By Tony Attwood
- Did Arsenal really win the league by bribing the VAR officials as some now imply?
- “Arsenal has embraced everyone” and “there is something wrong and we can’t fix it”
There were many people who were annoyed and frustrated by TNT not making the final of the Champions League free to view this year, as it has been in the past. TNT didn’t bother to make much of an excuse, but given that TNT will lose its licence to show English football in a year’s time has undoubtedly got something to do with it. Few, however, will regret its departure.
And it is interesting that seemingly over twice as many people managed to watch the Champions League final on illegal streams than actually paid TNT to watch the game, suggesting that TNT lost on both fronts. It didn’t collect the sort of money that it expected from not making the game free to watch, and it did irreparable damage to its reputation. Certainly, if TNT gets to buy any more sports rights, there will be a number of publications reminding readers that tradition and the feelings of its audience seemingly count for nothing for this broadcaster.
However, I suspect the TV rights industry will note with considerable concern that TNT has let it be known that it was happy to have picked up just a quarter of the overall audience through its paid-for service. But the rest of the broadcasting industry will be worried in the extreme that so many fans bypassed the official channel and went for an illegal service. The knock-on effect could last for a long time.
Equally, it is being recognised that a win on the international stage for any French team is liable to cause a fair degree of rioting and property destruction in France, not just by those associated with the team that won, but by many others too.
Many views have been put forward as to why this happens in France, including issues such as the deep social divides in the country, which seem not to have been addressed by the government in any way other than by putting more police officers on the streets, which some would argue actually makes matters worse.
Interestingly, the authorities were well aware that there could well be trouble in France whatever the result. It is claimed that this time around Paris, the police had “very robust, very solid system in place”, or at least that is what we were told by the Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez. It didn’t seem to help. And it certainly didn’t stop rioting in other cities which had no affinity with the winning team.
Indeed putting up giant screens in the Parc des Princes didn’t seem to help at all. Official figures state that by around 3am on Sunday, almost 300 people had been arrested in Paris.
Of course, there are links with England in this, not least in the language used by the authorities, as when the head of the police forces involved noted that seven officers had been injured and this was called (as crowd behaviour invariably is) “absolutely unacceptable”.
There was also an interesting comment by the leader of the extreme right-wing National Rally party until a few years ago, Marine Le Pen, who wrote on X: “Only in France does a football club’s victory spark riots…. Only in France does everyone feel compelled to lock themselves in their homes on the evening of a victory to avoid being confronted with violence.” Which is interesting in that only a few years ago, violence at football matches was called “The English Disease”. Now it seems we have exported it.
Historians have long pointed out the link between kicking a ball and violence going back to the 13th century, while those who seriously study what is known as “football hooliganism” now trace current problems back only to the 1960s. But the reality is that football, from its inception, was the game of the impoverished: working people, many of whom may be disgruntled by their lives and the wealth of others. Football in fact, has been the one thing that gives an identity to groups far beyond their association with one town or one club. It has long been associated with anger and protest about the conditions of those not benefiting from the increased wealth that others have. Or are perceived to have.
Certainly, through the 20th century, there were numerous incidents of rioting at football matches, including at a match in 1909 between Glasgow and Celtic, which was reported to have involved over 6000 fans who took on the authorities.
In contrast, the 1960s was an era in which violence against immigrants was on the rise. Some theorists also note that the showing of such violent behaviour on TV caused its spread onto the terraces.
But then, with the advent of improved transport systems, from the 1960s onwards, groups of supporters developed their own identities which were separate from the name of the club and their own songs and rituals.
As we know, the introduction of all-ticket games and memberships has been associated with the decline of hooliganism in football grounds, but the fact that this has happened in the UK should not be taken to mean this pattern has been followed in other countries, as we saw in France.
But what history does show is that when populations feel they are being ignored or have a need to express their identity, there can be a rise in violent demonstrations. And as events in France have shown, while a victory by one club over a rival from another city or indeed another country can generate expressions of joy, it can also generate expressions of anger which have nothing to do with the football match that has just occurred.
Unfortunately, the general response of those in charge of the media, and those who cling onto power, is to label, fine and imprison those who feel that violence is the only form of activity open to them. But in terms of stopping further violent outbreaks, it has virtually no impact.
.
