Men behaving badly

I hate to write anything that might conceivably pander to some Americans' pre-conceptions about soccer, especially those fueled by prominent anti-soccer media like Sports Illustrated and ESPN. And I know my friend Matt doesn't get enthusiastic about my soccer entries, but here goes.

One of the reasons soccer that holds back soccer from a top-tier sport in the United States (as a spectator sport; it's hugely popular as a participatory one) is the perception that fan violence is endemic. While it's true that fan violence is far less than it's been in the past, particularly in England and other parts of Western Europe, international soccer and domestic soccer in most other countries still has far more violence and bitterness than North American sports.

In other countries, soccer is not merely a sport, but a religion. Many soccer clubs around the world are linked to different groups that logically should have nothing to do with soccer.

Some clubs are associated politics. The Rome club Lazio is associated with the far right, since it was the side Mussolini supported; neo-Nazi groups go to Lazio games and chant racist slogans and venerate Serbian warlords. Their crosstown rivals Roma are associated with the left.

Some clubs are associated with nationalism. The Spanish sides Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao are seen as the iconic clubs of the Catalan and Basque peoples. I believe Bilbao only employs Basque players as club policy; Barcelona is probably the only major club in the world without a corporate sponsor on its jersey.

The Scottish giants Celtic and Rangers are associated with the city's Catholic and Protestant communities respectively. In a sense, the Old Firm clubs, as they are known, are a proxy for sectarian divide in Northern Ireland. In Glasgow, and in some other cities, soccer as religion is not exaggerated hype, but is quite literal.

In too many places, soccer is an extension of identity politics. That's something most North Americans don't get.

In other places, soccer is a extension of nationalism, which I suppose is a kind of identity politics. That's something most North Americans don't get either, except during the Olympics or Miracle on Ice films. We generally reserve our jingoism for wars.

And to be totally honest, I hope it's something we NEVER understand or accept. I love the passion of soccer fans. But soccer is not a morality play. Supporters of my teams' rivals are not my personal, sworn enemies.

I think one of the main reasons for this difference is that in North America, there are really four major team sports (back before the NHL committed suicide), plus popular individual sports like NASCAR. As a result, people's passions are spread out. If the Red Sox bit the bullet early (for once, we're speaking hypothetically :-), Bostonians were disappointed and perhaps angry, but they sulked about it briefly and then went on to following the Bruins or the Celtics or the Patriots. In many other countries, soccer is the ONLY sport, or the only major one, so there's no other outlet for their passion when results don't go their way.

I remember back in 1997, there was violence between English fans and Italian police during a World Cup qualifier between the two countries. English officials blamed the Italians for not making sure the two sets of fans were separated. I've seen photos Scottish matches between the sectarian clubs Rangers and Celtic where there are whole sections of seats occupied by police, to make sure fans don't interact. During the 1985 European Cup final in Belgium, several dozen Juventus fans were killed when a fence separating them from Liverpool fans collapsed and a crush and panic ensued. The English authorities complained even before the match that the two sets of fans weren't adequately separated and that it might be dangerous.

But what most North American fans can't wrap their mind around is that last sentence.

The two sets of fans weren't adequately separated and it might be dangerous.

And that's really the crux of the matter. All of the examples I cited have the same theme. Either fans were totally separated and it was ok or fans weren't totally separated and there were problems.

If fans can't be trusted to act in a civilized, or at least non-violent, manner, then is it real the fault of stadium officials? If a fan is unable to walk by a rival supporter without throwing a punch or stabbing him, then does he really belong in the stadium?

The Red Sox-Yankees baseball rivalry is the biggest in North American club sports. My family and I went down to a game in Yankee Stadium a few years ago. We were all wearing Red Sox stuff but were sitting right in the middle of almost all Yankee fans. There was some good natured, if fairly uncreative, bantering, but that's it. My mom didn't appreciate the 'colorful' verbiage but it was nothing serious and usually followed by laughter. It was all in good fun. We didn't feel unsafe in anyway. Despite being the most intense rivalry in North America, no one would consider taking extraordinary means to separate the fans. And if problems did break out, people would blame the idiots in question, not stadium officials.

Do you think most 50-something women would feel comfortable sitting next to sons with Celtic shirts on in the middle of a Rangers crowd?

Fortunately, such acts of violence are on the decrease in Western European stadiums. Huge television exposure (and money) has made the threat of bad PR a motivator for clubs and countries to crack down on such violence. But it's not gone away. At last Saturday's Italy-Scotland match in Milan, there was crowd violence; except it was between two rival groups of Italian fans.

A far more serious incident occured in Bamako, Malians stormed the field before the end of their team's 2-1 loss to Togo in a World Cup qualifier. Whenever fans invade the field, especially during a game, the team in question is usually sanctioned severely. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mali lose points or be forced to play future home games before closed doors. But the invasion can't be encouraging to two of Mali's best player Freddi Kanouté. Fans reportedly chanted "Give us Kanoute. We are going to kill him." They allegedly made similiar threats against fellow striker Mamadou Bagayoko.

And that was just this weekend.

It's bad enough when fans make threats or take action against opposing players, like when Costa Rican fans pelt American players with bags of urine or American fans chanting obscenties at Salvadoran fans and players (in Spanish, so there was no confusion). But when you start attacking your own players, that's even worse. So much for "home field advantage."

This international perception taints soccer as a spectator sport here in the US. However, games in the domestic Major League Soccer and lower divisions are fairly tame. Clubs realize it's good business sense to encourage a family atmosphere. If an atmosphere of violence or boorishness pervades, then only men (some men) are likely to show up and clubs are essentially pushing away a large group of potential paying customers.

In the last few years, there's been quite a movement in international soccer against racism and racist chants. Fan violence needs to be punished just as severely. Managers who incite fan violence need to be punished as well. If it means expelling clubs and countries from major competitions, then so be it. If a major country like Holland or Italy got expelled from the World Cup for fan violence, I bet authorities, and fans themselves, would sit up and take note.


Update: there was a riot in Pyongyang following North Korea's 2-0 World Cup qualifier loss to Iran. This followed only days after a stampede in Tehran following Iran's home win over Japan; six people are believed to have died.