{"id":37,"date":"2008-02-11T09:35:25","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T15:35:25","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2017-08-07T15:39:54","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T20:39:54","slug":"menaces-to-management-a-developmental-view-of-british-soccer-hooligans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/menaces-to-management-a-developmental-view-of-british-soccer-hooligans\/","title":{"rendered":"Menaces to Management: A Developmental View of British Soccer Hooligans, 1961-1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: A.J. Haley, Ph.D. and Brian S. Johnson<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/p>\n

In their longitudinal examination of local and national newspaper
\nreports of soccer hooliganism in Britain Dunning, E., Murphy, P. J. and Williams,
\nJ. (1986) concluded that hooliganism has been a feature of soccer crowds
\nfor about 100 years (Dunning et al. 1986, p. 8). They note that there were
\nperiods of decline until the mid-1960s when soccer hooliganism became a “cause
\nfor material concern” (Dunning et al. 1986, p. 8). Indeed, Taylor states
\nthat “there is no equivalent period in British soccer history to the 25-year
\nperiod of more or less continuous soccer hooliganism beginning in 1961” (Taylor,
\n1984, p. 176). This study presents, places and portrays these soccer hooligan
\ngangs within the larger context of British professional soccer during this
\nperiod.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

No event illustrates the social phenomenon of “soccer hooliganism”
\nmore dramatically than the deaths of 39 Italian spectators at the European
\nCup Final between the Liverpool Football Club and the Italian team Juventus,
\nplayed at Heysel Stadium in Brussels, Belgium on May 29,1985 at the hands
\nof soccer hooligans from Liverpool, England (Kerr, 1994).<\/p>\n

After viewing film of the incident, Belgium authorities identified
\ngroups of Liverpool fans as those who instigated vicious attacks against
\nthe Italian fans, which in turn led to a stampede of people attempting to
\nescape the violence. The Liverpool soccer hooligans were the ones wearing
\nski masks and carrying various weapons including, pick axe handles and clubs
\n(The Times<\/em>, 30 May 1985). The brutality of the event was further
\nheightened by eyewitness accounts claiming the Liverpool soccer hooligans
\nwere urinating on the corpses and jumping around in celebration (Canter,
\n1989). In time, the main offenders were brought to trial and sentenced in
\na Belgium court.<\/p>\n

Non-Europeans, hearing of the incident probably considered this a
\ntragic, but isolated event. Sadly, British, as well as other European citizens,
\nare most aware of the problem that has become known as the “British Disease”
\n(Canter, 1989, p. 109), or soccer hooliganism.<\/p>\n

1985 was a bad year for professional soccer in Britain, because not
\nonly did the incident in Brussels occur, but “fire broke out at Bradford
\nCity Football Club causing many deaths,” apparently caused by an ignited
\nMolotov cocktail, “and a wall collapsed at Birmingham City, which also led
\nto numerous deaths” (Canter, 1989, pp. xvi). Furthermore, from 1985 to 1990
\nall British soccer club teams were banned from European competitions as a
\nresult of the Heysel Stadium tragedy.<\/p>\n

Superficially, it seems inconceivable that soccer fans would die
\nintentionally at the hands of others, yet with deeper understanding of the
\nsoccer scene it becomes clear why these incidents occurred. It was just a
\nmatter of time before the activities of soccer hooligans would lead to tragedy
\non the scale of the Heysel Stadium incident. Fortunately, 13 years later,
\nthere have been no further multiple-death incidents, though single deaths
\ncaused by soccer hooligans still occur and English soccer hooliganism is
\nstill “in business.”<\/p>\n

Sadly, British soccer hooliganism, as a wholly British import and
\na “peculiarly English pastime” (Kerr, 1994) has spread to other countries
\nin Europe. According to Murray (1984),<\/p>\n

Where soccer hooliganism does occur in countries like Holland
\nand Italy, it seems merely to imitate what has gone on in England over the
\nlast 30 years, and it is a good deal less frequent and much less widespread.
\nEven in other countries of British Isles, fighting, when it does occur at
\nsoccer games, is somehow different from the English variety. For example,
\nin Scotland and Northern Ireland when violence takes place it tends to be
\nbased on the sectarian divisions in those countries (p. 68).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Americans may have heard of the incidents previously mentioned, but
\nto most the concept of organized violence and other criminal activity carried
\nout by so called “fans” of a professional sports team is hard to grasp. However,
\nin England and other parts of the world, there is a real threat of becoming
\na victim of soccer hooliganism when attending a game.<\/p>\n

Unlike the hooliganism of the 1960s and 1970s, soccer hooliganism
\ntoday rarely involves random acts of violence or the actions of an unorganized
\nrabble. The \u2018Chelsea Headhunters’ for example, are a notorious soccer
\nhooligan gang in London that has a specific hierarchal leadership structure.
\nA recent leader of this group was Terry Last, an un-imposing law clerk for
\na firm of solicitors (Keel, 1987). The following passage from “Operation
\nOwn Goal” (Darbyshire, 1991) illustrates the fact that soccer hooliganism
\nis anything but random and spontaneous:<\/p>\n

An important feature of the \u2018Headhunters’ hooliganism
\nwas the degree of detailed planning invested in setting up opportunities
\nfor \u2018aggro’ (violence) with rival hooligans. The violence they generated
\nwas anything but spontaneous. Between them they could mobilize about 400
\nhooligans, marshaling them like military commanders to engagements planned
\nweeks, sometimes months in advance. For away games, for example, rather than
\nallowing themselves to be apprehended by local police security operations,
\nthey would travel out of their way, arriving unexpectedly from a completely
\ndifferent direction at a station in a particular city where trains from London
\ndid not stop. This extravagant method of travel was financed from thousands
\nof pounds retained in a number of bank accounts (p. 92).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The efforts of the British police and other management agencies,
\nresponsible for controlling and eliminating soccer hooliganism, have only
\nbeen moderately successful (Canter, 1989). Pitch (field of play) invasions
\nand crowd violence increased in the 1900s, and there has been scant success
\nin preventing the activities of the hard core soccer hooligan groups as the
\nhooliganism problem associated with English soccer continues to thrive.<\/p>\n

Soccer hooliganism is now an integral part of the social fabric of
\nEngland and, more recently, other parts of Europe. The reputation of English
\npeople in general has suffered as a result of the antics of the soccer hooligan
\nelement with the foreign press, on occasion, describing England as a nation
\nof soccer hooligans (Taylor, 1992).<\/p>\n

The majority of English soccer spectators are true, law-abiding fans
\nof the game, and at no time should their traditional chanting, singing, and
\nhigh spirits at soccer watches be confused with soccer hooliganism. Indeed,
\nsome soccer hooligans are also true fans of the game, and being a hooligan
\ndoes not erase an individual’s allegiance to a particular soccer team. However,
\nto most hooligans the style of play or success of the team are normally
\nunimportant. As Kerr (1994) describes, “a particular team is merely a kind
\nof \u2018flag of convenience’ that allows the hooligans to pursue their
\nactivities against the followers of other teams, the police or members of
\nthe public” (p. 4). Soccer hooligans are a small percentage of any soccer
\ngame crowd, and some writers would even contend that \u2018soccer hooligan
\nviolence is not as widespread, regular, and frequent an aspect of crowd behavior
\nat soccer games…as the press would have us believe” (Canter, 1989, p.
\n107).<\/p>\n

Soccer hooligan is a recently-coined term used to describe the antisocial
\nactivities of followers of professional soccer teams. The word hooligan
\noriginated in 19th century London from an Irish immigrant family named Hooligan
\n(Williams and Wagg, 1991), that terrorized the tenement areas of the \u2018East
\nEnd’. The term hooligan was later used as a general descriptor for any criminal
\nor rowdy behavior.<\/p>\n

The words soccer and hooligan were combined roughly 30 years ago
\nbecause of the many hooligan acts associated with professional soccer. Hooligan
\nattacks are usually made against rival hooligan gangs, but these same groups
\nmay unite as one to “form a kind of super hooligan coalition for trips abroad
\nto \u2018support’ the England team” (Hornby, 1992, p. 168). Once these hooligans
\nreturn to England the coalition disbands to be replaced by the old
\nrivalries.<\/p>\n

What can be confusing when describing soccer hooliganism is that
\nthe incidents can, and often do, occur some distance from any soccer stadium.
\nThe hooliganism label is given to incidents involving soccer team supporters
\nregardless of the location. The types of behavior and actions categorized
\nas soccer hooliganism vary considerably. Soccer hooliganism may involve riots,
\npitch invasions, the assaulting of players, fighting, vandalism, drunk and
\ndisorderly offenses, verbal and physical assaults, the use of weapons, the
\nthrowing of missiles, murder and mugging.<\/p>\n

Trivizas (1980) found that 67 percent of arrests were for “the use
\nof threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, with intent to cause
\na breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned”
\n(p. 185). This is partly due to the difficulties of arresting hooligans from
\nwithin a large group, and the fact that the police are more likely to charge
\noffenders with offenses that they know they have enough evidence to convict
\non.<\/p>\n

The activities or soccer hooligans can take place before, during
\nor after a match. The efforts of police to prevent hooliganism in the stadiums
\nhas changed the face of soccer hooliganism. Canter (1989) states:<\/p>\n

While one form of hooliganism is thus discouraged, another
\ncomes forward to take its place. Fans who are physically separated within
\nthe ground can throw missiles, coins or even seats at each other and
\n\u2018fighting crews’ from some clubs make special foray to find rival fans
\nin places or at times not subject to match-day policing (p. 108).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

Soccer hooliganism is a relatively recent social problem, but soccer
\nspectator violence is as old as the professional game itself. In fact, violence
\nin sports is not peculiar to soccer. Sport spectator violence has been documented
\nsince the Roman era (Canter, 1989). Spectator violence associated with the
\nRoman chariot races was “unparalleled by even the worst violence today and
\ncontinued into the fifth and sixth centuries in the Byzantine empire” (Canter,
\n1989, p. 104).<\/p>\n

Soccer evolved from medieval village melees, in which opposing groups
\ntried to move a leather-covered bladder to a place defended by their opponents.
\nThe melees became so violent that in 1365 Edward III, fearing civil unrest
\n(Canter, 1989), banned this version of soccer. Violence at soccer games has
\ncontinued to be a problem throughout the history of the game, and in 1655
\nfootball matches were banned, in order to preserve order in the Midlands,
\nby Oliver Cromwell.<\/p>\n

The modern, professional version of soccer was created during the
\n1840s. In the early days of professional soccer violent rivalries were common,
\nand pitch invasions and spectator violence were regular during the 1880s
\n(Walvin, 1986). In fact, most of the pre-World War I period of professional
\nsoccer was associated with fairly routine crowd disturbances which, as noted
\nby Williams and Wagg(1991), would be considered small-scale by modern day
\nstandards.<\/p>\n

The period after World War I and through World War II saw a decline
\nin instances of crowd violence and misbehavior. In fact, during the period
\n1914-1940 Holt (1989) states that<\/p>\n

Nowhere in the vast press coverage and literature of match
\nreports is there any reference to the growth of a violent, organized youth
\nsubculture within football. Casual, individual violence was almost certainly
\nmore common than today, but hooliganism in the collective and contemporary
\nsense did not take place at football matches (Holt, 1989, p. 333).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Crowd disturbances at soccer matches afflicted the early years of
\nthe game, with incidents usually involving alcohol consumption and isolated
\nfist fights and swearing (Kerr, 1994). When there were riots or pitch invasions,
\nthe targets were normally the referees or the players, in reaction to bad
\ncalls or player misconduct, all contrasting with the organized pitch invasions
\nwhich became a common occurrence in the 1970s. However, soccer hooliganism
\nduring the 1960s and 1970s was not peculiar to Britain. Williams et al. (1984)
\nnoted that at a match in Peru in 1964 318 people were killed in a riot, 74
\npeople died in Argentina in 1968, 69 in Russia in 1982 and 29 in Columbia
\nin the same year. However, what sets these incidents apart from the British
\nversion of soccer hooliganism, is the fact that they were spontaneous reactions
\nto bad referee calls and emotional reactions to losing crucial games, not
\norganized violence.<\/p>\n

The post-war years were boom years for the English game and this
\nwas reflected in record ticket sales and attendances at the professional
\nsoccer games. However, according to Murphy et al. (1990) “the after glow
\nof victory in the Second World War (started) to fade, the loss of Empire,
\nand slow economic growth” and at the same time there was “rising public concern
\nabout the problem of working class youth, rock and roll, and especially the
\n\u2018Teddy Boys'” (p. 80).<\/p>\n

Teddy Boys was the name given to a youth sub-cult of the late 1950s
\ncharacterized by a particular style of dress and hair style, dancing, rock
\nand roll, and a reputation for violence and bad behavior. The Teddy Boys
\nwere also blamed for the rise in crowd disturbances at soccer games. Teddy
\nBoys were involved in a number of pitch invasions and mass brawls with opposing
\nfans at soccer matches (Murphy et al. 1990). However, in this early stage,
\nsoccer hooliganism had not yet become a household term in Britain.<\/p>\n

The next important stage for soccer hooliganism occurred with the
\nemergence of the skinhead craze during the late 1960s. Skinhead gangs cropped
\nup all over working class council estates, in public housing, and throughout
\nthe towns and cities of Britain. Just as with gangs in the United States,
\nthe skinhead gangs displayed loyalty and pride in their community. Heavy
\ndrinking and fighting with rival gangs was a way of life for these young
\nmen from the “rough working class” (Dunning et al., 1986, p. 38).<\/p>\n

These same skinhead gangs went to soccer matches to support their
\nlocal teams. Although there was strong loyalty to a particular community,
\non match days there occurred what Paul Harrison has described as \u2018the
\nBedouin effect’, “people from different housing estates who are \u2018deadly
\nenemies’ all week can be allies on Saturdays in the face of outsiders from
\nanother town” (Taylor, 1978, p. 155).<\/p>\n

Areas behind the soccer goals are known as \u2018ends’, and these
\nare traditional areas of soccer hooligan activity. The skinheads of the late
\n1960s and early 1970s took the territoriality of the housing estates into
\nthe soccer stadiums. Rival soccer fans taunted at each other with gestures
\nand chants and derogatory songs designed to spark a fight between the two
\n(Canter, 1989). Soccer matches were the perfect venues to display “aggressive
\nmasculine styles” such as heavy drinking, ability to fight, and
\ncourage.<\/p>\n

Pitch invasions, which were designed to either halt play or instigate
\nfights with rival hooligans from the opposing end, became common place. Special
\nfootball trains, which had been in use for years to transport soccer fans
\nto away games for a reasonable price, became venues for hooligan activity
\nin the form of vandalism and fighting. The mid-’70s saw the emergence of
\nthe fighting crews’ who have become known as the early predecessors to the
\nsuperhooligans of the 1980s and 1990s. These gangs were attached to most
\nof the upper division professional soccer teams in Britain. The most notorious
\nand infamous of these fighting crews supported the London team Millwall Football
\nClub. In the winter of 1975 the English current affairs program Panorama
\naired an in-depth profile of the Millwall fighting crew known as \u2018F-troop’
\n(Canter, 1989).<\/p>\n

The Millwall soccer hooligans had a reputation for being \u2018hard’
\nas well as \u2018crazy’. When at their home stadium, they occupied the area
\nbehind the goal. Their most distinguishing trademark was the donning of surgical
\nshirts and hats. the Millwall hooligans were organized on the terraces by
\nfighting abilities and age. The youngest members of the group, known as the
\n\u2018Underfives’, would be situated alongside the rival hooligans. It was
\ntheir job to antagonize and entice the others to attack them or fight. Once
\nthe fighting started the next group known as the \u2018treatment’ would go
\nin. If the situation was not controlled adequately by the treatment then
\nthe group known as \u2018surgery’ would get involved. The surgery were the
\nreal \u2018nutters’ who were mostly in their 30s and 40s with previous criminal
\nrecords for violence. It was their job to “really put the boot in” (Canter
\n1989, p. 77).<\/p>\n

The Millwall F-troop slowly disbanded during the late \u201870s as
\nkey members were jailed and security measures at stadiums prevented the terrace
\nviolence. However, the organization and planning that went into the activities
\nof members of F-troop was similar to that found in the super-hooligan groups.
\nThere were also fighting crews associated with other teams such as, Liverpool,
\nManchester’s Red Army, Chelsea, West Ham, Leeds, Birmingham. Almost all of
\nthe professional soccer teams had their version of F-troop in the
\nterraces.<\/p>\n

Except for Millwall, the fighting crews of the other soccer teams
\nwere a loose collection of individuals. Fighting that broke out was usually
\nstarted by the more fearless or well-known hooligans backed up by those who
\nhappened to be in the vicinity. Only when examined in detail do the similarities
\nof these earlier fighting crews to the later super-hooligans begin to fade.
\nUnfortunately, 30 years later the hooliganism problem is alive and well and
\nbodily harm has escalated, in some cases, to murder.<\/p>\n

As fashions changed the skinhead gangs slowly disappeared from the
\nterraces during the early 1970s, but the hooligans remained. The number of
\npitch invasion incidents during this period increased (Murphy et al. 1990)
\nas soccer hooligans tried taking rival hooligans territory by force. With
\nthe cooperation of police, the Football Association (the main governing body
\nof professional soccer in Britain), and the soccer club owners, fencing and
\nbarriers were widely installed in an attempt to stop the pitch invasions
\n(William and Wagg, 1991). These preventive measures also served another important
\npurpose, that of segregating the rival soccer hooligans from each
\nother.<\/p>\n

However, the elaborate barricades and fences around the soccer pitch
\ndesigned to control soccer hooligans later resulted in tragedy. What these
\nfences did was cage up the possible soccer hooligans in one controlled section
\nof the stadium. These engagements became death traps on 15 April 1989, when
\na rush of fans through the turnstiles at Hillborough Stadium in Sheffield
\nled to the deaths of 95 Liverpool supporters. Most of the deaths were caused
\nby crushing and suffocation as people were pushed and squeezed against the
\nfencing, unable to escape (Taylor, 1988). This, and other incidents, resulted
\nin the removal of all the fences and barriers at soccer stadiums across the
\ncountry. Risk of a similar incident happening again overshadowed the threat
\nof soccer hooliganism.<\/p>\n

Management efforts were implemented throughout Britain to prevent
\nhooliganism activity both inside and outside the stadiums as rival groups
\nof fans were routinely escorted by police both to and from train stations
\nand stadiums. Outbreaks of mass fights and violent clashes between rival
\nsoccer hooligan groups, common during the late 1960s and early 1970s, started
\nto subside. However, during the early to mid-1970s, another facet of soccer
\nhooliganism began to emerge as soccer hooligans began to throw objects as
\nweapons. Sharpened coins and darts were the favored weapons as they were
\neasily concealed and could be thrown long distances with reasonable
\naccuracy.<\/p>\n

The ends of soccer stadiums fostered the development of a sense of
\n\u2018kinship’ amongst the hooligans. They were also the place where reputations
\ncould be made within the hooligan element. Those individuals who were either
\n\u2018hard’ enough, crazy enough, or both, could attain \u2018folklore’ status
\nas a “true nutter” of the soccer terraces.<\/p>\n

Walvin (1986) gives an account of a \u2018particularly nasty’ hooligan
\ncalled “Tiny,” a follower of the Chelsea Soccer Club of London. “Tiny” had
\na reputation for instigating fights and was known as someone who could
\n\u2018hold his own’ in a fight. He would make lone charges against, for example,
\n50 opposing fans, more often then not causing them to break ranks and run.
\nHe was finally given a life sentence for using a sawn-off shotgun and causing
\nserious injury to a rival group of hooligans (Walvin, 1986).<\/p>\n

British authorities began to take soccer hooliganism seriously by
\nthe mid-’70s, and calls for stiffer penalties were answered. Prison sentences,
\nfines, and other punishment for soccer-related offenses became more severe
\nthan equivalent non-soccer related offenses, (Marsh, 1978). There was a slight
\ndrop in the number of related soccer hooligan offenses, but the results of
\nthe new laws were disappointing. Something more had to be done.<\/p>\n

Heavy police presence, barricades and fencing, stiffer penalties,
\nand segregation of rival fans, were all measures that were received with
\ninitial enthusiasm, but fell short when hooliganism continued despite these
\nmeasures. Authorities were at a loss as to how to deal with this serious
\nproblem.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, soccer hooligans continued “plying their trade”
\nin terraces across Britain. By the late 1970s the nature of soccer hooliganism
\nbegan to change when it became more difficult to engage in hooligan activity,
\neither at the game or adjacent to it. Management’s installing of closed circuit
\ntelevision in the late 1970s and early 1980s made for easier identification
\nof hooligans, and forced the hooligans to take more care when conducting
\ntheir activities. Hooligans began to do most of their fighting and other
\nhooligan activity in the pubs and side streets of British city centers. They
\nwould even show up at airports, truck stops, night clubs, and similar public
\nvenues with the sole purpose of clashing with rival hooligans.<\/p>\n

British soccer hooligan antics were not confined to the British Isles.
\nThe rise in hooligan incidents during the early to mid-’70s led to further
\ntroubling developments as incidents began to surface on continental Europe.
\nUp until 1974 the rest of Europe had been relatively hooligan-free; it was
\nsomething that happened in Britain. This all changed on 12 February 1974,
\nwhen Leeds United, an English soccer team from the north of England, played
\nfor the European championship against the Lyons Football Club, based in France;
\nthe match was played in Paris (Barnes, 1974). During this match a contingent
\nof Leeds soccer hooligans attacked French fans and ripped up seating and
\nother stadium fixtures, and used these items as missiles against the French
\npolice. It was 50 minutes before the hooligans were dispersed or arrested.
\nThis single incident brought English soccer hooliganism to Europe.<\/p>\n

Incidents involving either local teams or the English national team
\nincreased throughout the 1970s and continue to this day. Kerr (1994) believes
\nthat the rise in English soccer hooliganism abroad was partly a result of
\nreactions to management measures taken at stadiums in England which made
\nit more difficult and risky to engage in hooligan activity. In a sense, Europe
\nwas “easy pickings” for the hard core English hooligans who “reigned supreme
\nagainst fans who did not fight back and police who were unaccustomed and
\nill-prepared to deal with them” (Kerr 1994, p.12).<\/p>\n

People abroad had an image, encouraged by local media, “of the English
\nas a loutish, beer-drinking mob of football hooligans,” and “it was as if
\nthe British had become a nation of hooligans football louts” (Walvin, 1994,
\np. 193). English soccer hooligans were more than willing to perpetuate this
\nimage. Relatedly, there was also a rise in British nationalism as these hooligan
\nincidents were on the increase. English hooligans derived a sense of national
\npride from the fact that they believed they were the “hardest blokes in Europe”
\n(Williams et al. 1984, p. 35).<\/p>\n

However, just as in Britain, the security forces in European countries
\nbegan to fight back against these hooligans. The police in Germany, France,
\nItaly, and Spain, used more heavy-handed tactics than those employed in Britain.
\nTear gas, rubber bullets, riot sticks and water cannons were routinely used
\nby European police to quell troubles caused by English soccer
\nhooligans.<\/p>\n

Only much later, because of their long-standing tradition as protectors
\nand defenders, did the British police use similar tactics. However, the
\naggressive tactics of the police abroad did not deter the hooligans who thrived
\non the excitement of clashes with riot police (Buford, 1991). On the continent
\nmost hooligan activities conducted by the English occurred outside of the
\nstadiums. Williams, et. al. (1994), describe English soccer hooligans in
\nSpain destroying cafes and bars, beating up locals, clashing with Spanish
\nyouths, rioting in towns, looting, and committing other criminal acts, with
\nalcohol consumption being blamed for the majority of these incidents. In
\nretrospect, from 1974 to the present, there has not been a game played, on
\nor off the continent, between an English team and a European side that wasn’t
\nmarred by some form of hooligan activity, either in the stadium or outside
\nit.<\/p>\n

As Carter (1989) notes:<\/p>\n

Every preventative measure can be combated by the hooligans.
\nMissile-throwing takes the place of face-to-face confrontation, segregation
\nwithin the ground displaces the aggression to outside the ground, a police
\npresence forces anyone looking for trouble to plan ahead. Therefore the symptoms
\nchange but the illness remains the same (p. 123).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

And although over time, management measures have reduced in-stadium
\nincidences of this illness, negative side-effects of the measures led to,
\nby 1986, the presence of a super-strain of the original hooligan figure of
\nthe early 1960s – a much more covert, rooted, organized, and powerful menace
\nto management than its predecessor.<\/p>\n

\n

References<\/p>\n

Canter, D. (1989). Football in its place<\/em>. London:
\nRoutledge.<\/p>\n

Darbyshire, N. (1987, May 9). Operation own goal. The
\nIndependent<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Dunning, E. Murphy, P.J., & Williams, J. (1986). Spectator violence
\nat football matches: toward a sociological explanation. British Journal
\nOf Sociology<\/em>. 37, (2).<\/p>\n

Holt, R. (1989). Sport and the British<\/em>. Oxford: Oxford University
\nPress.<\/p>\n

Hornby, N. (1992). Fever pitch<\/em>. London: Victor Gollancz.<\/p>\n

Keel, P. (1987, January 8). Slashed fan identified mob boss, court
\ntold. The Guardian<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Kerr, J., H. (1994). Understanding soccer hooliganism<\/em>. Buckingham,
\nEngland: Open University Press.<\/p>\n

Marsh, P. (1978). The illusion of violence<\/em>. Dent:
\nLondon.<\/p>\n

Murphy, P., Williams, J., & Dunning, E. (1990). Football on
\ntrial: spectator violence and development in the football world<\/em>. London:
\nRoutledge.<\/p>\n

Murray, B. (1984). The old firm: sectarianism, sport, and society
\nin Scotland<\/em>. Edinburgh: J. Donald Publishers.<\/p>\n

Popplewell, O. (1986). Committee of enquiry into crowd safety and
\ncontrol at sports grounds. Final report<\/em>. London: HMSO, 6.<\/p>\n

Taylor, I. (1984). British soccer after Brussels. Sociology of
\nSport Journal<\/em> No.4, pgs. 171-91.<\/p>\n

Taylor, R. (1992). Football and its fans: supporters and their
\nrelations with the game, 1885-1985<\/em>. Leicester, England: Leicester University
\nPress.<\/p>\n

Trivizas. (1980).<\/p>\n

Walvin, J. (1994). The people’s game<\/em>. London: Mainstream
\nPublishing.<\/p>\n

Walvin, J. (1986). Football and the decline of Britain<\/em>. London:
\nMacmillan Press Ltd.<\/p>\n

Williams, J., & Wagg, S. (Eds). (1991). British football and
\nsocial change: getting into Europe<\/em>. Leicester, England: Leicester University
\nPress.<\/p>\n

Williams, J., & Wagg, S. (Eds). (1994). Hooligans abroad:
\nthe behavior and control of English fans in continental Europe<\/em>. London:
\nRoutledge and Keegan Paul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Submitted by: A.J. Haley, Ph.D. and Brian S. Johnson<\/div>\n

\n Abstract:<\/strong>\n <\/p>\n

\n In their longitudinal examination of local and national newspaper
\n reports of soccer hooliganism in Britain Dunning, E., Murphy, P. J. and Williams,
\n J. (1986) concluded that hooliganism has been a feature of soccer crowds
\n for about 100 years (Dunning et al. 1986, p. 8). They note that there were
\n periods of decline until the mid-1960s when soccer hooliganism became a “cause
\n for material concern” (Dunning et al. 1986, p. 8). Indeed, Taylor states
\n that “there is no equivalent period in British soccer history to the 25-year
\n period of more or less continuous soccer hooliganism beginning in 1961” (Taylor,
\n 1984, p. 176). This study presents, places and portrays these soccer hooligan
\n gangs within the larger context of British professional soccer during this
\n period.\n <\/p>\n

\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n No event illustrates the social phenomenon of “soccer hooliganism”
\n more dramatically than the deaths of 39 Italian spectators at the European
\n Cup Final between the Liverpool Football Club and the Italian team Juventus,
\n played at Heysel Stadium in Brussels, Belgium on 29 May 1985 at the hands
\n of soccer hooligans from Liverpool, England (Kerr, 1994).\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[293,299,291,296],"tags":[8,12,23,65],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-B","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":104,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/british-soccer-superhooligans-emergence-and-establishment-1982-2000\/","url_meta":{"origin":37,"position":0},"title":"British Soccer Superhooligans: Emergence and Establishment: 1982-2000","date":"February 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: By defining match days and football grounds as times and places in which fighting could be engaged in and aggressive forms of masculinity displayed, the media, especially the national tabloid press, played a part of some moment in stimulating and shaping the development of soccer hooliganism (p. 122).\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":180,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/soccer-hooliganism-in-england-between-the-wars\/","url_meta":{"origin":37,"position":1},"title":"Soccer Hooliganism in England Between the Wars","date":"March 3, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Gerald Griggs Hooliganism has long been associated with soccer in England and has been a common occurrence from the late nineteenth century onwards. Yet following the end of the First World War, incidents of crowd disorder appeared to fall resulting in a period of calm and orderly behavior\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":372,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/an-examination-of-british-sport-security-strategies-legislation-and-risk-management-practices\/","url_meta":{"origin":37,"position":2},"title":"An Examination of British Sport Security Strategies, Legislation, and Risk Management Practices","date":"April 9, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Stacey A. Hall, University of Southern Mississippi Abstract Britain faces similar sport security issues to the United States such as terrorism and crowd management problems. In particular, hooligan activities have posed a significant challenge for the British government in the past 25 to 30 years. Major soccer tragedies, such as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":44,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/alabama-high-school-soccer-undergoes-eligibility-rule-changes\/","url_meta":{"origin":37,"position":3},"title":"Alabama High School Soccer Undergoes Eligibility Rule Changes","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dr. Joe Manjone, Dean of Student Services, Continuing Education & Distance Learning, USSA Changes in the penalties for Alabama High School soccer players receiving misconducts have had very little effect on the numbers and types of cards issued during the 1997 and 1998 Alabama high school soccer seasons.(note:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5672,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/revelry-or-riot-an-exploratory-study-of-internet-media-coverage-of-sport-championship-celebrations\/","url_meta":{"origin":37,"position":4},"title":"Revelry or Riot? An Exploratory Study of Internet Media Coverage of Sport Championship Celebrations","date":"April 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Brian E Menaker, R. Dale Sheptak Jr, Amanda K Curtis Corresponding Author: R. Dale Sheptak Jr. Baldwin Wallace University 275 Eastland Road Berea, Ohio 44017 rsheptak@bw.edu 440-826-2125 Brian E. Menaker, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Sport Business in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/Table-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":195,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/colors-and-cultural-interactions-in-the-turkish-sport-clubs\/","url_meta":{"origin":37,"position":5},"title":"Colors and Cultural Interactions in the Turkish Sport Clubs","date":"March 6, 2005","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Okkes A. Gencay & Suat Karakucuk Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the colors and color combinations used by the professional soccer clubs and to evaluate the proportion of the cultural interaction between the people and colors in Turkey. The study was carried out on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1360,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37\/revisions\/1360"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}