I just finished reading Peter Caton’s excellent new book Stand Up, Sit Down: A Choice To Watch Football – a very good late Christmas present for any football fan. It’s a very careful review of the issues : safety, hooliganism and choice. As most people know, all-seater stadiums in England were mandated by the government following the 1990 Taylor Report into the Hillsborough tragedy but only fully enforced for the top two divisions.
As Caton shows, the claims that all-seater stadiums increase safety and enable the authorities to control violence are not supported by convincing evidence. Taylor himself seems to have been prejudiced on the issue and while the authorities (police, DCMS, FA, FAPL, FL etc) seem convinced that all-seating is the only safe choice, they seem to rely almost entirely on the authority of Taylor.
What is clearly shown is that most fans would like to be able to make a choice, and many would prefer to stand. If a safe and secure way could be designed to make this happen, why not consider it? One might have expected FAPL clubs in particular to embrace the idea, since many of them are playing to sell-out crowds and more standing would increase capacity. Caton argues, correctly I think, that this represents a revenue opportunity. That’s how capitalism is meant to work- the owners of the clubs should meet the demands of their customers because it is profitable to do so.
So why isn’t this happening? Caton advances a theory- each of the authorities listed has little to gain, and would have to face the risk of being held accountable if they made a change and things went wrong. As he points out, since the time of Hillsborough violence and safety problems have diminished beyond recognition- if it ain’t broke… why fix it?
I think there are two interesting issues here. First, Caton is right to say (as far as I can tell) that there is little firm evidence that all-seating has caused greater safety and reduced violence. But “absence of evidence” is not “evidence of absence”. In particular, we just don’t have good data and research about the causes of reduced hooliganism over the last two decades. We have many competing theories (gentrification, aging fan base, CCTV cameras, tougher laws, greater fan awareness, commercialization of grounds, and probably others) – figuring out which elements (if any) are causal is very tricky, and I’ve not seen a convincing analysis.
Right now David Conn never tires of telling us that Germany is the model we should follow, with low ticket prices and safe standing. Caton himself went to watch a game in Germany and came away approving. However, there is growing evidence that Germany has a serious hooliganism problem– over 8,000 cases of criminal proceedings last year, compared to fewer than 2,500 arrests at football grounds in England, despite attendance at the top four divisions being much higher in England than Germany (BL1 is about the same at FAPL, but the Championship is about double that of BL2, and there is no equivalent of FL1 and FL2). The German police have aired the view that standing may be a problem. I don’t think this should be dismissed out of hand.
The second issue concerns regulation. We have had football ground regulation in law since 1975 now. It is shocking to think that Hillsborough could happen 14 years after government regulations were introduced to ensure safety. Since 1990 English football has largely prospered- bigger crowds despite astronomical increases in ticket prices, better standards of play and even a better performance by the national team. My own view is that the improvements are largely due to increased commercialization of the game- making the owners of the clubs more responsive to the demands of fans- perhaps not the vocal minority who oppose all things commercial- but the majority who are just interested in the football. I don’t credit the owners with any altruism- they do it for their own profit, which turns out to be very small and frequently negative because of cut-throat competition. I would advance the following theory- in the absence of regulation, several FAPL clubs would re-introduce standing in some form or another.
I’m not one of those crazed economists who believes that the free market must rule in all things. I’m well aware that markets can fail, and judicious regulation can help. On the other hand, much regulation in practice turns out to be injudicious- and the restrictions on standing may be an example.
Caton’s book appears to be another good example of the market at work- it appears to be self-published, in which case he may profit royally from the substantial sales he can expect. He fully deserves to do so.
I have actually been somewhat surprised by which clubs support the standing initiative. I had expected that these would be the clubs that consistently sell out, e.g. Man Utd, Stoke, Chelsea, Liverpool, as these clubs have the most to benefit by being able to squeeze in a few thousand of extra fans (it is typically 2:1 in Germany, but I’m not sure how it works out with these standing rail seats that are advocated – probably much less).
Instead, it is the Championship clubs and Aston Villa that support the initiative, who all have a lot of free capacity, and Man City and West Ham, who currently only just sell out.
The lower league experience is that standing tickets won’t be much cheaper than seats (they usually are only a few pound cheaper), and I cannot see standing attracting many new people to the stadium. Which means that clubs might actually lose out through fans moving from the seating areas to the standing sections. The more revenue generating seats then remain empty, which is not good business for an owner.
Two recent incidents do undermine the anti-hooligan argument for all-seater stadiums. The failure to prosecute the person caught on video making monkey gestures and the failure to identify the person who threw the coin at Rio Ferdinand. In a safe standing environment it is likely that the coin thrower would have been easier to spot.
Many thanks for the review which I think is an excellent summary of my book.
I would add that in visiting the 23 Football League clubs who retain terraces (something that is often forgotten) I was able to see that standing already works well in the UK.
And that, yes the book is self published, but I don’t expect to make any money from it – a large loss is more likely. It was published as something that I felt should be told, not to make money.
A very good review – and, I agree, a very good book, taking a comprehensive look at a complex issue.
There’s one aspect of the review, however, that I’d challenge: the notion that Germany has a serious hooligan problem and perhaps standing is to blame.
The reviewer suggests that the German police link this to standing … well, perhaps one extreme German police trade unionist does.
He’s a guy called Herr Rainer Wendt. He’s the leader of a trade union that represents less than a third of the German police force. His union is dwarfed by the main union (over twice the size), which has criticised his recent remarks about standing as ‘playing to the gallery’ and ‘unhelpful’. In the past he is reported to have also complained about the German courts outlawing racial profiling and proposed the use of rubber bullets against residents of Hamburg involved in civil protest. He has also criticised the fact that German politicians don’t have the power to overrule the courts and has said that any football fans not prepared to undergo a full body search should stay away from games. A very level-headed guy, as you can see.
As for his suggestion that standing areas should be done away with because of rising violence, let’s look at the facts rather than the headlines in the populist press.
We all know that statistics can rarely be relied upon (the FLA as was had, for instance, to withdraw previous claims that its figures showed that more injuries were incurred in grounds with standing than in all-seater stadia) and that any comparison between statistics collected in one country with those gathered in another must clearly be taken with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, a quick look at the official 2011/12 German Police statistics for the Bundesliga and the SGSA figures for English & Welsh football last season does help to redress the picture of a German football scene beset by crowd disorder that Herr Wendt’s remarks may have led some to erroneously believe.
In 2011/12 there were 481 injuries to spectators in Bundesliga stadia. Aggregate attendance across the season was 13.5 million spectators (averaging 44,300 per game, compared to 34,645 in the Premier League). One spectator in every 28,066 therefore suffered an injury. (Source: Zentrale Informationsstelle Sporteinsätze [Central Sports Deployment Information Office], based at Police Headquarters in Duisburg).
In 2011/12 in English & Welsh football one spectator in every 27,940 suffered an injury, i.e. spectators here were slightly more likely to be injured than in the Bundesliga (variations in data collection methodology notwithstanding; Source: SGSA).
According to the ZIS figures for 2011/12, police hours on football duty were also down 11.2% year on year, arrests were down 10.6% and the number of court proceedings begun dropped by 3.6%. Hardly figures that indicate a rampant hooligan problem.
There have been one or two high profile incidents of crowd disorder in Germany in recent months (cf. West Ham United vs. Millwall a couple of years ago here; Sheffield Wednesday vs. Leeds United and the coin throwing incident at the Manchester derby), but these – as here – have been very isolated and in no way directly linked to standing (the premature promotion celebrations in Dusseldorf in May saw fans spill onto the pitch from the seated grandstands at the side, while the disturbances associated with the Borussia Dortmund vs. Schalke 04 derby took place outside of the ground).
The most significant problem that the Germans – and other European leagues have – is with flares, something that has never been a part of British fan culture (but is very common in the all-seater stadia of Serie A and the Polish Ektraklasa). The Germans do need to get a grip on that situation and it was with that in mind that the 36 clubs of the top two divisions passed their set of resolutions last Wednesday to tighten up admission controls, improve stewarding and add more CCTV cameras – in short to bring their crowd management standards up to a level akin to what we have been used to in this country for a long time (due to state abuse of power in the days of the Nazis and the Stasi there has been a cultural reluctance in the country to trust state institutions with all-seeing powers of surveillance in the past and thus grounds have had only partial CCTV coverage).
The resolutions passed in this regard were as follows:
1. The home club must employ a ‘matchday organiser’.
2. Clubs must make every effort to maintain a dialogue with fans to ensure, inter alia, a positive fan culture inside and outside stadia.
3. The stadium must have a control room and video surveillance equipment with an override switch for the police to take control of the cameras.
4. Ditto in respect of cameras on the stadium complex outside of the ground itself.
5. Recommendation that away club stewards help to steward away areas.
6. Club’s safety officer must be present at every game, plus notes on other duties.
7. For high-risk games (as defined by para. 32 of the ‘Guidelines for Improving Stadium Safety’) the matchday organiser must take part in security briefings.
8. Addition to items to be looked for during admission checks: objects intended to prevent determination of a person’s identity.
9. Clubs must now confirm to the DFL (German Football League) as well as the DFB (German FA) that all stewards have had the proper training. Agencies must also be able to confirm that their stewards have all done the DFB training.
10. Support Liaison Officer duties – must take part in pre-season security meetings and as necessary in pre-match briefings. Must report any noteworthy incidents to DFL and DFB.
11. High-risk games – reduced ticket quotas for away fans (sitting and standing) should be considered; increased admission controls should be considered. Any intention to implement such measures must be notified to the visiting club well in advance. ‘Games under observation’ to be introduced as a new category, one down from a ‘high-risk game’, to which the DFB may send an observer and at which the home club must give the observer free access to all areas.
12. Suggestion to introduce a ‘Stadium Experience’ certificate, with rankings of 3-5.
13. A ‘Stadium Experience’ committee should be set up to monitor and review the processes that have been initiated. Committee to include fan representatives from a variety of bodies.
14. Gives the DFB and the home club (for high-risk games) the authority to reduce the away ticket allocation to below the otherwise prescribed 10%.
15. Relates to how these measures can be incorporated into DFB articles and disciplinary proceedings and whether fines should be specifically used to help fund preventive measures. Due to a need for a change in the DFB articles, deferred to the next DFB AGM in October 2013.
16. Deals with fines for breaches.
As you will see, all about stewarding and crowd management. And most of it – other than the very welcome commitment to dialogue with supporters and to their participation in monitoring bodies – not unlike measures already in place in this country. Nothing at all about banning standing.
There was, however, a direct reference to standing in the preamble to this document from the German FA, namely to the importance of such areas (my translation):
“A permanent and integral part of any positive stadium experience for the spectators at a football match is, however, of course, also the experience of a positive fan culture. This needs to be preserved and protected. This includes the standing areas in the stadia, the choreographed displays on the home and away ends, modest ticket prices, safe, modern stadium infrastructure and all in all fair interaction between all concerned before, during and after the game. In short, a safe, atmospheric, vibrant football stadium experience created by and enjoyed with all spectators, players and personnel responsible for crowd management.
In this respect, all concerned are aware that a large part of the positive atmosphere comes from the home and away ends, especially from the standing areas. It is these areas that create and shape the special atmosphere that fascinates all onlookers inside and outside the grounds and that is the envy of football associations, clubs and fans from other countries.”
So maybe that helps to clarify the current situation in Germany. Yes, they have a problem with flares and they are working to address it. However, Rainer Wendt clearly does not reflect the majority police view, let alone that of mainstream politics or the football authorities. The latter in particular, as can be seen from their unequivocal remarks above, regard standing as a fundamental part of fan culture to be protected, nurtured and cherished.
In short, therefore, I think – as David Conn indeed never tires of pointing out – we can still learn a lot from how football is run in Germany… and that includes the benefits, social and financial, of standing accommodation.
Some interesting points, though I think you’re a bit selective on the German experience. I’ve heard it argued several times that German stadiums are safe because on a per fan basis you’re more likely to get run over by a bus, struck by lightning, etc, but such comparisons smack of propaganda (on the same basis living next to a nuclear power station is pretty safe but most people don’t want to). But the arrest figures seem pretty clear, even allowing for the fact that practices differ by country. What I said was we should be skeptical- just as I would be skeptical about someone who said that England should adopt the French model, or the Spanish one (or the American one for that matter). I’m sure we’ve things to learn from the way football is organized in Germany, but I still think they have a hooliganism problem, and the list of measures you describe suggests they know it.
Those measures, as I indicated, are aimed primarily at addressing the problem with flares.
In all my time going to games in Germany (stretching back to the late 70s) I have never once seen any violence inside a ground – nor outside for that matter. I can’t say that for my experiences inside English all-seater grounds in recent years. Stats, as I said, can often be made to tell any story if looked at from a particular angle.
Getting back to main premise that standing is good business, however, the very fact that Bundesliga crowds are on average 10,000 per game higher than those in the EPL and that the age range of fans is much wider, therefore ensuring that the club will have committed supporters way into the future (unlike in the EPL, where the average age is getting older and older) clearly show, IMHO, that offering fans the choice to stand makes sound economic sense, especially over the long term.
All those articles in the press about German hooliganism may be wrong, the German police statistics might be wrong, biased- I’m not an expert- maybe you’re right 🙂
But I think I know a thing or two about economics and I’m pretty sure you misunderstand the comparison between England and Germany. German attendance is higher per game but they play fewer games so the total attendance for the season is the same. Ticket prices vary hugely but according to Deloitte matchday income is 50% higher in the PL, so given the same number of tickets sold the average income per fan is also 50% higher in the PL.
So what would happen if German prices were raised to English levels or English prices reduced to German levels? Since everyone says English fans are priced out, then presumably the same would happen in Germany, which means at equal prices there would be fewer tickets sold in Germany than England- so it sounds to me as if the English fans are the more committed ones.
If English prices were lowered to German levels, then since the stadiums are currently at capacity then the clubs would not be able to meet the demand. This would result in a black market and ticket prices would rise to the same levels as today, the only difference being that the touts would make the money, not the clubs, who would have less to spend on players.
You might argue the clubs would increase capacity- but to justify the investment you need extra revenues (or they would have done it already) and lower prices are not likely to increase them much.
As you say, you should always be very careful when drawing comparisons.