2         Football season 2002/2003

2.1       General

Supporters made their presence felt on several occasions this season. The CIV notes an increasing tendency to behave as a protest group, whether or not in an organised fashion, expressing discontent on given issues.

In most cases the discontent relates to local policy, occasionally on national policy, mostly that of the KNVB.

Most protests were aimed at the “combi arrangement” and the size of the so-called “away supporters sections”. In several cases visiting/away supporters objected to the limited number of tickets available. Some clubs were accused of disregarding the KNVB guidelines, and demands were made for compliance whereby, in principle, no exemptions would be granted.

2.2       Incidents

Last season the CIV produced a standard definition for incidents, namely “an event requiring additional police deployment whereby the behaviour of a group of supporters aims at the following”:

Based on these criteria 117 incidents were registered in season 2001-2002, compared with 96 in the season under review.

In examining available data the CIV has focused on possible agreements made by supporters groupings for a confrontation. This was not a new phenomenon but is now more tangible. Examples of groupings agreeing in advance on a confrontation, whether or not involving their own clubs’ fixtures are:

Some confrontations could be prevented and/or it was possible stop escalation. In most cases, after arrests had been made, it was apparent that this sort of arrangement had been made in advance. 

Furthermore, during the season under review Belgian supporters backed up Dutch clubs at several confrontations. Examples included games with MVV, Fortuna Sittard, Roda JC and VVV. Supporters of various Belgian clubs were also arrested at several home and away games of these clubs.

Vice versa Dutch supporters were involved on several occasions in incidents around Belgian clubs.

2.2.1       Actions/protests

The season opened with protest by PSV supporters at the match for the Johan Cruyff Cup against the limited availability of tickets, whereby they blocked the departure of PSV players from their own stadium.

The highest action was at the Netherlands v  Belarus game where supporter groupings from across the country targeted the fixture to protest KNVB policy. The plan was to block access routes to Eindhoven. This was almost totally thwarted by strongly increased police deployment (4232 person hours), and a coordinated approach by the various police regions.

Further examples of protest actions and demonstrations by supporters included:

Not all demonstrations by supporters caused disruption or required extra policing. Hence, there were a number of “fun” demos during the course of the season under review. These included:

2.2.2       Financial status of clubs

The CIV is concerned about protests from demonstrators centring on the financial problems of the clubs. On several occasions this season the continuity of several clubs prompted controversy. Media stories that these problems were due to over-paid players and mismanagement prompted protests at several clubs.

In contrast to protests around, e.g., the size of visiting supporters’ stands, these protests bordered on the unacceptable and included intimidation and threats. Exerting pressure on local councillors to save the local club by agreeing to a cash injection from the council is hardly acceptable.

In the view of the CIV it is most worrying for the business community to be intimidated and threatened when taking legal action against the construction of a new stadium. Although the threats against stewards and/or club management that occurred in the past, and which have already been mentioned here hardly surfaced publicly, this year these threats were reported in the news media several times. Councillors and even one mayor reported this type of intimidation.

The CIV has no firm information on the degree to which anonymous threats have influenced decision-making by councillors and/or the business community.

At the end of the day problems around licensing applications and financial status were rounded off satisfactorily for all clubs concerned. In the event that similar problems arise again next season, the parties threatened would be advised to report this to the police. They should also seek media coverage to highlight the forces aimed at influencing decisions.

Examples include:

In some municipalities the occasional heated decisions around club finances required additional policing. In so far as the CIV can ascertain the following municipalities and numbers were involved:

Differences in deployment are clearly set out in the above table. At some clubs board meetings were only provided with security on one occasion and this required 6 or 8 hours police deployment.

In other municipalities deployment was on a larger scale. For instance the situation was quite different for protests by AZ supporters. Over a longer period the supporters or so-called supporters had been targeting members of the business community who had objected to the proposed construction of a new stadium. This required 1442 hours deployment by the police.

2.3       Discrimination

During the course of last season the authorities acted against discriminatory statements and/or chanting on several occasions. The most important example was when the mayor of Amsterdam expelled FC Utrecht supporters following racial chanting.

In whatever form, discriminatory statements and chanting make many people, at football matches or elsewhere, feel seriously threatened, uneasy or indignant.

It was not always feasible to deal with these issues. The general consensus is that discriminatory chanting can never be tolerated. However, the debate around this unacceptable behaviour extends beyond government, the KNVB and club management. Indeed, this season saw protest by supporters against this phenomenon. This positive development is good news and deserves mention.

Examples include:

The old core of PSV supporters wanted to take action themselves by handing out “corrective smacks” to younger supporters. Self evidently, while this sort of violence was not acceptable – but action by PSV itself, was good news. For the away game against Arsenal the club issued its supporters with a stickers carrying the message “PSV fans against racism”. The idea was to stick this on clothing.

Similar campaigns by FC Zwolle and FC Utrecht also yielded additional funds.

During the season under review a number of people were arrested for discriminatory conduct or discriminatory statements:

2.4       Ticket sales

The CIV has raised this topic several times over the years. The plain facts are that it is not possible to create a 100% watertight system whereby a supporter cannot purchase a ticket for the “wrong” section of the stand. However, it is possible to position “barriers” using existing facilities.

These are examples of cases where faulty ticket sales were identified, leading to a number of incidents:

Looking at how away games are organised the CIV notes that insufficient use is made of the so-called “away ticket”. The KNVB’s rules on this state that the local “triangle of authorities”, i.e. the mayor, the public prosecutor and the chief of police, may require the mandatory use of the away card, as the sole means to obtain tickets, on supporters of the away team and the organisers where there are any grounds for supposing a risk in regard to a game.

The CIV questions whether the local authorities make sufficient use of the potential of this KNVB regulation compelling clubs to travel to games with selected supporters.

Prompted by certain incidents the CIV examined the detailed aspects of relevant ticket sales. Among other things it transpired that the sale of tickets to visiting supporters was not always via the Ticketbox. Several clubs operate differing criteria for allocation of tickets for away games. Hence, not all tickets are sold via Ticket box but the supporters’ association and certain other groups, like sponsors, get a certain allocation, and an allocation also goes via the Ticket box.

Often the final overview of who is going to away games is lost as an outcome of the selection. Factors here include use of a subscription list for tickets, whereby these are not checked. Checks in this context mean checks on any stadium ban/troublesome supporters who do not have a club card/away card/season ticket etc. Hence, there is a very good chance that troublesome supporters will travel along, with all the risks this involves. This is what happened at games including FC Groningen v  FC Twente, Ajax v  FC Groningen, Emmen v  ADO Den Haag and NAC v FC Twente.

At the same time it is only fair to mention the efforts of several clubs including Ajax. In many cases Ajax stringently managed visits to away games. In addition to an away card they carefully checked their own supporters for stadium bans etc, and the chances of person subject to a ban travelling with bona fide supporters was minimal.

2.5       Combi travel arrangement

As in the past, supporters also protested against the mandatory travel arrangement this year. They strongly objected to what they consider an unnecessary formula and sought a more flexible arrangement.

The CIV data below shows a decline in mandatory/imposed combi arrangements compared with last season.

Alongside the 149 mandatory combis there were just over 40 cases where the clubs imposed combis at their own initiative and/or that supporters association organised transportation whether or not as a voluntary combi.

CIV research focusing on games from 2001 onwards shows that supporters deliberately sidestepped combi arrangements at a quite regular basis. Numbers involved here vary somewhat. Per case the number of supporters avoiding the combi arrangement ranges from just 3 or 4 up to 300 or 400 or even 1000.

This season saw a number of campaigns or protests against the combi travel arrangement (see 2.2.1. and 2.4)

There was an increase in the number of mandatory combis. In principle a combi travel arrangement is usually linked to a risk game. During meetings prior to several games it was decided to make the combi slightly more flexible or to offer an alternative, e.g. an auto combi, given that supporters often regard the combi as overly strict.

As noted above, supporters who travelled outside the combi often obtained tickets outside official channels. Moreover, they were quite ready to use violence to gain access to the stadium. Once again this was prevented thanks to firm action by the riot-equipped officers. It was also quite common for supporters to be sent out of town without having seen anything of the game. Given the recommendation (backed by the  Stekelenburg Report) that with a combi travel arrangement there should be no ad hoc ticket sales on the day of the game, it is quite amazing that this is precisely what happened at several games. Hence, despite a mandatory combi for Willem II v  FC Twente a substantial number of supporters could buy tickets at the box-office on the actual day. This contributed to incidents in the stadium.

It is striking that - quite regularity - it proved unfeasible to deploy all these potential means, or that they were simply not used.

Byelaws for municipalities with a professional football club should make it possible to detain these supporters and charge them. In due course this would lead to a stadium ban for the persons concerned.

Self-evidently, failure to act firmly against these supporters also prompts dissatisfaction among those who have complied with the combi. Not only is their journey longer, but also on occasion they will see bad behaviour rewarded with the perpetrators let into the stadium after all.