Europe has experienced great political turbulence over the past year. The terrorist attacks on Paris and Brussels, the controversy surrounding Brexit, the pressures of the refugee crisis, and multiple other events have led to widespread tension and strained relations across the continent. So, the UEFA Euro 2016 tournament, in which football teams representing 24 different countries compete for the title, should come as a welcome breath of fresh air—an opportunity for thousands of people with different backgrounds to congregate in France and revel in a shared passion for a sport with immense historical and cultural symbolism.
However, fan violence (and concurrent security failures) both inside and outside of the stadiums has so far marred the tournament’s atmosphere. For example, an English player’s wife was struck by tear gas during a clash between English fans and French police; English and Russian fans engaged in multiple occasions of street violence; German and Ukrainian fans fought before a match between their respective teams; French supporters attacked Northern Irish and Polish supporters; and during a match between Croatia and the Czech Republic, Croatian fans threw explosive flares onto the pitch that nearly injured a steward and a Croatian player. UEFA and the French police forces have made repeated attempts to control these occurrences by making arrests, deporting certain Russian fans, enacting a delayed ban on alcohol, and fining individual football federations for their fans’ behavior. However, despite these measures, the violence has persisted.
Often referred to as “football hooliganism,” fan violence at major football events is a familiar occurrence. Sometimes it is the result of gang-like activity, but other times it is just random outbursts from overzealous supporters. Like fan violence in general, it has strong sociological connotations; it is frequently related to racial and ethnic tensions, social and political conflict, and a heightened sense of regionalism or nationalism. And even though the name might connote childlike misbehavior, “football hooliganism” can pose a real threat to people’s safety. Despite a global decline in football-related violence, it continues to occur at both club matches and international competitions, with dire consequences for many of those involved. Euro 2016 is a clear reminder that fans of opposing teams still do and will continue to engage each other in brutal ways. But something feels different – and not in a good way – at this year’s tournament: Steve Neill, a top football policing official from the UK, deemed the violence at Euro 2016 the worst he had ever seen in his career.
It seems that the actions of fans at the tournament have created an inadvertent but accurate microcosm of the political turmoil enveloping Europe. The newly resurrected fervor in Europe surrounding nationalistic parties and philosophies is reflected in the hyper-nationalism (or regionalism) that is a major motivator of football hooliganism. Furthermore, the failure of major leaders and organizations to effectively mitigate crisis situations, coordinate new solutions, and share international responsibility at the tournament mirrors problems in European political relations as a whole. In a dialogue echoing that which followed major terrorist attacks, other countries have largely blamed French police and security forces, with little focus directed to a consistent underlying lack of international cooperation and communication.
In recent years, the internal divisions present in the EU have made it more difficult to share vital information and intelligence about potential terrorists, a pattern evident in the recent failure to communicate about fans with a history of violence, although the consequences are decidedly less severe for football. Furthermore, the porous open borders allowing fans from all over Europe to easily enter France also make it realistically impossible to place the security burden on any one country. Although it makes sense for France to bear some responsibility, few attempts have been made by individual federations to lend UEFA and the French police aid in controlling the audiences’ temperaments. Some leaders (notably those from Russia) have even praised the violence as a demonstration of their own national strength, echoing a familiar and longstanding regional dissonance. However, other leaders, particularly from the Welsh and English football federations, have made an effort to encourage better behavior from fans, with positive results which can be built upon to ensure the best possible environment for future matches.
Although the world of sports and the world of politics are distinct, the de facto reality is that cleanly separating the two is a difficult task. Throughout football’s history this has been evident – the notorious “Football War” between El Salvador and Honduras stands out in particular among a long list of other international conflicts with ties to football. The difficult distinction between football and politics remains true today, as the actions of both fans and leaders at Euro 2016 are broadcasting a disheartening message about European solidarity and harmony to a worldwide audience numbering in the millions. Add in the blameworthy behavior of individual countries, and the already delicate and strained sense of international cooperation continues to unravel.
On top of these global ramifications, fan violence impacts the tournament itself through delayed games, fan barriers, and teams playing under threat of expulsion in addition to the stress that accompanies the honor of representing their home nation. Even the ‘beautiful game’ cannot escape the scarring realities of Europe’s increasing political troubles.
Yet even amidst these disturbing events, hope is not lost. In the past, concrete measures have been effectively utilized to stymie football violence: implementing better security measures, sharing information on known hooligans, limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol, and using techniques such as “fan coaching” and “fan forums” are just a few tactics that have been successful. If different international organizations were to work together to make some of these a reality, the tournament could become a more stable environment, both politically and on the pitch. Even just a display of positive international dialogue directly encouraging fans to put aside political differences could make the tournament a better experience for themselves and for the players who represent them.
Precisely because of the enduring cultural, historical, and political significance of football, Euro 2016 could have presented a unique opportunity to begin mending and stabilizing international cooperation. It could have been a step forward in encouraging peaceful interactions between people from different countries, although the icy relations between some of these countries could continue to stymie true progress. At the very least, the tournament could have been a brief respite from the political distress in Europe. But the violence and underlying regional tensions have marred the tournament both on and off the field. The violence and discord at Euro 2016 can perhaps best be seen as a lesson for major upcoming tournaments like the World Cup. In a world of ever-increasing tensions, the football federations, the fans present at, and the administration of future tournaments must coordinate to put aside these differences. Such measures will ensure the best possible environment for the game, even if the underlying dissonances must be solved on another kind of playing field.