A Kind of Violence Americans Don't Understand

The mere idea of a West Ham and Milwall fixture sounds violent. Both clubs, especially Milwall, have had a reputation for supporter violence. And there are few rivalries in English football as intense as the one between these two East London clubs. The fact that meetings are rare now that Milwall now plays two divisions below West Ham made last night's League Cup match all the more tense. Both of the clubs and the Metropolitan Police, however, have the experience to prevent and control the sort of events that occurred last night. The fact that they did not probably points more to the (mistaken) view that serious fan violence was a relic of the '80s. This has been a rude wake up call for the authorities of English football, especially the FA who do not want to have their bid for the 2018 World Cup scuppered. Expect harsh penalties to be meted out to any hooligans successfully identified from film clips, and perhaps to the clubs themselves.

I first became aware of violence in English football in my doctor's waiting room in 1985.From the magazine pile I picked up an issue of Sports Illustrated with the strap line, "A Soccer Tragedy Shocks the World," on the cover. Inside was a long essay explaining the disaster at Heysel stadium on the 29th of May of that year (and thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you can read that same article yourself here) when 39 people were killed after Liverpool fans rushed into an area of the stands mostly populated by Juventus supporters. I remember reading that article really not understanding it. The idea of fans of one team massing and attacking the fans of another made no sense. What was the point? What was the motivation? It would not change the score on the pitch, would it?

Fan violence in American sport is mostly limited to scuffles under the bleachers at high school football games on Friday nights. There are usually parents on hand to step in if things get out of hand. Most Americans (except Texans) outgrow the taste for high school football when they leave high school, and with it the hormone-fueled style of support. Rightfully, fighting in public is generally viewed as childish.

And here is a great irony: although America is undoubtedly a far more violent society than Britain, you are much less likely to see violence in America. Local evening news programs in America vie with each other to lead off with the most violent (and ratings grabbing) story they can find, but for 99.9% of their viewers this violence will remain purely theoretical. Violent crime in America happens in certain well-known urban areas that most sane people avoid. While this in itself throws up some pretty uncomfortable questions about American society, it does mean that most people live a life free from the fear of physical threat. It was not until I moved to the UK that I ever saw someone being attacked live and in person. That is not a common experience, but I have had to learn that there are certain scenarios in Britain (usually involving alcohol) where you need to be on your guard in case things start to 'kick off.' Until the late 1990s the most common of these was football matches. Conversely, I have been to hundreds of sporting events in America covering at least six different sports and I have never been to one where the fans needed to be segregated. I can't really think of a scenario where that would seem at all appropriate.

The reasons why English football should be plagued by hooligans is complicated. The fact that cricket and rugby are virtually free of such problems makes it harder to identify the problem as something specifically 'British.' Yet it is absurd to think that there is something about the sport of football that incites people to violent behaviour. It is also not a matter of the famous 'English football passion' going a bit too far on match day. Most hooligan activity is arranged in advance by organised groups. The only possible conclusion one can make is the same one I drew in that doctor's waiting room twenty years ago: it makes no sense. In other words, football violence has no footballing purpose. The football matches themselves are just a convenient pretext for a bunch of people who appear to like fighting to get together and beat the tar out of each other.

This is not fair on the majority of supporters who don't come to matches to beat the tar out of each other. It isn't really fair on the clubs or the FA either since football is essentially being invaded by organised gangs. Regardless of whether it is fair or not, it is only the clubs and the FA who have the ability to rid football of this pestilence once and for all. The thugs who came to yesterday's match to fight, and not to watch the football need to be identified and banned for life. They aren't real football fans anyway, so it would hardly be unjust. I do wonder, though, if West Ham or the FA will really have the stomach to do this. If we see this gentleman in the stands again, we will know they did not.

There is one silver lining to all of this. This is a wonderful country to live in. British people are much to suave to say this about themselves, but I'm American so I'm allowed to gush. Much of UK life would seem idyllic by US standards. For example, I know all of my neighbours well. I can also, in a few minutes, walk to the shops in the centre of town, the fields in the nearby countryside, or my children's school. I only drive when I need to make the short journey to Bath. I feel privileged to live here. It is not perfect, though. All societies have their problems. Hooliganism is one problem that the British have, more or less, managed to control admirably. Helpfully, it is in public view, which makes it easier to identify the troublemakers and harder for the authorities to ignore. One further thing yesterday's violence did was to demonstrate just how far everyone has progressed since Heysel.