Sports Violence - Measuring Sports Fans' Involvement - Literature review Example

Sports violence Student’s name: Instructor’s name: Subject code: Date of submission: Introduction In modern times, the popularity of sports has bordered between leisure activities, social class and fashion statement and business ventures. This not only applies to the players but also the fans as they have various motivations supporting or spectating. With the inclusion of sports in the education system, sports have gained popularity not only in the UK but around the world. Marketers have taken advantage of the popularity of sports to use it as a marketing tool. Consequently, sports has been commercialised and the stakes have gone higher. To underscore this is the billions of pounds that sporting clubs boast of in terms of sponsorship deals, player revenues and endorsements. Fans have not been left behind in showing support for their teams and as the quality of sports and significance in the society increases, so have the rivalry between the sporting entities and their fans. This has often resulted in sports violence predominantly involving the fans of rival sports clubs and entities as opposed to the sportsmen themselves. This paper discusses theories in sports violence making use of relevant literature which is applied on two incidences of sports violence. Discussion Football hooliganism is the most conspicuous forms of sports violence in the UK. Bodin, Robène, & Héas (2005) write that there is need to understand the context of the word hooligan before indulging in discussing hooliganism in football, the most popular sport in the world. They clarify that the common understanding of the word hooligan in the UK is that of a male social misfit prone to crime. These social misfits often use sports events to perpetrate their preconceived criminal intentions. However, not all incidences of sports violence can be labelled as hooliganism. They attribute other factors such as police incompetence, poor facilities and emotional factors such as vendetta and provocation. The results of sport violence are death, injuries, poor public image, destruction of property and fines and penalties to the sports club (Sandhu 2001). This highlights the fact that there is need to discuss sports violence further and assess all the factors involved rather than blaming hooliganism on all cases of sports violence. Sports violence is nothing new. Cassel and Bernstein (2000) and Ward (2002) report that as far back as 532 B.C. when commercialization of sports was unheard of, sports violence was common. They cite the case of a fan riot during a chariot race in Constantinople that resulted in deaths of 30 000 people. During this ancient era, sports violence among spectators was common during the gladiator fights. In modern times, the intensity of spectating sports and more so football and the passion involved have the potential to erupt into violence. Rosea and Mainar (cited in Weed 2001) say that spectating sports affects the human cognition for short period of times which predisposes them to violence at the slightest sign of provocation or just a physical extension of their excitement. Psychologists have come in handy to suggest theories that would explain and help predict sports violence. Some of the major theories are dynamics and ‘rules’ of group behaviour, the interaction ritual theory, class conflict and social learning theory among others. Englander (2007) however warns that no single theory can exclusively explain causes and trends in sports violence due to contextual elements. Two cases that are helpful in discussing sports violence are the 1985 Heysel disaster in Belgium pitting Liverpool fans and Juventus fans in a European cup football match and the basketball brawl in China pitting players of the local team against those of a visiting Brazilin team. The Heysel incidence is a good example of how dynamics and ‘rules’ of group behaviour theory comes into play (Collins 2008; Sandhu 2001). During this particular event, over 60 000 Liverpool fans from England and around the world and Juventus fans from Italy had gathered in the aging Heysel Stadium in Brussels Belgium for the final of the European cup. Security measures put in place by the organizers had emphasised on placing several policemen inside the stadium to control the crowd and erecting a fence that separated the fans. A space for neutral supporters had been set up despite opposition from both teams. Over an hour before kick-off, violence erupted. It is reported that the Italian fans started pelting the English fans missiles. In response, the English fans charged towards the Italian fans though the barricade. As the Italian fans escaped from the oncoming English supporters, they were barred by a concrete wall barricading their escape route. As the fans tried to scale up the wall, it collapsed. Many people suffocated or were crushed to death by the frightened supporters. In the end, 39 Belgian and Italian fans were reported dead and scores injured. Calm was later retained and the match went ahead despite being delayed (Ducker & Dart 2005). The group dynamics theory assumes that a solitary fan would not have charged even after being provoked for fear of consequences. As a group hover, the English fans reacted violently simultaneously as they had the support of numbers The social learning theory can also explain the above incidence. This theory claims that persons are eager to be violent because there are expectations of a reward or because they have seen other people being rewarded for being violent. Rewards in this case come in various forms such as recognition, fear and respect. Italian football supporters had for a long time been recognised for their violent supporters. In fact, the year before, Liverpool fans had suffered abuse at the hands of Italian fans when Liverpool played against AS Roma in Italy (Ducker & Dart 2005). The English fans were thus eager to revenge. According to the social learning theory, the English supporters were envious of the ‘respect’ and the media attention given to the violent Italian fans the year before. Ward (2002) puts this into perspective by saying that “sports fan violence probably receives more attention from the media than it does from scientific research” (p.453). From this, one can deduce that the English fans secretly admired the attention given to those fans the previous year where a Liverpool win over AS Roma in Italy was almost overshadowed by the violence that erupted after the match. This theory is again supported by the nature of English football fans. During euro 2000, the match between Germany and England witnessed some sort of violence which led to a French newspaper, Le Monde commenting about English fans. Weed (2001) cites the paper’s report; In contrast to Germany, where a very clear division exists between ‘normal’ supporters and ‘hooligans’ which facilitates the work of police officers, England’s supporters are a mix. An apparently peaceful supporter can join the ranks of the troublemakers. It all depends on circumstances, resistance to alcohol, or solidarity against a common adversary (Weed, p. 414) English and Liverpool fans were eager to be awarded the same level of recognition given to their rivals by the media and the sports fraternity. Such attention has a commercial side as they make the club more visible. While this is some sort of group thinking, individual supporters had their own ambitions. They wanted to gain popularity among their fellow supporters as die hard fans of Liverpool who were willing to go to any lengths in showing support for their the club. From this theory therefore, the violence at the Heysel stadium was not really an issue of provocation from the Juventus fans though it affected the timing but rather a search for recognition as a reward. Some Liverpool supporters wanted to prove their dominance over other fans at the international level. Players’ violence is not as rare as indicated by the second case of sports violence in China. The incidence involved members of a Chinese basketball team exchanging blows with a visiting Brazilian team in the course of play which forced the match to be abandoned. The BBC reported in part Trouble began when a referee called a foul by Chinese players and the decision prompted protests by the Chinese players and team coach. Play became rough until finally, open fighting broke out on the court. Players from both benches joined in the melee of players throwing kicks and punches at each other. Play was stopped and the teams separated - but China's players then attacked the Brazilians on their way to the locker room. The Brazilians refused to consider any return to play (BBC 2010 ¶). This incidence is different from the previous one in that players were involved in the violence against each other. Collins (2008) offers the interaction ritual theory in explaining such a situation and also brings out interesting ideas on the role of emotions in causing violence among players. He writes that Players enact emotional surges in a more complex way. In team sports, they share collective emotions with their team-mates, and successful performance depends on emotional resonances that keep the team coordinated as well as energetic…..players are also involved in an emotional interaction with their opponents, whether in individual contest or team sports. Play consists in a contest of skill and effort, but most importantly is moment-by-moment challenges as to who will become emotionally dominant. It is a struggle over emotional energy in the technical sense of interaction ritual theory; the player/team that wins at the point of where the opponent loses EE. These are the emotional turning points of the game (Collins 2008, p. 285). This theory argues that the behavior of the Chinese players, who started the brawl, depends on what interactions they have gone through in their lives and in the course of their playing basketball as a team and as individuals. Each player as an individual has a unique way of reacting to particular situations e.g. being outplayed. As a single entity, the team has developed ways of reacting to different situations (Capella 2002). If for example a player reacts angrily to humiliation in play by an opponent and the past chain of interaction in the team has shown solidarity, then violence erupts involving the entire team. This explains why the Chinese players resulted into throwing fists against their opponents. Their chain of interaction is characterized by hostility and violence. Conclusion The two incidences of sports violence strongly indicate the relevance of theory in understanding this damaging problem in sports. Sports organizers and sports clubs should make it their priority to train their players on good sportsmanship and also educating their supporters. However, much of supporters’ behavior as a requisite for sports violence is a national culture issue as well as contextual one. By relating understanding national culture clearly, sports organizers can also be capable of predicting fan behavior especially in international sporting events. The interactions rituals theory can be very critical in formulating sporting rules and drafting penalties for offenders. This is possible by studying various past interaction chains and identifying the most common violent reactions among players. By enacting penalties into policies, players will reform and avoid violence. From the social learning theory, it is presumable that placing harsh fines on sports club whose fans are violent will discourage violence. This is because most fans participate in violence as a show of support for their club. In this sense, the same supporters will be supportive in helping the club avoid fines and penalties resulting from violent conduct by their supporters. References BBC. China-Brazil 'friendly' ends in mass 'basket-brawl' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia- pacific-11531996 Bodin, D., Robene, L. & Heas, S. (2005). Sport and violence in Europe. London: council of Europe Capella, M. (2002). Measuring sports fans' involvement: The fan behavior questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/893068-1.html Cassesl, E & Bernsteain, D. (2007). Criminal behaviour. London: Routlegde Collins, R. (2008). Violence: a micro-sociological theory. London: Princeton Ducker, J. & Dart, T. (2005) “Night of mayhem in Brussels that will never be forgotten.” The Sunday Times online. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article432169.ece Englander, E. (2007). Understanding violence. London: Routlegde Sandhu, D. (2001). Faces of violence: psychological correlates, concepts, and intervention strategies. London: Nova Publishers Thompson, J. & Tiews, M. (2006). Crowds. Stanford: Stanford University Press Ward, R. (2002). Fan violence Social problem or moral panic? Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (1), 453–475 Weed, M. (2001). “Ing-ger-land at euro 2000 How `Handbags at 20 Paces' was portrayed as a full-scale riot” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(4), 407-424 Read More