Ever since Wigan Athletic challenged Greater Manchester Police over costs of policing its games, police authorities have been limited to the areas surrounding stadia, known as the footprint.
A brief
report looking at the incidents of crime in areas surrounding football grounds has been published, but the full research carried out by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science has not (or had not at the time of writing). It's findings, according to
ACC Andy Holt, indicate that football clubs should be responsible for paying for policing, in his opinion. This seems to be a strange opinion, considering that Football Banning Orders are on the decrease, as is the number of fans arrested at games.
The research has taken 5 stadia, out of the 92 professional clubs, and has analysed crimes on a match day compared with non-match days. Based on the information analysed, incidents of public disorder, violence, and theft increase when there is a match taking place, and football clubs, who have pushed the problems away from their own back yard, should be made to pay for it.
So why should football clubs, and ultimately the fans, face these increased costs?
As noted above, the problems cited above, and which were more common place decades ago, have been moved elsewhere. Were it not for these football matches taking place, these thugs would not be in the area, and so it should be the game that funds the cost of policing, not taxpayers who have no interest in the sport.
This seems to be the only argument in favour, however in the absence of any data or detailed information relating to this research, there are far too many questions.
Which stadia were used in this study? Are we looking at grounds based in city centres, where there are actually more people in the town for the football, and the increase in numbers cannot just be attributed to shoppers? Or do they include grounds that are further away from town and city centres, where there would be very few people in the area other than on a match day? Isn't it logical that crime rates would increase where there are a crowd, regardless of the event?
Geographically, are these clubs with a lot of local derbies, or are these clubs that have few rivals? This would surely have an impact on the crime figures, as would the impact on neighbouring clubs in the area, including non-league clubs etc.
What level of attendance are we looking at? Are these venues popularly supported clubs, or are they teams with fewer fans attending?
It would also be useful to know how much crime is reported to have increased by; are we talking about a significant increase, or is it a small shift? Is this why the full data has not been released yet?
How do these figures compare with other sporting events? Is it really the case that rugby or cricket matches take place without any crimes being committed? Further, how do these figures compare with other entertainment events, such as concerts or festivals? Will the police be seeking to recover costs from the organisers of Glastonbury or Download, for example?
Even if crime levels do increase, how do we know that these are direct result of football? Just because a fight breaks out between two drunken football fans, can it really be said that it is a football problem, and not a drink-related problem, which reflects society as a whole, and not a small proportion of it? Who would foot the bill if there was a football related pub brawl involving two sets of supporters watching a game on the TV, yet was taking place at the other end of the country? Will it be attributed to the club hosting a game in that town or city? Will the resources be available to go through every incident to determine if a problem is the fault of that football club, as the clubs will surely be challenging any demand for costs?
Do the figures only deal with crimes reported? Do we know how many convictions were made? Does increased police presence encourage people to report offences that they would not normally bother to report if there are fewer officers about?
How serious are these crimes, and were they dealt with through the courts, or by way of cautions and fixed penalty notices, where offenders are more likely to accept the charges against them, than risk proving their innocence in front of magistrates or juries?
It is interesting to see theft cited in the little information released. Crowds attract opportunist thieves, whether it be pick-pockets, or breaking into cars, and perpetrators may not even be attending the game. Is this not a case of criminals taking advantage of a situation? Why should football clubs, and fans, be held to account for this, which again is a reflection on society, not the sport itself?
I would argue that violent crimes and public disorder would still take place, even if there were no football matches. Organised football crime is a symptom of a part of society, and those who do take part would only find another excuse for behaving the way that they do. The behaviour seen on city and town centres on Friday or Saturday night, for example, show that this is not just confined to football. If the police are able to charge for incidents that take place 3km away from a football ground, will they be expecting the same from pub and nightclub owners?
Where exactly do we draw the line? Will 3km be enough? Will that not just push any problems elsewhere, and the next thing police will be asking for is to extend the boundaries further? 6km? 10km? 100km?
Crime is a problem that affects the whole of society. Targeting football at a time when football related crime is supposedly going down, and funding to police authorities is being cut seems suspiciously like taking advantage of a cash cow. Are football clubs being used to make up shortfalls in money that would allow busy city centres to have a more visible police presence, something which shoppers and residents have been asking for for years, and not because of football? The current economic climate has seen increases in street robberies; I would not be surprised to see shoplifting on the increase. People want greater police on patrol to give them reassurance.
The report, and the comments by ACC Holt, fail to mention the increasing number of games that are deemed 'police free'. Can clubs claim back any of the levies that they currently pay for policing against these, if they can be charged more costs for other games?
Hundreds of thousands of people attend football matches. A very small proportion commit any kind of crime. In my own experiences, I have seen very little trouble at football matches, certainly nothing that warrants the number of police present at some games, let alone increasing numbers. Isn't it time the majority of us can be trusted to be left to our own devices, than being constantly monitored? Surely the police know who the main instigators of trouble are, and should be dealing with those, not football fans as a whole?
Football clubs, at the end of the day, are not responsible for the behaviour of the fans. They can take steps to try to prevent disorder inside their stadia, and they can eject and ban anyone guilty of football related crimes, as can the courts. But how can a football club be expected to control the behaviour of a few fans intent on causing trouble, especially when it is not in the close proximity of the stadium?
Are the police using this as a means of introducing more ways to control fans? Powers already include the use of "bubble matches", as fans won't be able to go off on a folly, and cause mayhem. There are other measures open to the police to prevent people from entering areas, and there are powers that enable the police to turn travelling fans away from towns and cities.
Clubs, and the law-abiding majority of fans, should not be expected to bear the costs of the few. Football generates over £1b in tax revenue, as it is, and clubs already pay additional sums to cover the cost of policing. By asking fans, who have already paid for policing through their Council taxes, and in the price of their tickets, to pay even more towards these costs, are we seeing the beginning of a situation where fans are priced out of the game? Is this another means of controlling what fans can or cannot do? If it costs too much to attend a game, then fans will stop going, consequently negating the need to increase the use of police resources.
Today's story raises far too many questions that as a football fan, I want answering before the subject can be properly debated. 5 out 92 clubs seems an awfully small sample from which to conclude that crime increases when a football match takes place; surely, having raised questions, there should be a fuller study conducted to see if these findings, on limited data, are indicative of a worrying trend, or if these are merely anomalies.
What can be done? Maybe if offenders were given higher financial penalties to cover some of the costs of additional policing, it may act as a deterrent. This would not only apply to football related crime, but crime in general. There would be difficulties as to how we enforce payment of such penalties, especially if offenders have little or no money themselves, but it would be fairer than making innocent people pay for a service they have little need for.
