Take the fans out of football or the football away from the fans? Analysing Greece and Turkey’s response to Ongoing Violence
The saying ‘you never know what you’ve got until it’s gone’ is used fairly frequently, more often than not in hypothetical scenarios. Now, it is the premise being used to help battle the epidemic of violence in top-level football.
Violent acts in sport, particularly football, are rooted in history. As explained by Steve Frosdick and Peter Marsh in their book ‘Football Hooliganism’, “The game of football has been associated with violence since its beginnings in thirteenth-century England.” Three-quarters of a millennium since then, it still plagues the sport.
In the last 48 hours, we have seen the consequences of despicable behaviour in Greece and Turkey. The former has implemented a ban on fans in all sports until February 2024, following an array of high profile incidents. Hours later, Turkish football was suspended indefinitely after referee Halil Umut Meler was assaulted by MKE Ankaragucu president Faruk Koca.
These acts of violence are widely condemned, but the answer to all this remains a mystery. What we do know is that the Greek and Turkish authorities have, for the time being, taken football away from the fans. However, they have done this in different ways. The question now becomes, which method will be most effective?
The decision for Greek football to continue in an empty stadium is not an unfamiliar sanction. England hosted Italy in a behind-closed-doors Nations League match in 2022 as punishment for fan trouble at the European Championship final a year prior. Other countries like Bulgaria also have a history of receiving the same fate following incidents of racial discrimination in the stands.
A government report published in 2022 showed that in the UK alone, arrests at football matches had risen by 59% from the last ‘pre-COVID’ season. Of the 2198 total arrests, 36% were classified as public disorder offenses and 20% as violent disorder. These are startling statistics, especially considering that arrests at football events had been on a decade-long decline before this.
The idea behind the stadium ban is simple: stop fans attending games in the hope they adjust their behavior. Yet, history shows that just hasn’t worked. Greek football expert Alec McQuarrie explains that “the government has suspended the league countless times in the past, and frequently imposed closed doors fixtures, albeit never for this long.”
Even with these measures, it hasn’t prevented the trend. In October, a Panathinaikos player was hit by a firecracker thrown from the stands. The following month, referee Andreas Gamaris saw the shop that he owned firebombed by supporters. These are heinous acts coming off the back of sanctions of similar nature. Is a more extreme version really going to be of benefit? As McQuarrie adds, “this decision is an attempt to throw water on the fire, but I fear that when fans do return, the flames will be higher than ever.”
Fundamentally, it seems as though stadium bans only incite more rage. Knowing that there is football on but you are being blocked from having an involvement will make the angry, angrier. That’s not even to mention how innocent followers of sport may feel aggrieved at being punished because of someone else’s stupidity.
That brings us to Turkey’s decision to suspend all football indefinitely. It is important to note that this decision is coming off the back of a club president being violent, not fans. However, this incident is reflective of other incidents that have occurred in Turkish football.
The suspension is quite likely to be temporary. That is unless referees go on strike following what happened to Meler, something that has already been seen in Greece. However, is there an argument to elongate the suspension? By a month? Two months? Longer? Logistically, that is of course very difficult. Sponsors won’t be happy, clubs may find themselves in a financial crisis. These are all reasons why it shouldn’t happen, but it would certainly send out a strong message. Instead of saying to people ‘your actions are unacceptable, therefore we won’t let you enjoy the sport in person,’ what will happen if you say ‘we won’t let you enjoy the sport at all’?
Will there be backlash? Undoubtedly. We are at the stage though where you have to wonder, what other solution is left? The stadium ban is tried, it is tested, and it was a failure. Once hooligans know that the threat of taking what they love away completely is real, will they understand that they have to change their ways? Will they double down further? There’s no way of knowing until we see it in action. As of right now, it seems as though it’s a worst-case scenario. Which sparks a different question. What is the worst case?
