Violence – who’s to blame?

Should Scottish football clubs be held strictly liable if their fans misbehave, or is it unfair to hold clubs responsible for the actions of individuals? Michael Alexander investigates.

It started as a trickle and very quickly became a flood. As the final whistle blew at Hampden on Saturday May 21, confirming Hibernian’s dramatic 3-2 victory and their first Scottish Cup win for 114 years, a handful of emotional supporters broke past the overwhelmed stewards – quickly followed by a surge of hundreds then thousands.

As the tension quickly mounted and bottles were thrown, several hundred Rangers fans also spilled on to the pitch and more than 70 people were arrested in the violent confrontations that ensued.

The question being asked now is whether football clubs should be held strictly responsible for the behaviour of their fans, or whether the buck stops with the individual.

The Scottish Government has spoken of its disappointment this week after charges were dropped against Hibs and Rangers.

An independent panel convened by the Scottish FA dismissed the case against both clubs, finding nothing in the rules to punish them. This was because the SFA’s disciplinary procedures are not underlined by “strict liability” – where clubs are responsible for their supporters’ behaviour. Members voted against it in 2013.

Boiled down to its simplest definition, strict liability means liability which does not depend on negligence or intent to harm.

Nonsense

Abertay University sociology and criminology lecturer Dr Stuart Waiton says it is “nonsense” to hold an organisation responsible for an individual’s bad behaviour.

The Dundee lecturer, who crossed swords with the Scottish Government when he described its 2011 bill on sectarianism at football grounds as a “snobs’ law”, said: “It’s another example of football fans being treated with authoritarian contempt and a panic-like reaction to the occasional problem cases at games.”

Dr Waiton’s stance chimes with the views of Alloa Athletic chairman Mike Mulraney, who earlier this year said Scottish clubs were widely opposed to the idea of new strict liability rules.

SPFL board member Mulraney reportedly said clubs should not be punished if they were doing all they could to prevent unruly behaviour.

The Scottish Government has now warned it could intervene to enforce a tougher approach to tackling crowd trouble – and claims it has the backing of the fans.

A spokesperson said it was essential that “meaningful measures are in place to allow such behaviour to be dealt with effectively”.

Fan support

“Independent research shows fans overwhelmingly support the goal of eradicating offensive behaviour from matches,” the spokesperson said.

“We have been clear that we will take steps if the progress we need to see isn’t being made.

“Our preference remains that football should deliver a solution and we are continuing to work closely with the authorities and clubs to encourage them to do so. When unacceptable conduct or disorder takes place, those measures should allow the football authorities to take meaningful action.”

Justice Secretary Michael Matheson made clear when he spoke at the Scottish FA in June 1 that his department had no set view on what the solution should be. If not strict liability, it could involve a whole range of options.

The approach of the SFA is in stark contrast to the actions of European football’s governing body UEFA, which this week fined Celtic €10,000 over Palestinian flags displayed by fans during a recent Champions league match against Israeli club Hapoel Be’er Sheva.

UEFA has also ruled this week that Legia Warsaw will host its Champions League game against holders Real Madrid in an empty stadium after fans were banned over crowd trouble.

It is estimated the sanctions could cost the Polish champions around £1 million.

Picture: Getty Images. The scenes at the end of the Scottish Cup Final as Hibernian fans are held in by mounted police after invading the pitch following their team’s win.