The Heysel Disaster: Safety & Crowd Management - Essay Example

Introduction In the modern society, it is common for large concentrations of people to congregate at a common point, either in a political meeting or social gatherings. Sports are some of the activities which attract large crowds of people. In the current day, as many as 70,000 people can gather in a stadium to watch a football match. The fans usually throng the stadium oblivious of the dangers that they might be exposed to. In most cases, such crowds of people gather in an event without any adverse situations. However, there have been cases whereby stampede amongst the people in the crowd have ended up in death. These stampedes are normally caused by inadequate space for huge numbers of people. Such dangerous circumstances have been witnessed in stadiums while fans watch football matches. An example of such a situation is the one that occurred in Heysel Stadium in Brussels where the finals of the European Cup were held. The match took place on May 29th 1985 and was between Liverpool Football Club and Juventus Football Club of Italy. 39 football fans got killed in the event. Other disasters which have occurred in overcrowded stadiums include the Bradfort disaster where 56 people perished in a fire that broke out in a city stadium and the Hillsborough disaster where 94 people perished and two others, who succumbed to injuries later on (BBC News 29 May, 2000). Causes and Failures of the Heysel Disaster The Heysel disaster can be attributed to several factors. Some of the causes originated from the fans while others were as a result of failures by the managers of the match. Before the match, there were signs which indicated that the outcome may be disastrous. As fans and the players prepared themselves for the match, a friendly match was played between youngsters from Belgium who wore attire with colors resembling those of the Liverpool team and another team of young players who wore white which was the color of the Italian team. Tension was high as the two teams played. It seemed as if the two teams were a true representation of the main contestants, and their scores were assumed by the fans to indicate the outcome of the Heysel match, with Liverpool fans boasting the Belgium team lead of 3-0 in the first half of the junior friendly match. Tempers rose when the team that wore white which resembled that of the Juventus scored. Exchange of abusive words began between the two groups of fans and the junior friendly match was stopped before the match came to an end. However, this was just a sign of the rising tempers amongst the fans (Kirkby Times News 2005). Liverpool fans were stationed at the stand which was behind one of the goals while the neutrals were to be positioned at the end section of the stand. Initially, this space allocation was not welcome on the side of Liverpool. However, UEFA did not consider their objections and they ended up taking up the position. This was the first major failure of UEFA in positioning, which was a major contributor to the Heysel disaster. The fans being positioned on the same stand was a major cause of agitation. More over, the only barrier between them was an insubstantial weak fence which was made of chicken wire. This was easy to break for the funs which posed a great danger in case any of the rival groups decided to attack. To make the matter worse, the neutral section was occupied by Italian fans who had acquired the tickets from the Belgium fans that were neutral. The propinquity of the supporters of the Juventus to the Liverpool fans, they began pelting the rival Liverpool fans with stones, which was a reminder of the trouble they had faced in their last final match which was held in Rome. They retaliated with enormous force and moved in to the neutral section where the Juventus fans were. This caused mayhem leading to fleeing of the viewers, who were not associated with the chaos (BBC News 29 May, 2000). These spectators fled heading towards the extreme end of the field which had a stone wall surrounding it. The wall surrounded the whole field. There was no other escape apart from trying to climb up the perimeter wall. The wall tumbled due to the excessive force exerted on it. This was another major cause of the disaster. The wall is believed to have been constructed in a dubious manner. The poles which supported it were attached on the front side which made it easy for it to succumb to pressure from the other side. On the other hand, the usual procedures of ascertaining whether the field was suitable for the match were not followed. It was known that the stadium was not safe for a match of that intensity, or even any other match. Even if it could have been inspected by the council, it was clear that it was not safe for a football match. However, the organizers of the match passed the resolution of using it. Many people in blame the disaster on politicians of the time and other influential people who made money through the savings which were made through using the pitch. It has never been clear to them why the grounds which were clear death traps were proposed for the match (Kirkby Times News 2005). Without external influences such as the ones witnessed in selecting the venue for the match, Liverpool football club had a tendency of inspecting the field to determine whether it was fit for a match. This procedure was not followed and they proceeded with the event. Many witnesses claim that the dilapidation on the terraces was evident. It is believed that the club’s management gave in to political pressure which could not allow any concerned person to make an informed selection of the venue, the ticket issue and the amount of security that was to be provided by the police. There also, existed a notable rivalry between police from Merseyside and those from Belgium. When the chaos seemed to run out of control, the police from Belgium allegedly ran away leaving the situation to take its own course. There was also the possibility of miners who were feared to attempt merging with the hooligans to cause chaos. Initially, there were police units which spied on this issue but during this event, they were not present. The police therefore contributed to the impact of the disaster since they could have made prior arrangements to work together with the Merseyside police. All the parties involved in the arrangements and provision of security ignored many important factors including the early warning signs (BBC News 29 May, 2000). Witnesses claimed that there were tickets which were being sold to Juventus funs illegally before the game started. These were ignored despite their potential to save the public from such a disaster. It is believed that hiring enough security required the management of the stadium to contribute some more money which it was not willing to pay. Due to inadequate security, fans could move in and out of the stadium without necessarily presenting a ticket. This made it possible for the stadium to hold more than the required capacity. This was a great failure on the side of the police as well as the stadium management since the normal rules governing the stadium gave authority for the Belgium authorities and the police to check the tickets and also be fully aware of the number of people within the stadium. This amplified the possibility of disaster in course of the match due to the evident overcrowding. It is believed that the wall collapsed as a result of the extra fans who were allowed in without any security measures. Witnesses also said that the fans were under the influence of alcohol since most of them from both sides were seen taking alcoholic drinks during the day just before the match. This raised their tempers under the slightest provocation and it is also believed to be a major cause of the mayhem (Frosdick, S and Newton, R 2006 pp. 88-91). The sensitivity of the matter was made worse by the allocation of the smallest end to the Liverpool fans. The situation was made worse by the fact that most of the clubs in the United Kingdom sold their tickets to Liverpool fans, raising their numbers in the stadium. On the other hand, the Juventus fans bought tickets for the neutral area with the full knowledge that it was adjacent to the Liverpool fans. The Heysel disaster is somehow similar to the Hillsborough disaster. The stadium is designed in a manner that does not allow easy exit in case of such a disaster. The Liverpool fans who died in the disaster were 7 while those from the Italian side supporting Juventus were 32. The Hillsborough disaster occurred in 1989 claiming the lives of 96 Liverpool fans. These were trodden on the trenches due to overcrowding which was similar to the Heysel disaster. 94 of the fans died on the spot while 2 others died later. Just as it happened in the Heysel disaster, Liverpool fans had been allocated the smaller end. Under the circumstances of the time, this space was insufficient for the fans by far. The support that had witnessed indicated that their numbers would be extremely high in the stadium. They had begun setting for the stadium in the morning. The police allowed fans in to the overcrowded stadium, something that they never did before in the matches which had been played in the stadium over the previous years. The disaster can be attributed to overcrowding (Holt, Matthew 2002 pp.18-24). On the other hand, the fire disaster which occurred in the Bradford was as a result of failure by the stadium management to repair the stadium. 56 people perished in the fire that broke out in the stadium. This happened a few weeks before the Heysel disaster. The stadium management had been warned about the litter which was accumulating below the floor boards. They did not take measures to remove the debris. Witnesses said that the debris caught fire which is believed to have originated from a cigarette butt or a blazing match stick. The fire spread fast due to the dry debris below the floor boards. The speed at which the fire spread was so intense that evacuation of the fans by police was too slow for it. After the roof caught fire, the chances for escape became slim. Eventually, it fell due to the weakness that had been created by the fire (Redhead, Steve 2001 pp.40-46). The most unfavorable thing that happened was the spreading of thick smoke which reduced visibility of the escape route that many people had taken towards the passage way. The stadium management had failed to install fire extinguishers claiming that they would be vandalized. The available exits which were on the back of the stadium had been locked. The management had not placed people to open the exits in case such a situation arose. The three disasters occurred as a result of negligence by the stadium management in regard to crowd management. This is because it should be clear to any management of facilities where huge numbers of people congregate on the importance of having easily accessible and open exit routes in case of emergency. Stewards should be kept in charge of such exits especially during events with possible overcrowding (Williams, J. 2007 pp. 55-61). Legal ramifications After the Heysel disaster, the English clubs were banned from participating in European competition. This was supported by the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. They were banned indiscriminately by the UEFA. The European clubs were later banned from participating in competitions word wide by FIFA. However, the ban was revised later to accommodate the clubs in friendly matches. Liverpool in particular was to serve some 3 years on top after the 5 year ban that had been imposed on English clubs ended. Intensive investigations were carried out by the British police in order to establish who the perpetrators of the disaster were. This led to the examination of photographs and films which had been recorded during the stampede. These had been published by the British press and TV eye. 27 people were arrested and charged with man slaughter. This was the only offence in which the suspects could be extradited in regard to the Heysel disaster. These people were mainly from the Merseyside. Many of them were known to have participated in other acts of hooliganism in football events. 14 of them were eventually sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for unintentional manslaughter (Redhead, Steve 2001 pp. 66-71). In the years that followed, Heysel Stadium could only host athletics but not football events for over a decade. The law required that the stadium be demolished and a new stadium to be built. After the Heysel disaster, police adopted a system whereby they can contain the fans while in the stadium as well as when on their way to the venue. This was done in order to enable them to differentiate between the hooligans and genuine football fans. An undercover unit was established to spy for the police in order to find out the hooligans. These undercover police wear plain clothes and are able to mingle with the people. Their work involves mixing up with fans especially while traveling in order to identify their feelings and intentions. This was done after establishing that football hooligans were acting on a highly structured force and could overpower any unprepared police force (Holt, Matthew 2002 pp 62-64). The police were issued with different identities in order to make them unidentifiable in the middle of the hooligans. Police were allowed by the law to raid the residents of suspected hooligans. It led to many arrests and charges against suspected hooligans. This helped the police to identify the works of the hooligans. They established that the hooligans were highly organized criminal gangs who enjoyed causing stampedes in football matches. Police discovered a number of weapons which the culprits were using as well as literature which raised suspicion on their misdeeds (BBC News 29 May, 2000). The law requiring the police to escort foreign supporters was reviewed. This was because it was seen as a source of provocation to the resident supporters as the alien supporters were escorted by police accompanied by police dogs and others riding horses. This escort was removed and now visiting supporters can mingle with the residents. However, there has been a decline in the number of people moving from their country to watch football matches in a foreign country due to the increasing support for local football. Fans tend to support their own team at home. More emphasis was put on the law regarding police search on fans for alcohol and other harmful substances and weapons. Police are now careful in identifying the supporters who may be carrying weapons. Stewards have been given the role which was initially meant for the police. This involved separating the two groups of fans by ensuring that there is always a no man’s zone between them. They are required to ensure that the exits from the stadium are easily accessible and open in case of any stampede that requires people to be evacuated from the stadium (Kirkby Times News 2005). There have been improvements in the way the police handle the crowds in the stadium. Police are supposed to posses hand held cameras that are capable of taking video clips of the fans. CCTV cameras were also introduced in order to help them to identify the origin of mayhem in the stadium. The law requires the police to be equipped with information transmission gargets which are linked to the CCTV cameras and which are interconnected with all the other police officers inside and outside the stadium in order to observe any sign in the crowd which could cause mayhem. They are also used for surveillance of suspected football hooligans. This has led to a reduction in the number of football disasters (Redhead, Steve 2001 pp.36-41). Lessons Learnt The Heysel disaster brought about major changes in the English clubs. They began by setting up strategies to ensure that they keep off hooligans from the stadium during games. They started imposing strict rules, in order to comply with the legal provisions. The Heysel and Hillsborough disasters were the main triggers to the changes that followed the events. The lessons learnt necessitated changes in the in the management of clubs. Football clubs ensure that they inspect the stadium where matches are to be held prior to the material day in order to ensure that the sitting arrangements as well as the facility is conducive and able to hold a large crowd of supporters. From the issue of ticket that contributed to the Heysel disaster, football clubs have learnt better ways of avoiding such undesirable situations. In order to apply for a ticket to enter the stadium, fans must have applied for membership of a particular club. They have also pressurized the stadium managers to install closed circuit cameras in the stadiums in order to allow independent surveillance from that of the police. Revoking of tickets is common for the fans that do not adhere to the rules of the stadium. They can also be prevented from entering any of the stadiums (Kirkby Times News 2005). All stakeholders work together with police in order to promote the fight against football hooliganism. The football clubs and stadium management have discovered the importance of having stewards on the exits of the stadiums. This was learnt after realizing that many lives could have been saved if there was a convenient escape route especially for the Heysel and Hillsborough disaster. They also realized the importance of ensuring that the stadiums are maintained and certified by a skilled quality assurance professional. Both disasters could have been controlled if there was proper maintenance of the stadiums. Management of football clubs also came under sharp criticism after the realization that the Heysel disaster could have been avoided if the Liverpool football club could have been willing to offer enough funds for a better stadium. On the other hand, it is possible for any observer of the events to argue that no lessons were learnt especially from the Bradford and the Heysel disasters. This is because the Bradford disaster preceded the Heysel by only a few weeks. If lessons could have been learnt, some precautions could have been in place in order to avoid such unwarranted situations. More over, the Hillsborough disaster was very much alike the Heysel, several years later, a time that should have been used to mend the weaknesses that caused such problems (Redhead, Steve 2001 pp. 12-17). Conclusions Adequate planning and management for events can assist in prevention of disasters regarding huge crowds. In order to effectively control the crowd, it is important not to disregard any signs of stampede. Failure of the security agents and stadium management to take the necessary precautions after identifying some early warning signs has caused many disasters. It is also important to adhere to the rules regarding the use of facilities that are used by large crowds. Excitement and uniqueness of events should not compel law enforcers especially the police to give in to the demands of the crowds. Allowing part of the crowd access to the venue and denying the other a chance of getting in only creates agitation and the possibility of violence. It is therefore necessary to ensure that if the number of people allowed in a particular venue gets to the limit, no other person should be allowed inside. Communication between the law enforcers and venue managers is of utmost importance. For example the police should be informed on all the exits in order to prevent situations where they get confused just like the crowd that they are supposed to guide. Trained crowd managers should be engaged in cases where such huge crowds are congregating. Bibliography 1. BBC News 29 May, 2000. Heysel: a tragedy waiting to happen? Viewed on 17th Mar. at 2. Frosdick, S and Newton, R 2006. The Nature and Extent of Football. Journal on Hooliganism in England and Wales, Routledge; Vol. 7, No. 4, 78-99. 3. Kirkby Times News 2005. Who killed the 39? Viewed on 17th Mar. at http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/news_items/2005_news/may/heysel_cover_up_exposed.html. 4. Matthew H. 2002. The Ownership and Control of Elite Club. Journal on Competition in European Football, Routledge; Vol. 8, No. 1, 51-70. 5. Steve R. 2001. This Sporting Life. Journal on the Realism of the Football Factory, Routledge; Vol. 8, 18-61. 6. Williams, J. 2007. Protect Me From What I Want’. Journal on Football Fandom, Celebrity Cultures and ‘New’ Football in England, Routledge; Vol. 7, No. 1, 32-61. Read More