Who should pay for football policing?
Monday, 18 August 2008
Football in England is heavily policed. And we all know why.
Traditionally we football supporters have had a chronic lack of ability to conduct ourselves in a civil manner.
That's right: hooliganism.
Often said to be an English problem in the past, it is, in fact, as global as the game itself.
It happens across Europe and South America on a far larger scale than it does in England, these days. But football-related disorder has forever taken its lead from the English. Just ask any fans abroad suffering at the hands of 'casuals' as Eastern Europe catches up with hooliganism's longest lasting fad.
Foreign football policing is also carried out with intelligence and guidance from our officers who have, it seems to me, transformed from a force intent on being the third firm on any given Saturday into an outfit which has done a magnificent job of keeping violence, by and large, away from our stadia.
As well as better policing, hooliganism is driven away from grounds by the sanitisation of football. It still happens, but it happens away from the eyes of the new football family. I don't know where these lads go nowadays, and I don't want to know.
The fact remains that football supporters need to be policed, even today, and this is as much a case of public order policing as it is a specific response to football's unique culture. And it comes at a cost.
Ever wondered who pays for all this policing at football matches? I have, so I found out.
Currently, the whole lot is differentiated by which side of the turnstile incurs the cost. Clubs are responsible for covering the cost of policing on their property, and the taxpayer - via the police force - pays for everything outside. In other words...a lot. Though not as much as the clubs, except in Chelsea's case.
The debate has been rumbling on for years, and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) weighed in last week with Assistant Chief Commissioner Stephen Thomas, of the British Transport Police (and ACPO's football policing lead), opining somewhat sensationally that football clubs should not be receiving this kind of subsidy from local communities. Slightly over the top, methinks, but a valid point.
This was in response to Freedom of Information poking around by the BBC.
Naturally, the Premier League has other ideas. Says head of communications Dan Johnson:
"The law is quite clear - clubs pay for any policing inside the ground and on immediately adjacent property under their control on matchday. Any other provision deemed necessary is covered by the state - it's what people pay their taxes for, with the Premier League alone contributing more than £700m a year to the Treasury, let alone the tax take from the 13 million fans who attend Premier League games during the course of a season. This long-established principle applies to all individuals and organisations in the UK, from private individuals to shopping centres, pubs and major events, like the Notting Hill Carnival."
Another compelling argument, no?
I'm keen to hear what you readers think. Should football be paying its dues? Or should external policing be treated like any other policing and payed for by the state? Comment away.
To read about how football-related disorder is tackled in England and Wales, visit the Home Office website.
2 comments:
Mmm, it's an interesting one. What's the alternative? Not having football full stop, which is kind of what would happen if you follow Thomas's logic to its natural conclusion.
It's a bit harsh to ask clubs to be accountable for any trouble in their city or town on matchdays, and many clubs have really made an effort to keep the undesirables away from the stadiums.
The police could target their resources a bit better, mind, if personal experience is anything to go by. While they've done a good job, sometimes there's a massively over-the-top presence at games where one man and his dog are supporting the opposition.
But, er, I don't have any suggestions or answers to the question. It's a good question though.
It's right as it is. Football is part of society. If we go down the road of football paying all the costs for all policing, where do you stop?
Do political parties pay for their conferences to be policed?
Do pubs and shops pay for policing in the high street?
For those police inside the grounds, then clubs should pay. Once people leave the ground then they are just part of the population of their towns and cities.
This is just ACPO angling for extra revenue and overtime for plod, that they can't get the Government to give them.
Post a Comment