is intuitively pleasing. But then football is about enjoyment and sometimes we have to balance people's rights. If it came to a choice between the old Jewish Spurs fan enjoying his afternoon at the football and the moron who enjoys chanting about ''Hitler's coming after you'' enjoying his, I know who'd I'd choose.
RCM
1 comment:
Surely the first thing to be banned is any chant to the tune of Sloop John B?
Post a Comment