‘It’s become fashionable’: Practitioner perspectives on football hooliganism involving young people
| Author | Nick Pamment,Richard Hester |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355720947778 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
‘It’s become fashionable’: Practitioner
2020, Vol. 22(4) 366–377
ª The Author(s) 2020
perspectives on football hooliganism
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
involving young people
DOI: 10.1177/1461355720947778
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
Richard Hester
University of Gloucestershire, UK
Nick Pamment
University of Portsmouth, UK
Abstract
Senior officers responsible for policing football highlight a concerning increase in football hooliganism involving young
people in England and Wales. This study is specifically concerned with people under 18 years old that are engaged with
hooliganism in connection with football matches, which is an under-researched problem despite recent high-profile
incidents. Surveys and interviews with football club safety officers, and police officers involved in football policing were
conducted to gain a first-hand insight into this issue. Freedom of Information requests were sent to the Home Office, to
establish data trends in youth arrests, banning orders and disorder at football. Despite the concerns of senior police
officers, it was found that there is no readily available Home Office data on football hooliganism involving young people.
The study highlights that this issue is perceived to be increasing, with children as young as 10 being involved. Whilst there
is some indication that football banning orders are being used on under-18s, this is currently seen as a last resort for police
forces with a range of interventions being used to divert young people away from football hooliganism. However, there is
no nationally adopted approach to managing this issue. Youth projects have had successful results in preventing under-18s
from going on to reoffend in a football context. Best practice interventions are recommended, which if adopted by football
clubs and police forces may help to minimise the impact of football violence involving young people.
Keywords
Football hooliganism, football banning orders, youth justice, football policing, football violence
Submitted 05 Nov 2019, Revise received 12 May 2020, accepted 22 Jun 2020
Introduction
groups’ are used interchangeably to refer to those under
the age of 18, the latter being common terminology
This study examines ‘hooliganism’ involving children in
amongst practitioners in a football policing context (see
connection with regulated football matches in England and
also Article 1, United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Wales, and how this issue is managed regarding the use of
the Child, 1989).
football banning orders (FBOs). As detailed by the Crown
Football hooliganism became a broader social issue in
Prosecution Service (CPS) (2019a), the legislation of a
the 1960s (Giulianotti, 1994) and continued to be
regulated football match is complex. This study concerns
football matches involving sides from the top six tiers of
English football, from the Premier League to the Football
Corresponding author:
Conference. The exact age of a child or youth is conflated
Richard Hester, University of Gloucestershire, Francis Close Hall, Swin-
within UK legislation. Importantly, throughout this study,
don Road, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, UK.
the terms ‘young person’, ‘child’ or ‘youth risk supporter/
Email: rhester@glos.ac.uk
Hester and Pamment
367
problematic in the 1970s and 1980s leading to a repressive
study that ‘youth risk groups’ may be exhibiting a range of
policing approach (Frosdick and Marsh, 2005). Although
behaviours and practitioners will have varied interpreta-
the policing of football has changed to be less confronta-
tions surrounding the notion of ‘risk’.
tional since the 1989 Hillsborough disaster (Frosdick and
In order to understand the necessity for this research,
Marsh, 2005), it serves as a reminder of the need for foot-
one must consider what is already known about football
ball to be policed fairly and effectively. However, football
hooliganism. Previous research (Hopkins, 2014; James and
hooliganism remains prevalent in the media, with football
Pearson, 2006; Pearson, 2005; Stott and Pearson, 2006) has
hooligans seen as ‘folk devils’ within a moral panic
considered the effectiveness of FBOs. Nevertheless, there
(Cohen, 2002). With regards to hooliganism involving
remains a knowledge gap concerning football hooliganism
young people, this type of reaction can lead to those
involving young people, with an absence of research into
involved being labelled as ‘deviant’ (Becker, 1973). This
this issue; therefore, this study adds value to the existing
presents a challenge for the police to deal with this ‘devi-
literature.
ant’ behaviour in a way that society is accepting of, while
acting in the young person’s best interests and not just
satisfying the moral panic.
The extent of football hooliganism
Football hooliganism involving young people has
involving young people
emerged as an issue over the past decade. In 2010, then
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) lead for foot-
Despite an abundance of literature on the topic, there is no
ball, Andy Holt, stated that there was a worrying and dis-
accepted definition of ‘football hooliganism’ (Dunning
turbing increase in youth football violence (Bridge, 2010).
et al., 2002; Frosdick and Marsh, 2005; Giulianotti et al.,
This is supported by suggestions of new ‘youth firms’
1994). Dunning (2000) states that ‘it lacks precision and is
(Hopkins and Hamilton-Smith, 2014) as well as high-
used to cover a variety of forms of behaviour which take
profile incidents in the media. In 2016, a 13, 14 and
place in more or less directly football-related contexts’.
18-year-old were imprisoned and issued FBOs for an
Some of these behaviours may not even be criminal but
unprovoked attack on a Watford fan following a Premier
could also cover serious levels of violence. Context of the
League game in 2015 (Wolves teenage supporters locked
location that this occurs in is relevant as well, with incidents
up for Watford fan attack, 2016). In 2016, BBC News
occurring not only inside stadia, but also at train stations and
revealed that over 100 FBOs had been issued to under-
town centres, for example (Frosdick and Marsh, 2005).
18s within a 3-year period, some of whom were as young
The Home Office collates and publicly releases official
as 12 years of age (Burke, 2016; Football banning orders
data every year on the number of football-related arrests
for more than 100 under-18s, 2016). These media articles
and FBOs issued. This information provides a breakdown,
highlighted a discrepancy between how individual police
such as offence type and whether the incident occurred
forces are administering FBOs. Academic literature sup-
inside a stadium, and data have become more detailed since
ports this, asserting that this discrepancy has been ongoing
2000. This is compiled by the UK Football Policing Unit
for some time (Hopkins, 2014; James and Pearson, 2006,
(UKFPU) from data inputted by police officers about
2015; Pearson, 2005). These points highlight some emer-
arrests and disorder incidents at football matches. Impor-
ging issues. First, alongside a lack readily available data,
tantly for this study, there are no data on the age of those
it appears that football hooliganism involving young peo-
arrested, issued FBOs or involved in public disorder. This
ple is a current area of concern. Second, it could be argued
data provide a crude indication of the scale of football
that police forces do not have a clearly defined strategy for
hooliganism, however the number of football arrests and
managing the problem.
FBOs have been falling over past football seasons. Senior
There is some contention surrounding the definition and
police officers claim that this decrease is due to fewer
police perception of a football hooligan or ‘risk’ supporter
officers being deployed to football, and the actual incidents
(Hopkins & Hamilton-Smith, 2014; O’Neill, 2005; Pear-
of disorder are increasing (Kopczyk, 2018). This demon-
son, 2012; Williams, 2001). The European Union definition
strates that official data may not be sufficient on their own
is: ‘a person, known or not, who can be regarded as posing a
to interpret the overall scale of football hooliganism, let
possible risk to public order or anti-social behaviour,
alone that involving young people. Frosdick and Marsh
whether planned or spontaneous, at or in connection with
(2005) also highlight that arrest data for football is an unre-
a football event’ (College of Policing, 2018). This is a
liable indicator of overall crime problems. Qualitative eth-
broad and imperfect definition which concerns more than
nographic studies (Armstrong, 1998; Pearson, 2012) into
just violence and Stott et al. (2018) suggest that police
football supporters suggest that hooliganism is not as wide-
interpretation of this can lead to supporters posing little
spread as suggested by the police or media, but these stud-
risk being classified as ‘risk’. Therefore, it is likely in this
ies are limited to a small sample of clubs. The extent of
368
International Journal of Police Science & Management 22(4)
football hooliganism may be found somewhere between
Hamilton-Smith, 2014; James and Pearson, 2006, 2015;
these studies, official data and comment from practitioners.
The Football Supporters Federation, 2018), which high-
lights a key concern of whether they should be issued to
Football banning orders (FBOs) and
juveniles at all. This broadening of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial