Scottish Football’s Family Friendly Agenda
Since the inception of the SPL in 1998, Scottish football has pursued a relentless agenda of promoting our game as a family-friendly ‘product’. All-seated stadia, legislation to deal specifically with ‘offensive’ crowd behaviour, special police units dedicated to enforcing this legislation – just some of the initiatives aimed at smoothing off the rough edges of our national sport in the hope of enticing more families through the turnstiles.
In the short term, any attempt to encourage kids to forgo the myriad of Saturday afternoon alternatives and reverse the continuing downward trajectory in attendances has to be applauded. While securing the next generation of fans is equally as important to the long-term health of our game. Those wee guys and girls reluctantly dragged along to today’s matches will hopefully be gripped by the same fervour we were and will be taking our places in the stands for decades to come.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the strategy has been a qualified success: the numbers of kids attending games appears to have increased dramatically in the past 15 years. However, the continued obsession with honing the matchday experience to appeal solely to the family audience is based on a fallacy: the assumption that there are swathes of families waiting to be converted to the cause if only the authorities can make games that wee bit safer, that wee bit friendlier, that wee bit more sanitised.
According to a survey of almost 7,000 Scottish football fans carried out in 2012, the need for a more family friendly environment didn’t register in the top 10 reasons given as barriers to respondents attending more home fixtures. The biggest obstacle was predictably exorbitant ticket prices with the quality of football on display, the prohibition of standing within the stadiums, poor match atmosphere, and the inability to buy alcohol within the stadium also cited as key reasons for non-attendance.
In fact, when match-goers asked about the importance of various elements of the stadium experience, family friendliness was only ranked 7th most important out of 14. Even more tellingly, respondents felt that clubs were outperforming expectations in the family friendly stakes, while falling well short in terms of the atmosphere at games, which was rated as the second most important factor.
The message from the fans surveyed seems pretty clear: whilst clubs have done well at making match days more appealing to families, pursuing that agenda any further is unlikely to result in significantly more punters through the turnstiles.
So what of those left behind in the wake of this relentless march towards a sanitised utopia?
The same survey showed that the crowds at Scottish football matches are still overwhelmingly comprised of the traditional lifeblood of the game – blokes aged between 18 and 40, many of whom like a few drinks before the game, who head along to support their team and have a laugh with their mates. You’d assume given the amount of money this predominant group pours into the club’s coffers that their opinion would be respected. Except, you’d be wrong.
These punters are not only being ignored but are increasingly being marginalised by the clubs working in tandem with the authrotiries. In the past few years the following measures have been rolled out specifically to target match-going fans:
- The Scottish Government introduced legislation (The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 2012) specifically to deal ate between “offensive behaviour” carried out at football matches from any other location in Scotland. Why football required its own law and what actually constitutes behaviour offensive enough to merit prosecution is seriously up for debate.
- The FOCUS unit, comprising 14 full-time specialist officers, was established by Police Scotland to enforce the OFBA inside Scottish stadia and across social media.
- The potential introduction of facial recognition software at Scottish grounds has even been touted – with cash-strapped clubs considering the installation of massively expensive equipment at the turnstiles in a bid to weed out a tiny minority of trouble makers. The scheme appears to have been kicked into the long grass by the refusal of the Scottish Government to subsidise it to the tune of £4m, but the fact that the idea gained any traction in the first place is troubling.
Supporters have been left feeling they’re being unfairly targeted and their growing rumblings of discontent should be echoing through the corridors of power, and striking fear into boardrooms across the country. There now appears to be a real danger that even the most loyal supporters, those who follow their teams the length and breadth of the country, may decide it just isn’t worth the hassle anymore. The game they fell in love with already feels distant and the threat of criminalisation might be the
What I wanted to know was is our story unique or are the same feelings of supporter dissatisfaction being played out in stadiums across Europe? Are our feelings of persecution justified or is the game alienating fans on wider level?
I decided to have a look at the match day experiences of fans in European leagues comparable with our own. I needed a yardstick to measure how bad we’ve got it in Scotland. Are other countries able to balance the need to attract more families without marginalising their traditional fan base?
I settled on Denmark, Sweden and Norway as the basis for this case study. All three countries have suffered the same downward trend in attendances over the past decade and are battling to attract fans back through the turnstiles. They are also having the same discussions as us: league reconstruction, the merits of summer versus winter football and the use of artificial surfaces. However, their discussions are taking place against a backdrop of fan engagement and match day experience light years ahead of our own.
I spoke to Claus Røndbjerg-Christensen, Sofia Bohlin and Ole Aasheim about three areas in particular which thei are getting right which would have a transformative effect on our game if we were able to follow suit: standing at games, the sale of alcohol inside the stadiums and the use of pyrotechnics
Standing within Scottish top flight stadiums has been banned since 1994 in the aftermath of the tragic events at Hillsborough. What I hadn’t realised until recently is that although the recommendations of the Taylor Report, which was released in the aftermath of Hillsborough, are enshrined in English law, the requirement for all-seated stadiums in Scotland was applied on a voluntary basis; there is no requirement for it in Scots law.
In 2011, spurred on by pressure applied by the Celtic Trust, Celtic approached the SPL about the possibility of introducing safe-standing sections, as pioneered in the Bundesliga, to Celtic Park. In an uncharacteristic display of rationality, the SPL conditionally approved the introduction of safe standing in Scotland.
Yet here we are more than 5 years later, and with an overwhelming majority of Scottish fans in favour of the initiative, and there are still no dedicated standing sections in Scotland’s top flight. Why? Because in their infinite wisdom, the SPL made their acceptance of standing sections conditional on the basis of approval by local authority Safety Committees and the Police.
Even before the SPL made the announcement that standing had been approved in principal, Scottish Police Federation chairman Les Gray released the following statement to the media: “People have this romantic idea about standing areas. There’s nothing further from the truth, they are dangerous. People go into a standing area because they want to misbehave. They will tell you it’s for the atmosphere but invariably you get a crowd of people who misbehave. If you’re in a seat you are easily identifiable. It starts off with great intentions but even with a small controlled number, it doesn’t work. We have all-seater stadiums for a reason. Standing areas are a nightmare.”
The Police’s only involvement should have been in an advisory capacity as part of local authority Safety Committees. No laws were being broken nor amended. However, their stance was clear from outset; they would object to these proposals at every turn and doing everything in their powers (and quite a bit more) to obstruct it.
Celtic followed up their initial representations to the SPL with a formal application to Glasgow City Council (GCC) in 2012. This application was finally approved in June 2015 following a gruelling process which included two rejections of the proposal. The process required Celtic to commission numerous feasibility studies, the preparation of an independent study by a subject matter expert and a massive amount of administrative work. The process is estimated to have cost Celtic in excess of £100k.
The basis for the two rejections by the GCC Safety Advisory Group (SAG) and the justification for delaying the approval by 3 years are poorly documented to say the least. What is clear is that Police Scotland was able to exert an inordinate amount of control on the SAG. I have spoken to various sources who were stunned by the extent of Police Scotland’s influence in what is essentially not a matter for the Police. I heard numerous allegations about the reasons behind Police Scotland’s objections including personal politicking, self-interest and a refusal to back the proposals due to the association with Celtic’s Green Brigade group.
The most worrying allegation was that the objections were not even based on safety concerns but instead centred on the ease of policing standing sections. This was allegedly confirmed during one meeting of the SAG when the Police raised the possibility of erecting fencing around the standing area. Given the role fencing played in historic stadium disasters, the shortsightedness of this proposal seems incredible.
Based on my research, it is clear to me that Police Scotland is an organisation emboldened to the point that they are now playing lawmaker rather than enforcer. They were allowed to exert undue influence on Celtic’s application for safe standing and effectively block the wishes of an overwhelming number of football fans.
The standing section at Celtic Park is effectively being used as a trial run for the rest of Scottish football. Whether Police Scotland allow it to be successful remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, despite suffering crowd trouble during the 1970s and 80s, standing spectators have been an enduring sight in Scandinavian football. Standing is currently allowed in all three of the Nordic countries I looked at. All sixteen top flight stadiums in Sweden contain standing sections and the concept of “safe standing” does not even enter the thinking – many grounds retain old school terracing long since lost from the UK.
Vålerenga will be the first Norwegian club to utilise “safe standing” rail seating when their new stadium is open in 2017. In sharp contrast with Celtic’s travails this installation has not been subject to a protracted approval process, in fact no governing body intervention was required.
Scandinavian fans regard it as a fundamental right of supporters to choose how they watch the game. Standing isn’t viewed as intrinsically less safe than sitting.
In the aftermath of large scale rioting in the 1980 Scottish Cup Final between Rangers and Celtic, the sale of alcohol within football stadiums in Scotland was made illegal by the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. That final was the culmination of drink-fuelled violence that had blighted the Scottish game for years.
The footballing and cultural landscape has changed dramatically in the 30 odd years since the ban was introduced. Even though half of all people attending games today take a drink before the game, violent disorder within stadiums has been virtually eradicated.
Recent years have seen a groundswell of opinion advocating a rethink. 62% of respondents to the 2014 SDS poll were in favour of lifting the alcohol ban, while 72% advocated the introduction of a small scale trial.
There have been sporadic efforts at relaxing the restrictions, most recently a populist move by former Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy in 2014. Yet again Police Scotland was hot on his heels, Chief Constable Stephen House stating at the time that he would be “extremely concerned by any proposal to amend legislation in respect of alcohol at football matches in Scotland.”
Detractors will point to the recent trouble at the Scottish Cup final as evidence that widespread disorder at matches is only every just over the brow of the hill. This isolated incident, completely uncharacteristic of Scottish football in the past few decades, will now be cited by governing bodies and law makers as justification for refusing to even contemplate removing the ban.
There is a phrase in legal circles which feels particularly pertinent when considering the wider impact this game should be allowed to have on our liberties as fans: “Hard cases make bad law.”
That game represented an almost unique set of circumstances: a more volatile than normal atmosphere amongst the fans due to recent spats between the clubs which was then exacerbated by a last minute winner which ended Hibernian’s 114 year wait to lift the trophy. Even then, the explosion of emotion from both sets of fans at the final whistle could have been contained had it not been for, somewhat ironically, woefully inadequate policing.
The highly improbable confluence of these contributing factors shouldn’t be allowed to inform our match going experience for years to come. The 99% of us who are able to drink sensibly and act like responsible adults should be allowed to do so, while the Police ensure any trouble is handled in the same way as any other alcohol fuelled incident which occurs on any given Saturday night across the country.
As you might have guessed the story across the North Sea is very different. Alcohol is readily available at all grounds in Sweden and Denmark. A modicum of control is in place with the alcohol content of the beer on sale being restricted – 2.1 to 3.5% in Sweden and 3.5 to 4.1% in Denmark.
The availability of booze means fans arrive much earlier to the ground than we are accustomed to in Scotland. Fans in Sweden and Denmark arrive between 30 and 90 minutes before kick-off. They enjoy a few pints, have some food, pump much needed revenue into their clubs and generally contribute to an atmosphere that builds to kick-off.
No Pyro, No Party?
The use of pyro (i.e. smoke bombs and flares) within stadiums doesn’t do much for me personally as I’ve no real desire to stand in a plume of smoke while trying to watch the game. There are however a section of fans in Scotland, enthralled by the images of foreign sweeping curvas light up with flares and draped in flags, that are determined pyro should be part of our match day experience.
Norway allows pyro displays providing they are sanctioned by the clubs in advance and are carried out by trained individuals. Sweden and Denmark are theoretically the same however they are currently working out the finer details of how these rules will be implemented.
The key point of difference is how the Scandinavian authorities deal with the demand for pyro. Nordic associations, including their Police forces, have had progressive, round table conversations with the fans to explore solutions which meet the needs of all parties. They are intent on finding safe ways of satisfying customer demand.
The Scottish approach on the other hand appears to centre on the implementation of punitive measures in the hope the topic will disappear from the agenda: a young Motherwell fan has recently been jailed for 5 months for letting off a smoke bomb inside Fir Park.
There are clearly safety concerns where pyro is involved and many people want nothing to do with it. However, at a time when clubs are trying to get as many through the turnstiles as possible, no avenue should be left unexplored. The current trend of young lads sneaking in uncontrolled pyro and discharging them in crowded areas is the biggest risk. Surely our clubs are able to implement controls to allow the aspiring Ultras to have their fun while safeguarding other spectators?
Other European Countries
The argument that Scandinavian fans enjoy much greater freedoms and a more enjoyable day out as a result is pretty compelling, but what of other European countries? Is Scandinavia just particularly progressive?
Thanks to Claus Røndbjerg-Christensen, Sofia Bohlin, Ole Aasheim, Marie McCusker and Jon Darch for being so generous with their time.
The table below shows you how fans in seven other Western European countries fare compared to Scotland. The reality reinforces all of our negative perceptions. We certainly are being treated differently to our European peers. In footballing terms, we are being criminalised.
[table caption=”” colwidth=”40|25|25|25|10″ colalign=”left|center|center|center|center” border=”2″]
,Standing, Booze,Pyro, Total
Netherlands,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,3
Sweden,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,3
Denmark,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,3
Austria,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,3
Germany,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,2
Norway,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,2
Belgium,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,2
France,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,2
Switzerland,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,2
England,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,[attr style=”background-color:#81ff09″]Y,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″]N,1
Scotland,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″] N,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″] N,[attr style=”background-color:#ff0909″] N, 0
The silent minority now need to make their voices heard. The authorities need to be made aware that the continued pursuit of the Family Friendly agenda to the exclusion of all else needs to stop. The hard working punters who hand over their cash at the turnstiles and want to stand, have a few beers and maybe even take part in some organised pyro, have as much right to be accommodated as families. There is no justification for us to be treated so poorly in comparison with our European counterparts.
I’ve three young daughters who I take along to Pittodrie on occasion. They barely watch the game but they are enthralled by the experience: the buzz of the crowd, the smell of the burgers, Angus the Bull firing some crappy t-shirts into the crowd.
I also attend games with a group of mates. We have a few pints before and after the game, sing a few songs, dish out some good natured abuse to opposition fans and let off some steam. There is no reason why our game can’t cater for both of these scenarios.
Sofia Bohlin, of the Swedish Football Supporter Union (SFSU), says it best: “Swedish football is marketed as something for everyone: families, seniors, kids, sitting audience and the standing section with tifos and choreographies. Some sections are niched e.g. family section, youth section (kids between 8-15 without parents), and the pub section- this is something that the league and the clubs work really hard on.”
Sweden’s SFSU has 40,000 members which forces the authorities have to recognise it as an important partner in Swedish football. Most clubs in Scotland now have a vehicle that gives fans the platform to have their opinion heard at board level. There are organisations, like Supporters Direct Scotland, who are dedicated to pressing for change. Sign up and make your voice heard. If we don’t the game we fell in love with will be gone.