Hate Crime in Football: How Racism Is Destroying the Beautiful Game 9781529227185, 9781529227192, 9781529227208

Citation preview

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL ED I T ED BY IMRAN AWAN A N D I R EN E Z EM P I

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL Edited by Imran Awan and Irene Zempi

First published in Great Britain in 2023 by Bristol University Press University of Bristol 1–​9 Old Park Hill Bristol BS2 8BB UK t: +​44 (0)117 374 6645 e: bup-​[email protected] Details of international sales and distribution partners are available at bristoluniversitypress.co.uk © Bristol University Press 2023 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-​1-​5292-​2718-​5 Hardback ISBN 978-​1-​5292-​2719-​2 ePub ISBN 978-​1-​5292-​2720-​8 ePdf The right of Imran Awan and Irene Zempi to be identified as editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press. Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material. If, however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editors and contributors and not of the University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The University of Bristol and Bristol University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Bristol University Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design: Lyn Davies Design Front cover image: Alamy/​Mauritius Images GmbH Bristol University Press uses environmentally responsible print partners. Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

It is important to note that some readers might find the content of this book upsetting as the book deals with issues of hate crime and discrimination.

Contents List of Tables Notes on Contributors Acknowledgements

vii viii xvii

Introduction Imran Awan and Irene Zempi 1 Englishness and Football Cultures: Belonging, Race and the Nation John Solomos 2 Antisemitism in Football Emma Poulton 3 Spot Kick on Racism: Marcus Rashford and Criminally Damaging Penalty Shoot-​Outs Matt Long and Catherine Armstrong 4 ‘England till I Die’: Memoirs of a South Asian Football Fan Amjid Khazir 5 Racism in Football: Perspectives from Two Sides of the Atlantic Christos Kassimeris 6 A Critical Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns to Challenge Online Racism in English Professional Football Daniel Kilvington, Jack Black, Mark Doidge, Thomas Fletcher, Colm Kearns, Katie Liston, Theo Lynn, Gary Sinclair and Pierangelo Rosati 7 Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football Connor Humphries and Rory Magrath 8 Women Footballers in the United Kingdom: Feminism, Misogynoir and Hate Crimes Jayne Caudwell, Jane Healy and Aarti Ratna 9 Trans Exclusion in Football Ben Colliver

v

1 5

19 44

59 68

83

103 124

143

Hate Crime in Football

10

11

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football: What (If Anything) Works? Liz Crolley and Jon Garland Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football Nick Hawkins

Index

159

181

199

vi

List of Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 7.1

Antisemitic incidents recorded by the Community 24 Security Trust Community Security Trust’s categories of antisemitism 25 Reports of antisemitism in professional football to Kick It Out 27 Reports of discrimination based on homophobia, biphobia 114 and transphobia to Kick It Out

vii

Notes on Contributors Catherine Armstrong is Reader in Modern History at Loughborough University. She is also Director of People and Culture for the School of Social Sciences and Humanities there. Her work focuses on race and racism, especially the long legacy of the history of the institution of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic. She is author of three monographs on United States history, the most recent being American Slavery, American Imperialism (Cambridge University Press, 2020). She is also an oral historian and explores the way the method can be used as an empowering and therapeutic tool with groups who might otherwise find it difficult to get their voices heard. Imran Awan is Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University, specializing in understanding hate crimes, tackling extremism, and Islamophobia. He has written extensively on Islamophobia and is author and editor of a number of books in the field, including the first-​ever international handbook on the subject, the Routledge International Handbook of Islamophobia (Routledge, 2019, with Irene Zempi). He is currently project lead for a large Economic and Social Research Council research grant looking into Muslims in Birmingham and COVID-​19. He is an independent advisor to the United Kingdom government on Islamophobia and also a member of the SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) sub-​panel group advising the government on behavioural aspects in relation to COVID-​19 and its impacts on local communities. His impact goes beyond academia as he works with communities and politicians to raise awareness of Islamophobic hate crimes. Professor Awan regularly contributes to media debates around issues impacting Muslims, and his research has featured in leading stories for The New York Times, the BBC’s Panorama series, Channel 4 News, The Independent and Time magazine. Jack Black is Senior Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, where he is affiliated with the Centre for Culture, Media and Society and research lead for the Anti-​Racism Research Group. An interdisciplinary researcher, with interests in psychoanalysis, media and cultural studies, his research focuses predominantly on issues of political representation, with specific attention viii

Notes on Contributors

given to examples of race and racism. He has examined these interests across a diverse range of topics –​including sport, comedy, political ecology and nationalism/​national identity –​drawing from both film/​television analysis and qualitative methodologies. He has publications in a number of international journals and is the author of Race, Racism and Political Correctness in Comedy: A Psychoanalytic Exploration (Routledge, 2021) and the forthcoming The Psychosis of Race: A Lacanian Approach to Racism and Racialization (Routledge). He also co-​authored the edited collection Sport and Physical Activity in Catastrophic Environments (Routledge, 2023, with Jim Cherrington). He is currently Associate Editor for the International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure and is part of a research project funded by the Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council, entitled ‘Tackling online hate in football’. Jack tweets at @jackstblack. Jayne Caudwell is Associate Professor of Social Sciences, Gender and Sexualities in the Department of Social Sciences and Social Work at Bournemouth University. She is Programme Leader for BA Sociology and teaches students across sociology, social anthropology and criminology at Bournemouth University. She has had an enjoyable career within the field of sociocultural analysis of sport and leisure, especially related to social justice and equality, feminist theory and activism, LGBTQ+​inclusion, theories of sexuality, and qualitative research methodologies. Ben Colliver is Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Birmingham City University. His research interests include hate crime, online hate speech and broader issues of inclusion in different spaces, including the night-​time economy and football. He completed his PhD at Kingston University and offered a reconceptualization on how transphobic hate crime is understood. He has published widely in the area of transphobic hate crime, representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people in different media forms, and online hate speech. He is also a member of the British Society of Criminology ‘Hate Crime Network’, and a steering group member. Liz Crolley is Professor in the University of Liverpool Management School. Her research in football has incorporated a range of interdisciplinary and cross-​cultural perspectives, including nationalism and national identity expressed via football and football writing; aspects of the history, politics, business and sociology of football, with particular interest in Spain, Italy, Argentina and Mexico; and inequality in language, racism and gender. She has published widely in these areas and has also worked with a range of organizational bodies in football to influence policy on issues such as racism, inclusivity and corporate social responsibility at club level (in England, Spain, Italy, Mexico and Argentina), national level (the Football ix

Hate Crime in Football

Association, the Premier League, and Real Federación Española de Fútbol) and confederation level (UEFA and CONCACAF). Liz has co-​authored three books: Football and European Identity (Routledge, 2006), Football, Europe and the Press (Frank Cass, 2002, with David Hand) and Football, Nationality and the State (Routledge, 2014, with Vic Duke). She also co-​edited Fútbol, Futebol. Soccer: Football in the Americas (Institute for the Study of the Americas, 2007, with Rory Miller). She is also known for her work in the field of management education. She is an active contributor to the work of the Quality Assurance Agency and recently chaired a national review of Subject Benchmark Statements. Mark Doidge is Sociologist and Senior Lecturer in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University. His research focuses on making sport an inclusive and sustainable space for all. In particular, his research has focused on social activism among football fans across Europe, environmentalism, antiracism, supporting refugees and anti-​ violence. He is part of the ‘Tackling online hate in football’ project (funded by Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council) and has won funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy and the Wellcome Trust, among others. He is the author and co-​author of a number of books, including Ultras: The Passion and Performance of Contemporary Football Fandom (Manchester University Press, 2020, with Radosław Kossakowski and Svenja Mintert), Collective Action and Football Fandom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, with Jamie Cleland, Peter Millward and Paul Widdop), Transforming Sport: Knowledges, Practices, Structures (Routledge, 2018, with Thomas F. Carter and Daniel Burdsey) and Football Italia (Bloomsbury, 2015). Mark is also currently a trustee of the British Sociological Association and convenor of this organization’s Sport Study Group, a committee member of Football Supporters Europe and a member of the advisory board for the Football Supporter Association’s Fans For Diversity. Thomas Fletcher is Reader in the School of Events, Tourism and Hospitality Management at Leeds Beckett University. His primary research interests are in equality, diversity and inclusion, social justice and families within the contexts of sport, leisure and events. He is the author of the award-​winning Negotiating Fatherhood: Sport and Family Practices (Palgrave, 2020) and editor of Family Events: Practices, Displays and Intimacies (Routledge, 2022). Tom is Co-​Investigator on the ‘Tackling online hate in football’ project funded by the Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council). Tom is currently Managing Editor of the journal Leisure Studies and Associate Editor of Events Management and Sport in Society. During 2017–​21, Tom was Chair of the Leisure Studies Association. x

Notes on Contributors

Jon Garland is Professor of Criminology in the Department of Sociology. He has conducted extensive research into hate crime, prisons, far-​Right groups, racism in rural and isolated areas of England, policing, and racism, antiracism and disorder in football. Jon is currently undertaking a project examining the provision of food in women’s prisons (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council). He is author of Hate Crime: Impact, Causes, and Consequences (Sage, 2009, with Neil Chakraborti) and Racism and Anti-​Racism in Football (Palgrave, 2001, with Michael Rowe); and he is editor of The Future of Football (Frank Cass, 2000, with Michael Rowe and Dominic Malcolm), Youth Culture, Popular Music and the End of ‘Consensus’ (Routledge, 2015, as part of the Subcultures Network) and Rural Racism, Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for Connecting Policy and Research (Policy Press, 2015, with Neil Chakraborti). He is currently working on an edited book about hate crime perpetration (with Jo Smith and Irene Zempi). He has also had numerous journal articles and reports published on issues of hate crime, racism, the far Right, prisons, policing, cultural criminology and identity. He is on the Editorial Board of Ethnic and Racial Studies. He is Chair of the Board of Trustees of Stop Hate UK, a member of the board of the International Network for Hate Studies, and a member of the steering committee of the British Society of Criminology Hate Crime Network. He also undertakes equality and diversity work with a number of prisons across the male and female estates. Nick Hawkins is a barrister at Normanton Chambers and Director of The Hawkins Consultancy. Following a 22-​year career in the Royal Navy, playing sport around the world and experiencing a variety of cultures, Nick joined the Crown Prosecution Service in 1999. He spent 15 years as a Chief Crown Prosecutor, mainly in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. During this time, Nick was the national lead for football matters, working nationally and internationally and attending two World Cups as a liaison prosecutor. He has prosecuted every type of offence associated with football and helped develop national policy. He has also worked with other sports bodies advising on combatting hate crime. Nick has an LLM in Sports Law and Practice from De Montfort University. A former Visiting Professor at the University of Portsmouth, Nick continues to write and speak on a variety of sports matters. He contributed a chapter (‘Hate crime in sport’) to the Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime (2015). Jane Healy is Principal Academic and Deputy Head of the Department of Social Science and Social Work at Bournemouth University. As a criminologist, Jane’s research interests lie in the fields of victimology and hate crimes, and she completed her PhD on the experiences of victims of disability hate crimes within the criminal justice system. Jane is on the xi

Hate Crime in Football

editorial board of the Safer Communities journal and her work has been published in Disability & Society and Criminology and Criminal Justice. Connor Humphries is a PhD student in the Department of Sport, Health Sciences and Social Work at Oxford Brookes University. His research focuses on decreasing homophobia and the changing nature of contemporary masculinities within amateur sport. Christos Kassimeris is Professor, political scientist and programme coordinator of the MPA Public Administration at the European University Cyprus. He is the author of European Football in Black and White: Tackling Racism in Football (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), Football Comes Home: Symbolic Identities in European Football (Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), Discrimination in Football (Routledge, 2021) and The Politics of Football (Routledge, 2023). He is also the editor of Anti-​Racism in European Football: Fair Play for All (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009) and co-​editor of Exploring the Cultural, Ideological and Economic Legacies of Euro 2012 (Routledge, 2014, with Peter Kennedy). He has several publications in political science journals and book chapters in edited collections. He is a member of the editorial board for the journals Soccer & Society and Frontiers: Sports Politics, Policy & Law, and book series editor for Lexington Research in Sports, Politics, and International Relations (Rowman & Littlefield). Colm Kearns is Postdoctoral Researcher with the ‘Tackling online hate in football’ project (funded by the Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council). He is the co-​author of two recent reports on the impact of the pandemic on Irish media; RTE and Covid-​19: Diversity and Public Needs and The Impact of Covid-​19 on Ireland’s Independent Radio Sector. Colm holds a PhD in Communications from Dublin City University, and his thesis centres on the intersection of sport, advertising and national identity. He has published papers on those topics in journals such as Television and New Media, Sport in Society and Communication and Sport, in addition to having a chapter featured in the recently published collection Sport, the Media and Ireland: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Cork University Press, 2020). Amjid Khazir is Director of Media Cultured, an education and training provider based in the United Kingdom. As a social entrepreneur and with over two decades of experience in antiracism and community cohesion, Amjid has been widely acclaimed for his pioneering and benchmark work to tackle hate, Islamophobia, antisemitism and extremism. He is an award-​winning educator, public speaker and has produced internationally screened short films. His work has featured in studies by leading universities and political institutions. Following the death of his uncle xii

Notes on Contributors

Mohammed Zabir in 2011 (post an alleged Islamophobic assault), Amjid has dedicated his life to challenging all forms of hate and promoting dialogue between different groups, including working with refugees and emerging communities. His use of film, sport and art as tools to inform and to promote unity and understanding is central to a unique portfolio of work. Media Cultured has worked with academic institutions across the United Kingdom and alongside the likes of the Premier League and the United Nations, and delivered sessions for the NSPCC, the Prince’s Trust and the National Citizen Service. In 2020, Media Cultured won the UK Enterprise Award for its provision of racism and extremism awareness training, a Business Hero Award from the British Chambers of Commerce and, in 2021, a regional Excellence Award for their work on equality, cultural understanding, and inclusion. Amjid’s personal achievements have also been recognized globally with many awards, and in 2014 he was a guest of the Obama administration, meeting with activists, academics and colleagues from across the United States. Furthermore, Amjid is Vice-​ Chair of his local SACRE (Standard Advisory Council on Religious Education), a school governor, Royal Society of Arts Fellow, a Health Watch Champion and a member of AWON (A World Of Neighbours), based in Sweden. Daniel Kilvington is Reader and Course Director in Media and Cultural Studies at Leeds Beckett University. His teaching and research focuses on ‘race’, sport and new media. He has published a number of articles, and is author of books including Sport, Racism and Social Media (Routledge, 2015), British Asians, Exclusion and the Football Industry (Routledge, 2016), and Sport and Discrimination (Routledge, 2017). His current research explores antiracist sports coaching, sports journalism and online harms, and the lack of ethnic diversity in leadership and governance positions within English professional football. He has secured a number of external research grants from funders such as the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the English Premier League and the English Cricket Board. He has used this funding to critically investigate discrimination within sport(s) and to design countermeasures for transformative change. He is co-​founder of the annual Sport and Discrimination Conference and founded the Talking Race podcast. He is the trustee of the Zesh Rehman Foundation and works in collaboration with Football Against Racism in Europe to challenge online hate and extremism in European football. Katie Liston is Senior Lecturer in the Social Sciences of Sport and Senior Researcher in the Sport and Exercise Sciences Institute, Ulster University. She has published extensively on all aspects of sport and co-​edited the award-​ winning The Business and Culture of Sport (Cengage, with Joseph A. Maguire xiii

Hate Crime in Football

and Mark Falcous). Katie’s research interests centre on the theme of identity and its expressions in terms of nationalism, gender, the sport ethic and media representation. Together with colleagues in the ‘Tackling online hate in football’ project (funded by the Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council), she is examining online hate in football, and her focus is on sexism and misogyny. Katie is a regular contributor to radio and print media in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Matt Long is University Teacher in Criminology and Sociology at the University of Loughborough. He volunteers as a university chaplain. He spent 16 years at Nottingham Trent University after having started an academic career at Sheffield Hallam University. He has also guest lectured on sports coaching courses at Loughborough University and Coventry University. Matt is also a sports journalist and has authored more than 350 articles for both track and field athletics and boxing magazines. Some of his work has touched on racism in sport. He has served as a Great Britain Team manager and England Team coach in athletics and still competes into his fifties as a ‘white-​collar’ boxer. Theo Lynn is Full Professor of Digital Business at Dublin City University Business School. Professor Lynn specializes in the role of digital technologies in transforming business and society. His main teaching areas are strategy, data analytics and digital marketing. He has been published widely and is Series Editor on Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies. He is a regular speaker at both academic and industry conferences. He is currently Co-​Director at the Irish Institute of Digital Business and was formerly Principal Investigator at the Irish Centre for Cloud Computing and Commerce, (2011–​18), Associate Dean at Dublin City University Business School (2015–​17; 2020–​21), Business Innovation Platform Director for Dublin City University (2015–​16) and Director of the Leadership, Innovation and Knowledge Research Centre at Dublin City University (2009–​11). He has won over 250 grants, representing over €20 million in total project funding. He was Principle Investigator on the Horizon 2020 CloudLightning Project (2015–​17) and the Horizon 2020 RECAP Project (2017–​19); he is currently Principle Investigator on the Horizon 2020 RINNO project (2020–​24) and the Horizon 2020 ERASMUS+​ MENA-​Preneurs Project (2021–​23). Professor Lynn received a Bachelor in Business and Legal Studies, an MBS (Management Information Systems) and a PhD (Law), all from University College Dublin. He is an Expert Evaluator for the European Commission and is currently an International Research Fellow at the Information Society Law Center at the Università degli Studi di Milano. Professor Lynn has founded a number of companies, including Enki Information Systems, Educational Multimedia Group and xiv

Notes on Contributors

Atomic Assets, the businesses of which have been acquired by Rochford Brady Group, Intuition and Cambridge University Press, respectively. He advises a number of domestic and international companies. Rory Magrath is Associate Professor of Sociology in the Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Sciences at Solent University. His research focuses on decreasing homophobia and the changing nature of contemporary masculinities, with a specific focus on elite football in the United Kingdom. He is the author of Inclusive Masculinities in Contemporary Football: Men in the Beautiful Game (Routledge, 2017) and co-​author of Out in Sport: The Experiences of Openly Gay and Lesbian Athletes in Competitive Sport (Routledge, 2016). Emma Poulton is Associate Professor in the Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Durham University. Her research interests centre around football fan cultures, hate crime, identity and, in particular, antisemitism within the context of football. Emma has published in a range of international peer-​reviewed journals, including Ethnic and Racial Studies, the International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, the Sociology of Sport Journal, Sport in Society, Sociological Research Online, and Media, Culture & Society. She has also disseminated her work at numerous international conferences. Her research on antisemitism in English football has been recognized through invited Key Notes, including conferences organized by Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung in Berlin. Aarti Ratna is Associate Professor of Sociology at Northumbria University. Her writings are inspired by the politics and intellectual insights of women of colour. She uses their feminisms to challenge complex and transnational asymmetries of power and control in/​through sport, leisure, popular culture and everyday life. Pierangelo Rosati is Associate Professor in Digital Business and Society at the University of Galway. Pierangelo has been working on a number of research projects on data analytics, the business value of IT, fintech, blockchain, cloud computing, and cybersecurity, many of them in direct collaboration with industry. His research has been widely published in leading academic journals, including European Accounting Review, Computers in Human Behaviour, the European Journal of Finance and New Media and Society. Gary Sinclair is Associate Professor in Marketing (specializing in consumer behaviour) at Dublin City University. He has also lectured at the University of Stirling, Technology University Dublin, and Trinity College Dublin. He xv

Hate Crime in Football

is the co-​lead of the Digital Economy and Society lab at the Irish Institute of Digital Business. Gary is the Irish principle investigator on a three-​year project on ‘Online hate in football’ (funded by the Irish Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council). His research focuses on consumer culture primarily in the contexts of music, technology, sport and sustainability. His work has been widely published in a variety of top international peer-​reviewed journals, including the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Business Ethics, Marketing Theory and the European Journal of Marketing. His work has featured in mainstream media outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBC, the Irish Times, RTÉ and The Conversation. Gary is Associate Editor for the Journal of Marketing Management. He also guest-​edited a special issue on music and marketing for the European Journal of Marketing. John Solomos is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He has researched and written widely on the history and contemporary forms of race and ethnic relations in Britain, theories of race and racism, the politics of race, equal opportunity policies, multiculturalism and social policy, race and football, and racist movements and ideas. His most recent books are The Unfinished Politics of Race: Histories of Political Participation, Migration and Multiculturalism (Cambridge University Press, 2023, with Les Back, Michael Keith and Kalbir Skukra), Race, Ethnicity and Social Theory (Routledge, 2023) and Race and Racism in Britain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022, 4th edition). His most recent edited books are Race and Ethnicity in Pandemic Times (Routledge, 2022), An Introduction to Sociology (Sage, 2022, co-​edited with Karim Murji and Sarah Neal) and Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader (Routledge, 2022, 3rd edition, co-​edited with Les Back). He is Editor-​in-​ Chief of the international journal Ethnic and Racial Studies, which publishes 16 issues a year. He is also co-​editor of the book series on Racism, Resistance and Social Change for Manchester University Press (with Satnam Virdee and Aaron Winter) and General Editor of Routledge Resources Online –​Race and Racism. Irene Zempi is Associate Professor of Criminology at Nottingham Trent University. Irene has published widely on issues of hate crime, researcher positionality and ethnography. She is the co-​editor of the books Misogyny as Hate Crime (Routledge, 2021, with Jo Smith) and Routledge International Handbook of Islamophobia (Routledge, 2019, with Imran Awan). Irene is also the co-​author of the books Student Textbook of Islamophobia (Routledge, 2019, with Imran Awan), Islamophobia: Lived Experiences of Online and Offline Victimisation (Policy Press, 2016, with Imran Awan) and Islamophobia, Victimisation and the Veil (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, with Neil Chakraborti). Irene is Chair of the British Society of Criminology Hate Crime Network, Lead of the NTU Hate Crime Research Group and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. xvi

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the authors who contributed to this edited collection. Also, we would like to thank the staff at Bristol University Press for their support in the production of this text. Last but not least, we would like to thank our colleagues and students at Birmingham City University and Nottingham Trent University, who encourage us to continue our work in challenging hate crime. Imran Awan and Irene Zempi

xvii

Introduction Imran Awan and Irene Zempi Hate crime often takes place in the context of sporting events, particularly football matches. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hostility, prejudice and hate towards the victims’ identities. Definitions of ‘hate crime’ vary from one country to the next and even within countries. In England and Wales, the central point of reference is the operational definition offered by the College of Policing (2014), which earmarks hate crime as offences that are motivated by hostility or prejudice on particular grounds, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender status and disability. From this perspective, hate crime can be understood as any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated wholly or partly by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s protected characteristics. McDevitt et al (2001) observe that ‘hate’ is absent from the vast majority of hate crime. Rather, hate crime may be driven by bias, prejudice or ‘negative feelings held by the offender towards a social group that, in their eyes, have an “outsider status” ’ (Garland and Chakraborti, 2012: 40). An ‘in-​group’ is any group a person belongs to or identifies with; in contrast, an ‘out-​group’ is any group a person does not belong to or identify with. A key element of hate crime is that offenders target potential victims because of their membership of despised out-​g roups. According to Gerstenfeld (2013), it is the fact that the victim is targeted because of their actual or perceived membership of a social grouping –​rather than the presence of any bias or hatred –​that is the most significant factor when defining hate crime; that is, it is the attack on the person’s identity that sets hate crime apart from other crimes. Football-​related hate crime occurs not only within stadia but, increasingly, also online. During the UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championship final between Italy and England in July 2021, three Black English football players missed penalties, leading to a spiral of online hate comments on social media sites; the three Black players were called ‘n*****s’, ‘m**key’ and other racist derogatory terms. Some of the blame was initially attributed to groups such as the Football Lads Alliance and other splinter groups associated with far-​right sympathizers, which 1

Hate Crime in Football

have been found to operate on secret social media pages and blogging sites endorsing violent and racist behaviour. Yet for every right-​winger, there are many more individuals on social media who do not command a large following and in some respects might be seen as ordinary people but are in fact equally as dangerous. They may not share the motivation of the far right, but they still express and incite racial and religious hatred, often through social creativity and online manipulation. As Black Lives Matter continues to draw attention to racism –​and triggers pushback from people who are using social media to express sentiments against people of colour –​it is time social media companies did more to tackle all forms of bigotry against footballers on their sites. As we have researched hate speech on social media over the years, we have seen how such behaviour has become normalized even as its focus has changed. Many online posts centre around fake news and conspiracy theories that push certain groups and communities as the out-​g roup. Against this background, the aims of this edited collection are to shed light on the scope of the problem and to identify best strategies to tackle hate crime in football. This book provides a unique and comprehensive account of the nature, determinants and extent of hate crime against professional and grassroots football players and the consequences for victims, their families and wider communities. For example, these include how hostility occurs on a daily basis, ranging from online threats and messages of hate to harassment, intimidation and violence in the physical world at football matches. The book highlights how professional footballers’ visibility and identity are triggers for these attacks. The book also documents the prevalence and severity of online and offline hate crime, which is usually influenced by ‘trigger’ events of local, national and international significance. As such, this edited book sheds new light on an under-​researched topic and develops a model of understanding of hate crime within football, rather than examining the different facets of hate crime in isolation. Both nationally and internationally, this edited book is of relevance for those studying, working to challenge or interested in hate crime in football, including students, academics, researchers, practitioners, policy makers, journalists and social commentators. The book fills a gap in the research literature on hate crime by examining the lived experiences of footballers who are victims of hate crime, rather than examining the different facets of hostility in isolation. In doing so, the authors in this collection challenge current thinking and research, which, as it stands, ignores the relationship between football and hate crime. A key tenet of this edited collection is that both online hate speech and offline incidents are part of a continuum of hate crime and thus should not be examined in isolation. The book also argues that for actual and potential victims, it is difficult to isolate online threats from the intimidation, violence and abuse that they suffer offline. Rather, there is a continuum of 2

Introduction

hate crime in both virtual and physical realms, especially in the globalized world that we live in. This edited collection also identifies best strategies to tackle hate crime in football. This is the first published collection on hate crime, in both the virtual world and the physical world, in football. In sum, the volume explores: • the nature, extent and determinants of hate crime in football; • the impact of online social media hate comments on victims and wider communities; and • the effectiveness of campaigns and criminal justice responses to hate crime in football. Collectively, these aspects provide readers with concise, accessible, up-​to-​date information about the nature and consequences of online and offline hate crime in football; empower victims and their communities by voicing their experiences; and inform policy makers and practitioners about potential ways to prevent and respond to hate crime in football. The remainder of the book consists of 11 chapters. In Chapter 1, John Solomos theorizes racism and explains why racism occurs in football. In Chapter 2, Emma Poulton discusses antisemitism in English men’s football and demonstrates how this form of hate crime, motivated by race and religion, manifests itself in football. In Chapter 3, Matt Long and Catherine Armstrong make the case that racially motivated vandalism is worthy of study in its own right, as much as practices such as antilocution and physical attack are. In Chapter 4, Amjid Khazir provides reflections of his experiences, as a South Asian football fan, of racism in football. In Chapter 5, Christos Kassimeris offers perspectives from the two sides of the Atlantic. Specifically, Kassimeris examines racism in English and American football as well as in Italy, in order to demonstrate the manifold shapes of racial discrimination in football. In Chapter 6, Daniel Kilvington, Jack Black, Mark Doidge, Thomas Fletcher, Colm Kearns, Katie Liston, Theo Lynn, Gary Sinclair and Pierangelo Rosati offer a critical analysis of past and present campaigns to challenge online racism in English professional football. In Chapter 7, Connor Humphries and Rory Magrath examine homophobia in football while, in Chapter 8, Jayne Caudwell, Jane Healy and Aarti Ratna employ intersectionality to examine women footballers’ experiences of hate crime in football. They argue for connecting sexism, racism, misogynoir and football to ensure a hate crime framework that includes women and girls in sports. In Chapter 9, Ben Colliver examines transphobia in football, and in Chapter 10, Liz Crolley and Jon Garland consider what works in tackling homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in football. Last but not least, in Chapter 11, Nick Hawkins examines the effectiveness of prosecuting hate crime in football. 3

Hate Crime in Football

References College of Policing (2014) Hate Crime Operational Guidance, London: College of Policing. Garland, J. and Chakraborti, N. (2012), ‘Divided By a Common Concept? Assessing the Implications of Different Conceptualisations of Hate Crime in the European Union’, European Journal of Criminology, 9: 38–​51. Gerstenfeld, P.B. (2013) Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls and Controversies (3rd edn), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McDevitt, J., Balboni, J., Garcia, L. and Gu, J. (2001) ‘Consequences for victims: a comparison of bias and non-​bias motivated assaults’, American Behavioral Scientist, 45(4): 697–​713.

4

1

Englishness and Football Cultures: Belonging, Race and the Nation John Solomos

Introduction A number of controversies in the past decade or so have highlighted the ways in which questions about race and national identity remain an important facet of contemporary football cultures, both in the context of club football and in relation to the England national team. Whether it is to do with individual players, such as John Terry, or more generally football as a whole, we have seen ongoing debates about how best to tackle the question of racism in football at national and local levels (Football Association, 2012a; House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Committee, 2012a, 2012b). Perhaps because during the 1990s and 2000s there were numerous initiatives to tackle popular expressions of racism in football, alongside evidence of greater representation of Black and ethnic minority players in professional football, there was an expectation that questions about race and racism would gradually diminish in importance. But at key points over the past decade, evidence emerged that meant we could not assume that questions about racism in football would gradually diminish in importance. This is evident in the growing bodies of scholarship that addressed the changing expressions of racism in football, including research focused on fan cultures and research on institutions (Cleland and Cashmore, 2013; Cashmore and Cleland, 2014; Burdsey, 2021; Kassimeris et al, 2022). A recent event that highlighted the continuing role of racism in football took place in the aftermath of the defeat of England by Italy in the final of the UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championship in 2020 (Euro 2020), which led to a wide-​ranging public 5

Hate Crime in Football

discussion about the use of racist tropes against Black players such as Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka, who were blamed by some supporters for the defeat (Back and Mills, 2021). Although it should be emphasized that there was also widespread revulsion at the racist language used on social media to attack these players, the aftermath of the Euro 2020 final highlighted for many the ongoing relevance of racism and nationalism in popular football cultures. The virulence of the language and imagery used against players such as Rashford and Saka led some to ask as to whether we have actually moved forward over the past three decades and even to question the efficacy of long-​standing campaigns against racism and xenophobia in football, such as Kick It Out (Kilvington et al, 2022; Penfold and Cleland, 2022). It also led to a series of conversations about what needs to be done to address the underlying causes of public expressions of racist attitudes in football, as well as discussions about the relative absence of diversity in the coaching and administrative side of the game. In a way, the events in the aftermath of Euro 2020 highlighted something that has been evident since the 1990s, namely that despite initiatives to tackle racism in football, there seems to be a recurring pattern, with substantive issues about racism and xenophobia remaining and leading to recurring controversies, ranging from abuse of Black and minority players to concerns about the dearth of representation of minorities in football management and coaching or in the boardrooms of football clubs and associations. While there seems little doubt that we have seen important and substantive efforts to address questions about racism, multiculturalism and diversity in football since the 1990s, there is a need to explore the reasons why we see a regular pattern of controversies about race coming to the fore on a regular basis. This is an opportune moment, therefore, to address the issues that help to frame this volume. In this chapter, I explore the ways in which we can make sense of the processes through which football has become an important site for the construction of racialized ideas about belonging, race and the national identity in contemporary society. I seek both to explore the background and context to contemporary controversies and debates and to highlight possible avenues for challenging dominant understandings of the role of race in contemporary football cultures. I begin by providing an overview of the background to the process of race making in football cultures. Then, I move on to discuss the impact of these processes of race making on Black players and supporters. This allows me to return to the example of the events surrounding Euro 2020 in order to analyse the important role that the England national team plays in the formation of ideas about race and national identity in the contemporary environment. In the final part of the chapter, I touch on the need to include antiracism in any rounded analysis 6

Englishness and Football Cultures

of this issue and conclude by exploring what the account in this chapter tells us about the changing role of race and racism in contemporary football cultures. It is to these issues that I now turn.

Race making and football cultures As a number of scholars have argued, race making in football cultures is not a new phenomenon, and we can trace a longer historical background to concerns about the role of racism among sections of football cultures. As early as the late 1970s and 1980s, the emergence of Black players as a recognizable group in professional football led to widespread debate, particularly in the mass media and in policy circles, about expressions of racism among sections of football fan cultures (Holland, 1997; Back et al, 2001; Crabbe, 2006). Indeed, through much of this period, it was almost impossible to attend football games without hearing sections of crowds chanting abuse at Black players, using the ‘n’ word or throwing bananas at them and imitating monkey noises. Such abuse became almost routine in this period and was often linked to the hard-​core fan groups attached to teams such as Chelsea, West Ham, Millwall and Leeds. It was also something that had a deep impact on the players who were the direct target of abuse as well as on the fan bases of a number of clubs that gained a reputation for their involvement in forms of racist and xenophobic abuse. Indeed, many of the early generation of Black players have written movingly about their experiences of racist chanting and abuse through much of their careers and the ways in which such abuse became almost routine at many football grounds (Barnes, 1999, 2021; Regis, 2010; Rees, 2015). In this wider environment, it is perhaps not surprising that in the discussions about the role of racist subcultures in football during the 1980s and 1990s, much of the research focused on questions about hooliganism and the influence of racist ideas and values among some sections of football supporters. This was a time when much of the discussion about racism in football was still linked to the role of political groupings such as the National Front and the British National Party, which had sought to attract support among some sections of football supporters in the late 1970s and 1980s. This became evident to Les Back, Tim Crabbe and me when, during the late 1990s and early 2000s, we carried out one of the first detailed empirical studies of the role of race and racism in the context of English football cultures. This was a time when the issue of racism among football supporters had come to the fore in both media and policy debates. In developing research on this issue, we found that there was a tendency to collapse the issue of racism in football into broader discourses about the football hooligan, which in practice only served to limit our understanding of the variety of ways in which ideas 7

Hate Crime in Football

about race helped to shape processes of racialization among football fans, managers and coaches and administrators (Back et al, 1999, 2001). Rather than focus our research on the figure of the football hooligan, we felt that it was important to understand how questions about race were constructed within football supporter fan cultures more generally, and this allowed us to analyse the often messy and complex ways in which race was experienced in football cultures. In developing this analytical frame, we were influenced by the broader theoretical conversations about the changing dynamics of race and racism in the wider society, as evidenced, for example, in the influential work of scholars such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy (see Gilroy, 1993, 2001; Hall, 2017). Rather than limiting our analytical frame to the figure of the racist football hooligan, we argued that what was needed was a broader and more contextual analytical frame that explored how questions about race and nation had become part of popular football cultures as well as the institutions that governed the game as a whole or specific clubs. We therefore broadened our analytical approach to allow us to make sense of how race was seen within the key institutions of football, among football players and within fan groups that sought to oppose racism within the game and in society more generally. As we developed this project and began talking to football supporters and players about their experiences of race and the meanings that they attached to such issues as club identity, national culture and efforts to develop antiracist initiatives in football, it became evident to us that much of the dominant theoretical discussion on race and racism did little to help us address the core issues that animated our research on cultures of racism in football, or indeed other important facets of the changing dynamics of racialization and processes of identity formation in contemporary society. This was partly because much of the conceptual and theoretical analysis remained somewhat separate from the realities of carrying out more empirically focused research, whether in the context of political institutions at the local or national levels or in the context of sport and popular culture. But it was also because empirical research agendas tended to develop along narrow frames and did not engage with efforts to construct more open and critical analytical frameworks for the situated analysis of race, racism and ethnicity in specific social and political spheres (Brown, 1998; Carrington and McDonald, 2001). Indeed, much of the scholarship on football cultures remained somewhat separate from the wider debates about race and racialization that were emerging at this same time. In the period since the early 2000s, however, we have seen the growth of new scholarly and research agendas that have sought to provide us with a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the workings of racism in football at all levels. A wide-​ranging body of scholarship and research has begun to address the evolving role of questions about race and national 8

Englishness and Football Cultures

identity within popular football cultures and in the institutions of football as an industry. With the research agendas that came to the fore during the 2000s and 2010s, we now have a much richer and more in-​depth body of scholarship that seeks to provide an understanding of the everyday cultural as well as the institutional processes that help to shape questions about race and racism in football. As a result, the study of race, belonging and football cultures has moved forward in the period from the end of the twentieth century (Burdsey, 2011a, 2011b, 2021; Carrington, 2013). Much of this discussion has been framed around the ongoing debates about the impact of race, immigration and racial formation on national identity. In this sense, it links up to wider trends in scholarship and research on race and ethnicity, which has seen more discussion of the intersections between processes of racialization and popular culture, particularly in the broader context of the impact of the end of empire and decolonization on the ways in which both Britishness and Englishness are imagined and understood, whether it be in relation to sport or other social and political institutions (Samuel, 1989; Gilroy, 2004; Schwarz, 2011). It is perhaps not surprising that popular culture has become such an important site for the discussion of questions about national identity, belonging and difference given the important role of cultural symbols in the construction of the overarching meanings attached to modern understandings of what it means to be British or English. As the work of historians and sociologists have highlighted, the everyday meanings attached to ideas about nation, race or culture are in many ways shaped by popular culture, in both its elite and vernacular forms. From this angle, sport has been and remains one of the important sites for the construction of ideas about both race and the nation. The new bodies of scholarship and research on race and sport have been influenced and shaped in various ways by contemporary scholarship on race and ethnicity that has tended to argue that one of the key features of racism is that it is constantly evolving and changing, depending on national contexts and political and cultural environments. Thus, a number of scholars have talked about the multiplicity of ‘racisms’ or the articulation of ‘new racisms’ as they seek to make sense of a social phenomenon that is increasingly diverging from earlier forms of racist thinking and racialized ideologies (Lentin, 2020; Solomos, 2023). What these conceptual arguments have highlighted, albeit from different intellectual starting points, is that ideas about race are not fixed and unchanging. Rather, racial ideologies and practices are constantly made and remade through specific social and political environments. Given the role that sports such as football, cricket and rugby play in constructions of national and localized identities, it is important for us to explore their changing role in shaping social meanings attached to both racialized and national identities. Writing about the changing meanings of race and nation in the context of football, Daniel Burdsey argues: ‘The race/​nation/​ 9

Hate Crime in Football

sport relationship is evidently fluid, messy and sometimes contradictory. Determining the sociological meanings and gauging the social implications of nascent sporting multiculturalisms is consequently complex’ (2021: 68). The key point that Burdsey is making here is that the messy and contradictory ways in which race and nation are made and remade through sport need to be explored in detail in the context of a broader sociological imaginary that allows for the specifics of sport and of wider social relations. An example of the processes that Burdsey and other scholars have sought to put into perspective can be found in the experiences of Black and minority players over the past few decades as they began to establish themselves within individual clubs and within the national team. Much of the early scholarship and research in this field did not explore the experiences of Black players and supporters in any depth, although in practice there was a constant reminder in the form of songs and chanting that both remained targets of abuse. However, as research and scholarship in this field has evolved from the 2000s to the present, there has been increasing awareness of the need to develop an understanding of the experiences of Black players and Black and ethnic minority supporters in the context of changing football cultures. Scholarship in recent years has sought to give more attention to the changing experiences of Black players and their responses to expressions of racism by supporters as well as occasionally by other players. Racist language and abuse has increasingly been driven out of the game as a consequence of the players’ responses, the multiracial diversity of the contemporary game and the concerted campaigning around the issue through initiatives such as Kick It Out. When racialized incidents occur –​such as those in 2011 between John Terry and Anton Ferdinand (Fifield, 2011) or between Luis Suárez and Patrice Evra (Tallentire, 2011) –​they are readily dismissed as ‘heat of the moment’ responses, individual mental aberrations that do not conflict with the multiculturalism which prevails in the majority of English professional clubs (Football Association, 2012a, 2012b). What such incidents, and the debates they have led to, highlighted, however, is that the experiences of Black players are still shaped in one way or another by race. There is an even greater imperative to move beyond a focus on the overt expression of racism as the only issue with regard to issues of exclusion in this context than there is in relation to fan cultures. Rather, it is the implicit normative racism located in the everyday embodied practices of football’s White core which polices the integration of Black and foreign players. The possession of the appropriate ‘cultural passport’ is not reliant merely on wearing a particular football shirt, but on a conformity with the team’s cultural identity and the White working-​class masculinities. There has been somewhat less attention given to the changing experiences of Black and ethnic minority supporters within the game. This has begun 10

Englishness and Football Cultures

to change to some extent in recent years as a number of clubs have become more involved with initiatives to respond to the needs of diverse groups of supporters and, alongside this, efforts have been made to attract more supporters from the diverse communities that surround many football grounds up and down the country.

England, whose England? A clear example of the complexities of the often taken-​for-​g ranted connections between the nation and racialized identities can be found in the ways in which support for the English national football team has become entangled with questions about race and national identity. We have already mentioned the public conversations that followed the successful run of the England national team in 2021 during the Euro 2020 tournament. England reached the final of the tournament with a racially and ethnically diverse team. During the run-​up to the final, there was ongoing conversation both on social media and in the national press, radio and television about the team and what it symbolized about the role of diversity and difference in British society. Indeed, there was also clear evidence that the team was attracting the support of many people from Black and ethnic minority communities across the country. Even before the final, questions about race had featured in much of the public discussion about the team. The England team had committed to taking the knee before every fixture in solidarity with the global Black Lives Matter movement and as an expression of their resolve to oppose racism in football. The team adopted a practice that had originated with the American footballer Colin Kaepernick in 2016. The practice of taking the knee had come to the United Kingdom when Aston Villa, captained by England player Tyrone Mings, alongside their Sheffield United opponents, took the knee in the first Premier League game after the 2020 lockdown (Mings, 2021). When the England team adopted the symbolic gesture, they were subjected to widespread abuse and, in some cases, booed by some of their own fans. Although this changed later as sections of England supporters started to express their support for the England team taking the knee, the public debates about this symbolic gesture helped to bring to the fore the sense that attitudes about race among the England supporters were by no means uniform. At the same time, the affinity of large numbers of Black and ethnic minority people for the England team had become clear as England progressed through the various stages of the tournament. Images of racially and ethnically diverse groups of supporters following the team and cheering them on became part of the media coverage of Euro 2020. Such images were very much in contrast to coverage of earlier tournaments, which gave little, if any, recognition to the 11

Hate Crime in Football

support for the national team among Black and ethnic minority supporters. In a sense, this symbolized the ongoing transformations around the popular meanings attached to the England national team and its representation of the diversities in the wider society. In the end, England lost the final on penalties. Three of the players who missed penalties for England were young Black players, namely Bukayo Saka, Jadon Sancho and Marcus Rashford. In the aftermath of the game, all three players were subjected to racial abuse, particularly on social media, where their commitment to the national team was questioned by some, largely on the basis of their racial backgrounds. It should be noted that in the period that followed, there ensued an often angst-​r idden conversation about what the abuse directed at Saka, Sancho and Rashford symbolized in terms of race and national identity. Much of this discussion contained strong expressions of support for the three players and shock at the turn of events that led to the outpouring of racial abuse (Back and Mills, 2021; Kassimeris and Lawrence, 2022). When a mural of Marcus Rashford was defaced, many supporters rallied round to show their support for the player and to express their opposition to racism and xenophobia. What this particular event helpfully highlighted is that even at a time when the England national football team was being invoked as a symbol of diversity and a kind of national togetherness, the imagined community of who belongs to the nation remained fragile and contested on the basis of race and ethnicity. A good example of this process can be found in the efforts to represent the meanings attached to the England national team through popular songs. In the lead-​up to the Euro 2020 tournament, a new anthem for the England team was commissioned by south London rappers Krept & Konan. They wrote the official anthem to celebrate the racial diversity of the England football team. Their tune, ‘Olé (we are England ’21)’, explores the meaning of Englishness in 2021. The video accompanying the tune, made by filmmaker Myles Suave, opens with a shot of Grenfell Tower (the scene of a tragic fire that has come to symbolize racial and class injustice), and the performance references urban multicultural Englishness and masculinity and features rappers from around the country. It is framed around a new kind of Englishness that goes beyond the traditional tropes of national stereotypes, looking towards an imagined future rather than the past. However, as England’s fortunes in the tournament progressed, the promise of Krept & Konan’s anthem of multicultural Englishness was drowned out by the more melancholic melody of the song ‘Three lions’, released in 1996 by English comedians David Baddiel and Frank Skinner and the band Lightning Seeds, and by the resurgent popularity of Neil Diamond’s pop classic ‘Sweet Caroline’ among England fans. Gabriel Szatan (2021) wrote in The Observer: ‘Complexity has … crimped this year’s official England 12

Englishness and Football Cultures

anthem, Krept & Konan’s Olé! … the dexterity of drill [lyrics] renders it a tall order for blokes who are eight pints deep by kick-​off.’ The ongoing efforts to reimagine the boundaries of Englishness and Britishness in postcolonial Britain will no doubt take on new forms in the future, reflecting transformations in football cultures as well as in wider society. But the relative failure of Krept & Konan’s efforts to popularize an edgy multiculturalism through song highlights the limited and unstable impact of antiracism within the contemporary environment. It is to this issue that I now turn.

Antiracism in football As argued earlier, much of the scholarship and research in this field has remained relatively silent on the question of antiracism. This neglect of forms of resistance to racism has been remedied to some extent by emerging research agendas that have placed much more emphasis on analysing the formation of antiracist initiatives, the role of resistance by racialized minorities and the creation of an antiracist imaginary. But it remains important to develop fuller research agendas in this area that can help to give voice to hidden histories of resistance in different historical conjunctures as well as uncovering the role of agency in resisting racialized exclusion and domination within the context of football and other sports. Given the challenges we face in developing both theoretical and empirical research on antiracism, it is important that we develop a conversation about what theoretical and empirical tools we need to help us make sense of current trends and developments and begin to contribute to discussions about what policy and political interventions can help tackle the root causes of racism and forms of racial exclusion. It is also important for scholars and researchers working on questions about race, ethnicity and racism to look beyond their own dominant frames and engage more directly with arenas such as sport as sites for antiracist initiatives. We should explore possible routes to change the conversation in critical scholarship pertaining to the dilemmas we face in dealing with racial and ethnic difference in the world around us. Although it is important to focus on the structural processes that have helped entrench racialized inequalities, it is also necessary to keep a focus on avenues for change that are either possible in the present environment or likely in the future. It is also important to note, however, that from the 1990s onwards there have been sustained efforts to give voice to antiracist initiatives within football, both in relation to fan cultures and within the institutions that govern professional and amateur football. During the course of a research project I carried out with Les Back and Tim Crabbe in the late 1990s and early 2000s that focused on analysis of the changing cultures of racism in 13

Hate Crime in Football

football, we noticed this trend. Against the dominant approaches at the time, we opposed the construction of a narrative of racism in football as fixed and unchanging, since in practice there were countertrends that sought to oppose and resist racialized imaginaries about race, identity and belonging. In the books that we produced from this research, we talked of the need to analyse both the cultures of racism that were emerging and evolving at the time and the role that ideas about multiculturalism and antiracism were increasingly playing in football (Back et al, 1996, 2001). In particular, we highlighted the role of initiatives such as Kick It Out, which came to the fore in the 1990s and continues in the present, as well as more localized antiracist initiatives that sought to challenge racist stereotypes and ideas. Such initiatives were premised on broader antiracist political agendas and values, and they signalled a concern to develop ideas about a common identity as well as to challenge the influence of racialized ideologies and practices. But they also reflected a conscious effort to counter the influence of extreme Right-​wing movements among sections of the fan bases of some clubs, by developing initiatives within the context of football rather than from the outside. One of the lessons we can draw from the experience since the 1990s is that discussions of the politics of racism in football, and in society more generally, cannot simply be read off from accounts at national level. In the context of sports like football, it is also important to pay close attention to what is happening at the level of the local, whether it be through analysis focused on specific clubs or based on cities and localities more generally. While there are real and important shifts going on within the context of society as a whole, it is equally true that across different cities and regions there are huge variations in the way popular expressions of racism are shaped. There is a need to locate antiracist initiatives within both national processes and more localized environments and contexts. Through much of the beginning of the 21st century, we have seen important initiatives by professional football clubs and in local amateur football that seek to challenge racism and xenophobia among their fan bases. Therefore, we need to include in the development of new research agendas on racism and football a deeper understanding of antiracism. This requires a radically contextualized understanding of the place of popular racism within football, which calls for an antiracist strategy that is localized and sensitive to the variegated, contradictory and ambivalent presence of racism in football. In refocusing research to address the possibilities for developing antiracist imaginaries in football cultures, it is important to frame research around the local social and cultural environments in which football fan bases live as much as around broader historical and national understandings of the making of race and nation in British society. In many localities up and down the country, there are complex histories of migration, settlement and 14

Englishness and Football Cultures

dwelling that have helped to produce specific social relations around race and ethnicity. It is these everyday social relations that need to be included in the frame of analytical research on contemporary football cultures if we are to better understand the possibilities for antiracism.

Changing boundaries and identities The experience of the past few years has highlighted the continuing relevance of discourses about race in football, both in fan cultures and institutionally. At the same time, we have seen countertrends that articulate efforts to develop antiracist initiatives and to question racialized ideas about Englishness, Britishness and the ‘nation’. In this chapter, I have sought to show the deep-seated role of ideas about race and difference in shaping ideas about national identity and belonging, and that questions about racism and xenophobia remain a recurring issue in contemporary football, and indeed in other sports, including cricket. The public conversations about the events in the aftermath of Euro 2020 and the ongoing discussion about racism in sport more generally, including in cricket and rugby, are specific examples of a much broader phenomenon. But in highlighting the continuing relevance of processes of racialization, I have also emphasized the need for an open conversation about what can be done to tackle the root causes as well as the expressions of this social phenomenon. It is important to develop national and local conversations about what can be done to tackle questions about race and racism in football, both as a site of popular culture and fan participation and as an industry and national cultural institution. Since the 1990s, we have seen intense public debate about specific examples of racism –​often followed by promises that action will be taken to deal with the specific issue –​as well as the institutional patterns of exclusion of Black and ethnic minority communities from the governance bodies of football and other popular sports. This is not to say that there have been no efforts to address the key issues faced over the past few decades. Indeed, we have seen important initiatives within fan groups, football clubs and both national and local organizations to address key dimensions of racism and hatred within professional and grassroots football. To take the example of the England national football team, it is important to note that the experience of recent decades has by no means been uniformly negative. Since Euro 2020 and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar (controversial for the country’s alleged human rights abuses and treatment of migrant workers; see ­chapters 4 and 10), there have been ongoing conversations on social media and beyond about how to develop antiracist initiatives to recognize the transformations that are going on in football and the wider society. As I have highlighted in this chapter, this was particularly the case after Euro 2020 when quite ugly efforts were made by 15

Hate Crime in Football

some fans to single out Black players like Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka for condemnation after England failed to win the final against Italy. At the same time, however, it is important to include in the discussion the efforts by other fans and by players to oppose racism and to support the players who were the target of abuse. The ongoing discussions about the symbolic impact of taking the knee before games are but one example showing that we need to look at racism and antiracism together rather than in isolation. This need to consider ways of tackling problems alongside the causes of the problems is also evident in the complex efforts by clubs to address broader social issues in their relations with their local fan bases, including efforts to develop more inclusive attitudes on sexuality, gender and disability. To conclude, I have sought in this chapter to develop an overview of the complex intersections between race, nation and culture in contemporary football cultures. Given the ongoing relevance of questions about racism and hate crime in contemporary football cultures, it is important that we develop a detailed and contextualized understanding of how race and difference are experienced and lived in popular cultural arenas, such as football. Such an understanding will help us make sense of both the past and the present by allowing us to account for what has changed as well as to think through what needs to be done in order to develop more inclusive imaginaries of Englishness and national identity in football cultures and beyond. As the overarching issues addressed in this book as a whole suggest, this is very much a live question and not something that can be seen in isolation from the wider social and political conversations going on in our society about race, immigration, difference and living in diverse communities. References Back, L. and Mills, K. (2021) ‘“When you score you’re English, when you miss you’re Black”: Euro 2020 and the racial politics of a penalty shoot-​ out’, Soundings, 79: 110–​121. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (1996) Alive and Still Kicking: Let’s Kick Racism-​Respect All Fans Campaign, London: Advisory Group Against Racism and Intimidation. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (1999) ‘Beyond the racist/​hooligan couplet: race, social theory and football culture’, British Journal of Sociology, 50(3): 419–​442. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (2001) The Changing Face of Football: Racism, Identity and Multiculture in the English Game, Oxford: Berg. Barnes, J. (1999) John Barnes: The Autobiography, London: Headline. Barnes, J. (2021) The Uncomfortable Truth about Racism, London: Headline.

16

Englishness and Football Cultures

Brown, A. (ed) (1998) Fanatics: Power, Identity and Fandom in Football, London: Routledge. Burdsey, D. (ed) (2011a) Race, Ethnicity and Football: Persisting Debates and Emergent Issues, London: Routledge. Burdsey, D. (2011b) They Think It’s All Over … It Isn’t Yet! The Persistence of Structural Racism and Racialised Exclusion in Twenty-​First Century Football, New York: Routledge. Burdsey, D. (2021) Racism and English Football: For Club and Country, Abingdon: Routledge. Carrington, B. (2013) ‘The critical sociology of race and sport: the first fifty years’, Annual Review of Sociology, 39: 379–​398. Carrington, B. and McDonald, I. (eds) (2001) ‘Race’, Sport, and British Society, London: Routledge. Cashmore, E. and Cleland, J. (2014) Football’s Dark Side: Corruption, Homophobia, Violence and Racism in the Beautiful Game, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cleland, J. and Cashmore, E. (2013) ‘Fans, racism and British football in the twenty-​first century: the existence of a “colour-​blind” ideology’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(4): 638–​654. Crabbe, T. (2006) ‘From the terraces to the boardrooms: reviewing theories and perspectives on racism in football’, International Review of Modern Sociology, 32(2): 241–​256. Fifield, D. (2011) ‘John Terry and Anton Ferdinand row: who said what and when’, [online] 26 October, Available from: www.theguardian.com/ football/2011/oct/26/john-terry-anton-ferdinand [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Football Association (2012a) Ruling of the Full Disciplinary Commission Following the Substantive Disciplinary Hearing Held Between 24th and 27th September 2012, London: Football Association. Football Association (2012b) The Football Association and Luis Suarez: Reasons of the Regulatory Commission, London: Football Association. Gilroy, P. (1993) Small Acts: Thoughts on the Politics of Black Cultures, London: Serpent’s Tail. Gilroy, P. (2001) ‘Joined-​up politics and postcolonial melancholia’, Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2–​3): 151–​167. Gilroy, P. (2004) After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? London: Routledge. Hall, S. (2017) Fateful Triangle: Race, Ethnicity, Nation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holland, B.L. (1997) ‘Surviving leisure time racism: the burden of racial harassment on Britain’s Black footballers’, Leisure Studies, 16(4): 261–​277. House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Committee (2012a) Racism in Football. Second Report of Session 2012–​13. Volume I: Report, together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, HC 89, London: The Stationery Office. 17

Hate Crime in Football

House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Committee (2012b) Racism in Football. Second Report of Session 2012–​13. Volume II: Additional Written Evidence, London: The Stationery Office. Kassimeris, C. and Lawrence, S. (2022) ‘Introduction’, Soccer & Society, 23(8): 821–​823. Kassimeris, C., Lawrence, S. and Pipini, M. (2022) ‘Racism in football’, Soccer & Society, 23(8): 824–​833. Kilvington, D., Hylton, K., Long, J. and Bond, A. (2022) ‘Investigating online football forums: a critical examination of participants’ responses to football related racism and islamophobia’, Soccer & Society, 23(8): 849–​864. Lentin, A. (2020) Why Race Still Matters, Cambridge: Polity Press. Mings, T. (2021) ‘You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-​racism message as “Gesture Politics” ...’, [Twitter] 12 July, Available from: https://​twit​ter.com/​Offic​ialT​M_​3/​sta​ tus/​1414​6553​1207​4784​785?s=​20 [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Penfold, C. and Cleland, J. (2022) ‘Kicking it out? Football fans’ views of anti-​racism initiatives in English football’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(2): 176–​198. Rees, P. (2015) The Three Degrees: The Men Who Changed British Football Forever, London: Constable. Regis, C. (2010) Cyrille Regis: My Story, London: Andre Deutsch. Samuel, R. (ed) (1989) Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity. Volume II: Minorities and Outsiders, London: Routledge. Schwarz, B. (2011) Memories of Empire. Volume I: The White Man’s World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Solomos, J. (2023) Race, Ethnicity and Social Theory, London: Routledge. Szatan, G. (2021) ‘Winning team, winning melodies: Euro 2020 and terrace anthems’, The Observer, [online] 10 July, Available from: www.thegu ​ ardi​ an. com/​footb​all/​2021/j​ ul/1​ 0/w ​ inni​ ng-t​ eam-w ​ inn​ing-​melod​ies-​euro-​2020-​ and-​terr​ace-​anth​ems [Accessed 8 December 2021]. Tallentire, M. (2011) ‘Liverpool’s Luis Suárez charged with racism by the FA’, [online] 16 November, Available from: www.theguardian.com/ football/2011/nov/16/luis-suarez-fa-charge-racism-evra [Accessed 22 May 2023].

18

2

Antisemitism in Football Emma Poulton

Introduction Racism, racialization and antiracism within football have been extensively studied (for example, Back et al, 2001; Garland and Rowe, 2001, 2014; Burdsey, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2020; Cleland, 2014; Cleland and Cashmore, 2014, 2016; Bradbury et al, 2018; Hylton, 2018; Lawrence and Davis, 2019; Penfold and Cleland, 2022). The focus of that research has tended to be on footballers, coaches and supporters of colour. Antisemitism1 in football has received comparatively less scholarly attention, with some emerging exceptions (Poulton, 2016, 2020, forthcoming; Poulton and Durell, 2016; Brunssen and Schüler-​Springorum, 2021; Seijbel, Sterkenburg and Oonk, 2022; Seijbel, van Sterkenburg and Spaaij, 2022). Among the reasons for this scholarly neglect might be the relatively low number of Jewish professional footballers –​in England, about a dozen have played in the Premier League since its creation in 1992 –​but also debates pertaining to a hierarchy of racisms and whether antisemitic hate crime should be treated as a distinct form of racism (Kushner, 2013; Feldman, 2016; Hirsh, 2018; Rich, 2018; Gidley et al, 2020; Gould, 2020; Baddiel, 2021a). Yet antisemitism, as this chapter evidences, is common throughout football, with some high-​profile examples in England (Poulton, 2020) –​and elsewhere (Brunssen and Schüler-​Springorum, 2021; Poulton, forthcoming) –​both on and off the pitch in recent years. This has included several antisemitic incidents at the top institutional and occupational levels of English men’s professional football –​involving officials, club owners, coaches and players (see Poulton, 2016) –​and most frequently within football fan culture, which is the main focus of this chapter. There are also regular incidents in grassroots football, with reports of seven-​year-​old Jewish footballers being hissed at by 19

Hate Crime in Football

opponents aiming to replicate the noise of the Nazi gas chambers (Jewish News Reporter, 2022). This chapter provides an overview of antisemitism within the context of English football. It first discusses problems related to contested definitions of the phenomenon and then covers the scale of ‘religious’ hate crime in England and Wales. Next, the nature of antisemitism in England is outlined before examining its prevalence and presence within English football fan culture. Finally, the chapter turns its focus to a Premier League club, Tottenham Hotspur (nicknamed Spurs), whose supporters are the target of the majority of antisemitism within English football. This includes a discussion of the different uses and meanings of the controversial term ‘Yid’. While many people in Britain today perceive ‘Yid’ to be an ethnic epithet and ‘race hate’ word (Chakraborti and Garland, 2009; Baddiel, 2013) –​similar to ‘kike’, ‘ikey’ or ‘hebe’, which are more common in North America –​it is a term that has taken on differing subcultural meanings within the context of English football. This is because for some 40 years, some Tottenham fans –​ both gentiles and Jews –​have appropriated and paradoxically used this taboo word as a term of endearment in songs and chants and use the sobriquet ‘Yid Army’ in an attempt to deflect the routinized antisemitic abuse they receive because of their perceived identity as a ‘Jewish club’ (Poulton, 2016; Poulton and Durell, 2016).

Contested definitions of antisemitism Described as both ‘the longest hatred’ (Wistrich, 1991) and ‘the other racism’ (Baddiel, 2021a), antisemitism is a complex, multifaceted and contested phenomenon with political, theological and legal disagreements over its definition. Fine (2009) points out the polarization in ways of thinking about antisemitism in Europe between those who see its recent resurgence and those that affirm its empirical marginalization and normative delegitimation (see also Chelser, 2003; Klug, 2012, 2021; Kushner, 2013). Intersecting these debates is tension involving remembrance of the Nazi genocide of European Jews juxtaposed against slavery, colonialism and decolonization (Rothberg, 2009) as well as the continuing presence of the Israel–​Palestine conflict (Feldman, 2016; Hirsh, 2018; Gould, 2020; Bashir and Farsakh, 2021). Despite a long and difficult history of being perceived as the ‘ultimate other’ (Gilman and Katz, 1991: 1), Jews occupy an ambivalent position with respect to the Black/​White binary within studies of hate crime due to perceptions of Jewish upward mobility and achievement and ‘White privilege’ (see Hirsh, 2018; Gidley et al, 2020). This can lead to a failure in progressive circles to see Jews as a minority group (Baddiel, 2021a). Understood broadly as suspicion, dislike or sometimes hatred of Jews (Meer, 2014), antisemitism historically has included allegations of Jewish conspiracy, 20

Antisemitism in Football

wealth, power, manipulation, immorality and hostility as well as Holocaust denial, distortion or trivialization. Antisemitism can be expressed rhetorically or physically, overtly or covertly, through words, visual images and actions. Contemporary permutations can be based on one, or an amalgam, of: religion (anti-​Judaism), ethnicity (anti-​Jewish racism) and geopolitics (anti-​Israel and/​or anti-​Zionism). There are some similarities here with Islamophobia, since biological and cultural discourses are invoked in the racialization of religious minorities (Meer, 2013; Egorova and Ahmed, 2017; Janssen and Meer, 2020). This is because ‘Jews and Muslims define themselves –​and are defined by others –​ through reference to race and religion’ (Meer and Noorani, 2008: 196). These identity markers are two of the UK’s nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The majority of British Jews are either secular or moderately religious, with a considerable proportion of the latter leaning toward non-​halachic or ethnic forms of Jewish expression (Staetsky and Boyd, 2015). There are legal ramifications in terms of classifying, reporting and prosecuting hate crime, as Hall explains: In the UK, the conceptualisation of anti-​Semitism represents a blurring of the boundaries between race and religion, where anti-​Semitic crimes against Jewish people or communities are regarded as racist (because Jewish people are regarded as a race by legislation), and offences targeting Judaism … are regarded as religiously motivated. (2013: 68, italics in the original) Space prevents a comprehensive review of the antagonistic debates and ideological assumptions dividing conflicting schools of thought over definitions of antisemitism, which tend to centre on whether antisemitism should be treated as a subjective sentiment or an external and objective social phenomenon (Hirsh, 2018). However, central to the acrimony are the definitions of antisemitism set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which demand summary, albeit with careful navigation through what is a highly politicized minefield in terms of their inception, usage or rejection. The IHRA, an intergovernmental body with a rotating chair among its country members, provide a non-​legally binding working definition of antisemitism: … a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-​Jewish individuals and/​or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (IHRA, 2016) 21

Hate Crime in Football

The IHRA’s working definition is endorsed by the United Nations and the European Parliament, and it has been widely –​although not universally –​ adopted by over 30 governments (including the UK government) in addition to political parties, public agencies, universities, Jewish organizations and sports governing bodies and clubs across Europe, North and South America, and Australia. In England, the IHRA definition was adopted by the Premier League in December 2020. Then, on Holocaust Memorial Day 2021, the sport’s national governing body, The Football Association (The FA), and the English Football League (EFL), which represents the 72 clubs beneath the Premier League, both did the same. To date, the IHRA has not been adopted by any Arab or Middle Eastern country apart from Israel, nor by any country in Africa or Asia other than South Korea. The definition provides 11 illustrative examples, suggested to help guide organizations in evaluating what constitutes antisemitism. Supporters praise it as an important, informal tool with practical applicability for investigators and hate crime monitors (Hirsh, 2018, 2019; Rich, 2018, 2021; Johnson, 2021). However, the IHRA working definition is controversial. It is contested by pro-​Palestinian activists together with Jewish non-​Zionist activists and organizations due to disagreement over the wording of criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism, as well as its stance on freedom of expression and hierarchy of racisms, with fears among Black communities that it might suppress any reckoning with colonial racisms past and present (Feldman, 2016, 2020; Gould, 2020; Klug, 2021). In the UK, it was disavowed by the (opposition) Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership before adoption by the party in July 2018. In March 2021, a group of international scholars on antisemitism, Jewish studies, Holocaust studies and Middle East studies announced the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which proffers an alternative definition: ‘Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)’ (jerusalemdeclaration.org, 2021).

‘Religious’ hate crime in England and Wales In the 2021 Census for England and Wales, 271,327 people self-​identified as Jews (Graham and Boyd, 2022). ‘This compares with 265,073 in 2011 and 259,927 in 2001, the first occasion the religion question was asked’ (Graham and Boyd, 2022: 3). However, caution is needed when comparing results to previous data, because the religion question was voluntary so some people may have chosen not to answer it. After taking non-​response into account, the 2021 result means Jews make up 0.46 per cent of the overall population in England and Wales, and this is in line with earlier Census findings (0.47 per cent in 2011 and 0.50 per cent in 2001; Graham and Boyd, 2022). 22

Antisemitism in Football

Despite making up a tiny fraction of the population in England and Wales, Jews were the victim of nearly a quarter of all recorded religious hate crimes between March 2021 and March 2022 (Home Office, 2022). The Home Office have been collecting information from the police on the perceived religion (that is, as targeted by the offender) of victims of religious hate crime since 2016. The number of religious hate crimes recorded in the year ending March 2022 (8,730 offences) represents an increase by 37 per cent from the previous year (6,383 offences) and is the largest number since recording began. Information on targeted religion was provided for 8,307 of the offences recorded in 2021–​22 (95 per cent of the total; Home Office, 2022). Where the perceived religion of the victim was recorded, around two in five (42 per cent) of the religious hate crime offences were targeted against Muslims (3,459 offences). The next most targeted group were Jewish people, who were targeted in just under one in four (23 per cent) of the religious hate crimes (1,919 offences). This was an increase of 49 per cent from the previous year (23 offences) and almost triple the number of antisemitic hate crimes recorded in 2017–​18 (672). This increase was due to the flaring of hostilities in Israel and Gaza in May 2021, which resulted in one of the most intense periods of anti-​Jewish hatred in the UK in recent years. The record levels of antisemitic hate incidents, anti-​Jewish chants and incitement from radical Islamist extremists and the calls from global jihadist terrorist groups for Jews to be raped and killed were detailed in a research briefing published by the (Jewish) Community Security Trust (CST) entitled The Month of Hate (CST, 2021b). The extensive work of the CST helps explain the wide-​ranging nature of antisemitism in the UK.

Forms of antisemitism in England The CST is a registered charity (part funded by the Home Office) that works alongside the police to protect British Jews from antisemitism and related threats by providing physical security, advice and training for Jewish communal organizations, schools and synagogues in addition to monitoring reported cases of antisemitic incidents from victims, witnesses, their families, the police, CST volunteers and other sources. The CST publish regular reports, statistics and analysis of incidents in the UK, and they assist and support members of the Jewish community who have been affected by antisemitism. The CST’s Terrorism & Hate Crime Databases provide insights into UK terror attacks and foiled plots from 2013 to the present day. Adhering to the IHRA’s working definition, the CST define an antisemitic incident as ‘any malicious act aimed at Jewish people, organisations or property, where there is evidence that the incident has antisemitic motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because they are (or are believed 23

Hate Crime in Football

Table 2.1: Antisemitic incidents recorded by the Community Security Trust Year

Antisemitic incidents

2016

1,275

2017

1,420

2018

1,690

2019

1,813

2020

1,886

2021

2,255

2022 (January to June)

786

Source: CST (2020, 2021, 2022a)

to be) Jewish’ (CST, nd). As such, the CST’s classification of incidents of antisemitism is different from the classification used in the Home Office’s statistics on religious hate crime, with implicit acknowledgement that these are not always of a targeted religious nature. There has been an incremental rise in antisemitism in the UK for several years according to the CST (2020, 2021a, 2022a, 2022b), as Table 2.1 illustrates. Also, due to a conflation between antisemitism and anti-​Zionism, the CST highlight spikes whenever the geopolitical situation in the Middle East intensifies (Rich, 2018; Bashir and Farsakh, 2021). In May 2021, the CST (2022b) recorded a monthly record of 661 antisemitic incidents (contributing to a record annual figure of 2,255 antisemitic incidents) driven by the significant spike in anti-​Jewish hate reported during and following the escalation in violence in Israel and Gaza. The CST identify six different categories of antisemitic incidents, as shown in Table 2.2. During the ‘month of hate’, the CST (2022b) recorded incidents across all six categories: 3 cases of extreme violence, 173 assaults, 82 cases of damage and desecration to property, 143 threats and 184 cases of abusive behaviour. This shows that antisemitic incidents can take several expressions, both physical and rhetorical. The latter includes antisemitic discourse, such as language or imagery that uses or evokes antisemitic ideas about Jews. This is common in extremist circles but can also appear in mainstream (progressive) society, including in newspaper articles, political speeches and comments, internet posts, and television and radio programmes. Over the last few years, antisemitic discourse connected to the COVID-​19 pandemic has emerged, with some individuals in the COVID-​19 conspiracy movement deliberately utilizing Holocaust imagery and terminology, trying to draw a parallel between COVID-​19 restrictions and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. This has included wearing yellow stars or using Holocaust language on placards. It is forms of antisemitic discourse, together with 24

Antisemitism in Football

Table 2.2: Community Security Trust’s categories of antisemitism Category

Description

Examples

1. Extreme violence

Any attack potentially causing loss of life or grievous bodily harm (GBH)

• Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or letter bombs intended to be viable • Arson at an inhabited property • Kidnapping • Shooting • Stabbing

2. Assault

Any (attempted) physical attack against a person or people which does not pose a threat to their life or cause GBH but instead may be considered actual bodily harm or lower common assault

• Attempted assault, even if it fails • Objects thrown at Jews, including where the object misses its target

3. Damage and Any damage to, or marking of, desecration property perceived to be owned of property by or linked to Jews that is not life-​threatening

• Slogans, symbols or other antisemitic graffiti on Jewish-​ linked property • Posters and stickers relating to antisemitic organizations attached to Jewish-​owned property • Damage to Jewish-​owned property where antisemitic expressions are made while causing the damage

4. Threats

Direct, clear and specific antisemitic threats, whether verbal or written, that target individual Jews or Jewish people collectively

• IEDs designed to be hoaxes (that is, not containing any explosive material)

5. Abusive behaviour

Verbal and written antisemitic abuse that does not involve clear and specific threats

• Face-​to-​face verbal abuse • Indirect verbal abuse by phone or voicemail message • Targeted, one-​off antisemitic letters, emails or text messages • Antisemitic tweets and social media posts • Antisemitic graffiti on property that is not Jewish-​linked

6. Literature

Mass-​produced antisemitic letters or emails distributed in multiple quantities

• Neo-​Nazi material mass mailed to targeted Jewish organizations or individuals, even when the literature does not mention Jews

Source: Adapted from CST (nd)

25

Hate Crime in Football

abusive behaviour toward Jews, that are most prevalent within the vernacular culture of football fans, to which we now turn.

Prevalence of antisemitism in English football The comparative absence of extremist politics in English (and British) history is reflected in English football fan culture, which traditionally has not been underscored by political motivations and allegiances and, unlike some other European nations, does not have Leftist and Right-​wing ultra groups dominating particular stands within stadia (Kennedy and Kennedy, 2014; Doidge and Lieser, 2020; Hodges, 2019). Indeed, the nature and scale of antisemitism is more overt and acute in the fan cultures of nations like Germany, Hungary, Italy and Poland (Mann and Cohen, 2007; Woźniak, 2018; Poulton, forthcoming). As illustration, in Poland in 2016, around 50 supporters of Widzew Łódź burned Jewish effigies and performed Nazi salutes prior to a match with local rival ŁKS Łódź, a club which is often referred to derisively by rivals as having large amounts of Jewish support. In Italy during 2017, Lazio ultras besmirched the face and legacy of Anne Frank on stickers and used the slogan ‘Roma fans are Jews’ to denigrate the rival team in their city. Despite the more moderate sociopolitical history of England’s football fan culture, there are past and present exceptions. Rhetorical and sometimes physical manifestations of antisemitism –​along with other forms of racism and hate –​were much more prevalent in English football fan culture during the 1970s and 1980s, when extreme Right groups2 like the National Front and Combat 18 infiltrated and attempted to recruit from football’s then more working-​class fan base, and football-​related disorder was also at its most acute at that time (Back et al, 2001). During those decades, Nazi salutes were not an uncommon sight in English football crowds, just as players of colour regularly endured ‘monkey’ noises and gestures as well as having bananas thrown at them. While antisemitism –​like all forms of discrimination and hate –​is much less common today, it still exists and takes a variety of expressions. Indeed, the prevalence of antisemitism in wider society is mirrored in the sport of football. Kick It Out is English football’s leading organization campaigning for equality. They provide a reporting mechanism for football supporters and players across the professional and grassroots game and publish annual statistics on reporting of incidents, which provide an insight into the contemporary nature and prevalence of all forms of discrimination in English football. Their categories are disability, gender, gender alignment, race, religion/​faith, sexual orientation and ‘other’. Table 2.3 details the incidents reported to Kick It Out of various forms of discrimination in the professional game. As Table 2.3 outlines, 82 per cent of reported incidents of abuse during the 2018/​19 season and 61 per cent during the COVID-​19-​impacted 26

Antisemitism in Football

Table 2.3: Reports of antisemitism in professional football to Kick It Out Season

All incidents of Incidents of discrimination ‘faith-​based’ discrimination

Incidents of antisemitic discrimination (percentage of ‘faith-​based’ incidents)

2011/​12

78

Not captured

8

2012/​13

79

Not captured

7

2013/​14

284

58

57 (98%)

2014/​15

393

68

63 (93%)

2015/​16

402

83

79 (95%)

2016/​17

469

81

Not captured

2017/​18

520

61

52 (85%)

2018/​19

581

63

52 (82%)

2019/​20

446

41

25 (61%)

2020/​21

34

0

2021/​22

380

70

0 47 (67%)

Source: Adapted from Kick It Out (nd) and, for pre-2017/18 data, personal correspondence with Kick It Out

2019/​20 season pertained to antisemitism (Kick It Out, nd). As COVID-​19 impacted football across the 2020/​21 season –​with curtailed attendance at a professional level and grassroots games being on/​off for most of the season –​reports of any form of discrimination by those supporting the professional game dropped to 34 (Kick It Out, nd). There had been a steady increase in reports of ‘faith-​based’ discrimination and, within this category, reports of specifically antisemitic discrimination up to 2015/​16, followed by decreases in reports of both ‘faith-​based’ and antisemitic discrimination up to 2019/​20. These decreases could be explained as indicative of the contemporary culture of ‘calling out’ others’ misdemeanours, whereby people will more readily ‘name and shame’. Other considerations –​especially given the sharp rise in reports in 2013/​14 –​include the introduction in 2013 of Kick It Out’s smartphone app to facilitate user-​friendly anonymous reporting of discriminatory abuse (Bennett and Jönsson, 2017) and supporters potentially having more confidence that their complaints would be dealt with.

Nature of antisemitism in British football Table 2.3 indicates that according to reports to Kick It Out, antisemitism consistently made up the majority of ‘faith-based’ discrimination by supporters in English professional and grassroots football: 82 per cent of 27

Hate Crime in Football

reported incidents of discrimination based on any faith during the 2018/19 season and 61 per cent during the COVID-19-impacted 2019/20 season pertained to antisemitism (Kick It Out, nd, and personal communication). (The other forms of abuse within Kick It Out’s category of ‘faith-​based’ discrimination are ‘Islamophobia’, ‘sectarianism’ and ‘other’.) Antisemitic incidents usually take the form of abusive behaviour and discourse in football supporters’ songs, chants and social media posts. Back et al’s (2001) seminal work was the first systematic and empirically grounded account of both racism and the changing role of racial and ethnic identity within British football. In establishing a sense of how the processes of racialization work within the broader structure of football, Back et al (2001: 107–​117) emphasize the importance of understanding racism as ‘ritual’ within the banal routines of football fandom. They identify a range of expressive forms and styles of racist abuse within football stadia, including ‘individual racist slurs’ in response to incidents on the pitch, ‘proactive racial abuse’ aimed at intimidating and affecting players’ performance, and ‘collective songs and chants [that] use racial meanings to express club identity and are combined with racist epithets producing complex racially exclusive representations of group identity’ (Back et al, 2001: 108–​109). While the main focus of Back et al’s (2001) research was on Black and Asian experiences, their identification of these situated and nuanced formations of racism can assist us in demonstrating how antisemitism is manifest in the vernacular culture of English football fans. It might be helpful at this juncture to outline a few of the recent antisemitic incidents in the context of English football. In January 2022, magistrates issued an Everton supporter with a football banning order preventing him from attending matches for three years after he directed antisemitic slurs towards Tottenham Hotspur fans during his team’s home game against Tottenham in November 2021 (ITV News, 2022). During 2022, seven British football supporters faced criminal proceedings for performing Nazi salutes in five separate incidents: • In April 2022, a West Ham United fan who performed Nazi salutes towards Austrian supporters during a UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) Europa Conference League game against Rapid Vienna at the London Stadium in September 2021 was issued with a three-​year football banning order. The defendant ‘pleaded guilty to one count of using threatening or abusive or insulting words or behaviour to cause harassment or alarm or distress’ (Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2022d). • In June 2022, three England fans were arrested for making Nazi salutes in Munich before a UEFA Nations League tie with Germany (PA Media, 2022). The German penal code explicitly prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, both offline and online. This includes sharing images, public display or distribution of 28

Antisemitism in Football

flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting (such as salutes) belonging to political parties and organizations that have been deemed unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), such as Nazis and neo-​Nazis. • In November 2022, a (Glasgow) Rangers fan was convicted for performing a Nazi salute towards supporters of the German club RB Leipzig during the UEFA Europa League semifinal at his home ground. Glasgow Sheriff Court issued the defendant with a fine of £790 and banned him from attending football matches in the UK for six months (Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2022c). • Also in November 2022, a Wimbledon fan was issued with a three-​year football banning order after performing a Nazi salute directed towards supporters of Milton Keynes Dons in April of that year. The defendant pleaded guilty to a racially aggravated (that is, not racially motivated) offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2022e). • Again in November 2022, a Newcastle United supporter who carried out an act directed towards Tottenham fans at Newcastle’s home ground –​ performing a Nazi salute while placing his finger over his mouth to make a moustache –​admitted to the charge of racially aggravated harassment in October 2021. The defendant received a three-​match football banning order (Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2022b). Notably, the prosecutor in the latter case advocated: ‘He knew or must have known that there was a likelihood of there being a strong Jewish presence among the away supporters. It was a pretty deliberate and cynical action’ (quoted in Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2022b). This observation acknowledges the traditional Jewish fan base of Tottenham Hotspur, who are subject to most of the antisemitic abuse in English football, as discussed in the next section. Although Back et al’s (2001) formations of fan racism remain helpful, they are becoming outdated. This is due to the antiracism campaigns and criminalization of racism in English football over the last two decades (Garland and Rowe, 2014), which in turn has led to changes in the nature and prevalence of racial abuse in contemporary football, as well as society more broadly. Since Back et al’s 2001 study, we have seen the emergence of a new form of hate and discriminatory abuse that is appearing increasingly on platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. While online racism, and combating online racism, in the context of football has received some attention in recent research (Millward, 2008; Cleland, 2014; Cleland and Cashmore, 2014; Farrington et al, 2015; Bennett and Jönsson, 2017; Kilvington and Price, 2019; Kilvington, 2020), digital football-​related antisemitism remains largely overlooked, other than the recent contributions 29

Hate Crime in Football

of Seijbel and colleagues (Seijbel, Sterkenburg and Oonk, 2022; Seijbel, van Sterkenburg and Spaaij, 2022) on the Dutch situation. Despite the paucity of research on the subject, social media is replete with antisemitism (Baddiel, 2021a), and this also finds expression in the context of football. While the main focus of this chapter is antisemitic hate within the fan culture of English men’s professional football, in September 2022 the CST confirmed it had received several complaints about an Instagram post by a youth team grassroots footballer. The teenager posted: ‘4–​3 win against some random Jews. Hitler would be proud’ (quoted in Harpin, 2022). Another common expression of antisemitism occurs when salutations to Jewish fans posted by football clubs over Jewish festivals and holy days are hijacked and used as a vehicle for anti-​Jewish hate and especially anti-​ Israel abuse, usually accompanied by Palestinian flag emojis, with the State of Israel regularly used as a virtual stick to beat Jews with. One illustration involves the ‘Happy Passover’ message posted by Aston Villa on the team’s Facebook page in March 2021, which received hundreds of negative and abusive comments. Those comments were deleted, and a further statement posted by the football club, reiterating the sentiments of their initial post, received more than 27,000 negative emojis (see BBC, 2021a). Jewish comedian and writer David Baddiel commented on Twitter: ‘27.1k angry reactions, to what is basically Happy Easter for Jews. Ugh.’ He added in the thread: ‘By the way, I don’t see this as anything to do with Villa. It’s to do with antisemitism and the internet. It could be any other club, indeed any other outlet with a wide reach’ (Baddiel, 2021b). A lot of work has been done to tackle football-​related online abuse over the last couple of years –​notably since the virulent abuse of the three players of colour who missed decisive penalties for the England men’s national team in the Euro 2020 final. This has included the introduction of a monitoring platform by the Premier League as well as the launch of a Football Online Hate Working Group in 2021 by Kick It Out (supported by Sky Sports), which has addressed processes around sanctions and enforcements, together with extensive communications and campaigns. Notwithstanding concerns by human rights organizations about legal and protected speech and freedom of expression standards, there is much anticipation about the British government’s Online Safety Bill (before Parliament at the time of writing), which is likely to apply a duty of care to providers of user-​to-​user services and search services that have links to the UK. This would require regulated services to perform risk assessments and adopt mitigation measures (or ‘safety duties’) –​something that many Jewish communal organizations have been calling for. In the meantime, there have been occasional arrests and prosecutions for digital football-​related antisemitism. In 2017, a Chelsea supporter was fined and sentenced to community service for tweeting ‘Hitler isn’t the only one 30

Antisemitism in Football

that can silence 70,000 Yids’ after his team beat Tottenham (Jewish News Reporter, 2018). He was found guilty of committing an offence under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. In November 2021, another Chelsea supporter was given a custodial sentence of eight weeks for posting antisemitic tweets directed towards Tottenham fans, some including photos of Auschwitz and a man performing a Nazi salute (BBC, 2021b). In one of the defendant’s Twitter posts, he added a picture of the train tracks to Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz along with the message ‘Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz’ (BBC, 2021b). The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said his sentence was increased by three weeks to reflect the racial hate crime element. There are also cases of social media platforms to ‘call out’ antisemitic behaviour, which can lead to police intervention. One such case took place in May 2022 when two Burnley fans were arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences after video footage emerged on social media of them appearing to perform Nazi salutes during their club’s match against Tottenham Hotspur (Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2022a). Another case occurred in November 2021 when a video showing West Ham fans on a flight from London Stansted singing an antisemitic song towards an Orthodox Jewish man –​who was wearing a traditional Hasidic long suit, black hat and gartel (a belt worn by Jewish men) –​went viral. The group were travelling to Belgium to watch West Ham’s UEFA Europa Conference League tie away to KRC Genk. In the video, fans could be heard singing a song about Tottenham supporters that references genitalia and Jewish circumcision, with the lyric ‘I’ve got a foreskin, haven’t you? Fucking Jew!’, as the Orthodox Jew walks down the aisle. Two men, on their return to England, were arrested by Essex Police and charged with a racially aggravated harassment public order offence. The video appeared to have been filmed while the aircraft was still standing, as passengers were taking their seats. However, the defence counsel argued that under the Civil Aviation Act, 2012, the English and Welsh crown courts had no jurisdiction over the incident. The case was adjourned while the CPS considered the charge, but they concluded there was ‘insufficient evidence to prove that the alleged offences took place in British airspace and therefore within remit of our courts’ (quoted in Joseph, 2022).

Tottenham Hotspur and antisemitism A recurring theme in many of the illustrative examples mentioned earlier is that the antisemitic abuse and discourse is directed towards supporters of Tottenham Hotspur. Indeed, the vast majority of antisemitism in English football is directed toward Tottenham fans because of the club’s perceived Jewish heritage, which serves as a magnet for opposition supporters, both 31

Hate Crime in Football

in English fan culture and abroad (Poulton, 2016, 2020, 2021).3 Tottenham supporters are regularly targeted –​especially by supporters of rival London clubs like Chelsea, West Ham and Arsenal –​ with routinized Jewish stereotyping and antisemitic discourse in songs, chants and social media posts which ridicule Jewish rituals and practices (such as circumcision and kosher food) and may also reference Hitler and the Holocaust. This is illustrated by the following tweet from a Chelsea fan following their victory over Tottenham on 20 August 2017: ‘Hitler isn’t the only one to silence 70,000 Yids.’ Likewise, on the day of the UEFA Champions League final in 2019, a West Ham supporter tweeted ‘Liverpool fans getting gassed for the CL [Champions League] final v Tottenham fans getting gassed for the CL final’, with images of a celebratory Liverpool crowd juxtaposed against images of emaciated prisoners in concentration camps. As well as the abuse on social media, antisemitism is expressed in person at games, with, for instance, some supporters of opposing teams making hissing noises to evoke the Nazi gas chambers. These forms of antisemitism have extended to Tottenham fans being physically assaulted when playing in mainland Europe (Meikle and Willsher, 2013), where the nature and prevalence of antisemitism can be much worse (Mann and Cohen, 2007; Brunssen and Schüler-​Springorum, 2021; Poulton, 2021, forthcoming). Tottenham’s Jewish association developed from the club traditionally attracting Jewish supporters due to its proximity to Hasidic and Orthodox communities in north London, who settled there after fleeing tyranny in Russia and then Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Clavane, 2012). The club’s history of having occasional Jewish players, coaches and especially owners and chairpersons (including the current incumbents) has helped perpetuate this association. Arsenal Football Club is located nearby, and consequently they also have Jewish supporters, yet it is Tottenham which is most associated with this Jewish heritage. In Tottenham Hotspur’s (2019) survey of their subscribed members and season ticket holders, 11 per cent of the 23,354 respondents declared themselves Jewish. Some Tottenham supporters –​whether Jewish or not –​use the quasi-​ Jewish identity of their club as a point of reference that is core to their fan culture, embracing symbols like the Star of David. Many have controversially appropriated the word ‘Yid’ –​a Jewish ethnonym of Yiddish origin –​ chanting it back at their abusers in an attempt to expunge antisemitic abuse through songs and chants, self-​identifying as ‘Yids’, ‘Yiddos’ and the ‘Yid Army’ (Poulton, 2016; Poulton and Durell, 2016). This phenomenon developed during the 1970s in response to their demonization by opposition supporters (Poulton, 2016). For many younger supporters today, ‘Yid’ and the derivative ‘Yiddo’ are now simply synonymous with being a Tottenham supporter or player, as the Oxford English Dictionary acknowledged with 32

Antisemitism in Football

new entries for these terms in February 2020. Other Tottenham supporters are uncomfortable with the use of ethnic epithets as a self-​referent, and there have been numerous attempts by campaigners –​including the euphemistically titled film The Y-​Word (2011) from Kick It Out, which promotes a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to the terms –​The FA and the criminal justice system to censure and regulate use of the terms (Poulton, 2020). In this context, in October 2013, three Tottenham supporters were singled out, arrested and charged with a racially aggravated offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for repeated use of ‘Yid’ inside Tottenham’s stadium. This followed a statement by The FA (2013) warning fans that ‘use of the term in a public setting could amount to a criminal offence and leave those fans liable to prosecution and potentially a lengthy Football Banning Order’. In its statement, the national governing body proclaimed that the word ‘is likely to be considered offensive by the reasonable observer’ and is ‘inappropriate in a football setting’. Their warning was endorsed by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Metropolitan Police, but challenged by then Prime Minister David Cameron and the CST (Poulton and Durell, 2016; Poulton, 2016). Cameron pointed to the legal principle of mens rea, arguing with respect to hate speech: ‘There’s a difference between Spurs fans self-​describing themselves as Yids and someone calling someone a Yid as an insult. You have to be motivated by hate. Hate speech should be prosecuted –​but only when it’s motivated by hate’ (quoted in Pollard, 2022). The arrest of the three Tottenham supporters at the team’s next match caused consternation among Tottenham’s fan base, with many believing they were being wrongly targeted by The FA and the criminal justice system (Poulton, 2016). However, on the eve of the criminal trial in March 2014, the CPS discontinued the landmark test case against the Tottenham fans. Their reasons were twofold, to do with the burden of proof needed for conviction and the context in which the word was used. Chief Crown Prosecutor Baljit Ubhey, a national race champion, explained the CPS’s U-​turn: ‘although the same words used in other contexts could in theory satisfy the criteria for “threatening, abusive or insulting”, it is unlikely that a court would find that they were in the context of the three particular cases in question’ (quoted in Davis, 2014). The defendants’ legal team also underlined the significance of subcultural context and the principle of intent underpinning Tottenham fans’ original use of ‘Yid’ to ‘combat racist abuse aimed towards them’, pointing to how it has ‘developed into a strong identity status that brought Jewish and non-​Jewish Spurs fans together in an incredible show of unity that is admired worldwide. That is what fighting racism within football should be about’ (Cooke et al, 2014). Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has always maintained that their fans have never used the word with any deliberate attempt to offend. Indeed, they have on occasion defended their fan base against critics (Tottenham 33

Hate Crime in Football

Hotspur Football Club, 2014; see also Poulton, 2016; Poulton and Durell, 2016). This stance has changed over the last few years –​perhaps because of lobbying from Jewish media and communal groups –​with surveys to gauge opinion and communications to dissuade supporters from using the word. The most recent attempt is Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s (2022) WhY Word: Time To Think About It initiative, with Tottenham telling supporters that ‘it is time to move on from associating this term with our Club’. The different uses, meanings and motivations underpinning the use of ‘Yid’ within the vernacular of fans remains a complex and vexed issue. There are some Tottenham fans, including Jews, who see the word as a term of endearment towards the club’s Jewish fans and a recognition of its historic connection and solidarity with the Jewish community. However, it is clear that not all Jewish supporters (of Tottenham and of other clubs), or other members of Jewish communities, see the term in the same way.

Conclusion Perhaps because the Jewish population in England is very small –​and, unlike other minority groups, has no high-​profile professional footballers –​ antisemitism has often been low on the pecking order of forms of hate and discrimination to be tackled in football (Poulton, 2020). Another challenge lies in gaining access to the antidiscrimination policy agenda, which has been complicated because antisemitism is less clearly defined and understood due to its heterogeneous manifestations underpinned by religion, ethnicity and geopolitics, or a combination of these factors. Indeed, while the antiracist movement in English football has developed over the last three decades –​and is now firmly established and supported by a raft of equalities laws and football-​specific legislation that has criminalized racism in football (Garland and Rowe, 2001, 2014) –​ antisemitism specifically was not addressed until much later, with Mann’s (2010) Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Antisemitism and Islamophobia report to The FA. This was done most conspicuously by Kick It Out’s The Y Word (2011), a campaigning film which, as noted earlier, challenged the controversial use of the Jewish ethnonym ‘Yid’ by football fans, though I have previously criticized this as being a misguided starting point given the prevalence of songs and chants that reference Hitler and the Holocaust (Poulton, 2016, 2020). Since its late ‘arrival’ in 2011, antisemitism has occupied a sporadic position on the wider antiracism agenda in English football, as I have critiqued elsewhere (Poulton, 2020). In that critical analysis of campaigns, initiatives and policies to tackle antisemitism in football by antiracist groups, governing bodies and nongovernmental agencies, I called for ‘much more 34

Antisemitism in Football

consistent “joined up” thinking and collaboration between key agencies and stakeholders’ and ‘more leadership’ from The FA, who need to ‘regularly consult and seek expert advice or recommendations from the specialists at Kick It Out, together with representatives from relevant [Jewish] community groups or organisations’ (Poulton, 2020: 21). Since then, there have been improvements, with more collaborative pieces of work to challenge antisemitism in football. The adoption by the FA, the Premier League and the EFL –​and by most of the professional clubs playing in those leagues –​of the IHRA definition of antisemitism was a significant step, as it now provides guidance across football on what language or actions may be considered antisemitic. The FA has since issued fines and match bans to players found guilty of antisemitic behaviour. In February 2021, Kick It Out, working with Lord Mann –​the government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, who has been instrumental in raising awareness of the problem in football (see Mann, 2010) –​prepared an action plan to combat antisemitism. Community organizations and charities, such as the CST, Action Against Discrimination and the Campaign Against Antisemitism, all work to ensure that antisemitism is detected, investigated and punished. This chapter has provided an overview of antisemitism within the context of English football. The nature of antisemitism in the UK was outlined, explaining the complexities over definition and categorization of this particular form of religious and racialized hate crime in the UK. In detailing the nature and prevalence of antisemitism within English football fan culture, particularly antisemitism directed towards Tottenham Hotspur –​whose fans regularly endure Nazi salutes, vile hissing noises, and social media posts and songs about circumcision, Hitler and getting gassed –​it is evident that antisemitism remains a serious problem in football. Notes 1

2

3

I use ‘antisemitism’, without a hyphen or upper case ‘s’ (that is, not ‘anti-​semitism’ or ‘anti-​Semitism’), because there is no ‘semitism’ (or ‘Semitism’) which antisemites oppose. A more recent example is the Football Lads Alliance (FLA), a street protest movement attracting disaffected supporters from across English football clubs –​whose followers were previously associated with the Right-​wing English Defence League (Treadwell and Garland, 2016). The FLA was established in 2017, following the Manchester Arena bombing and the London Bridge terror attack, to oppose forms of extremism (Allen, 2019; McGlashan, 2019). They have been criticized for promoting radical Right-​wing and populist discourse specifically concerning Islam/​Muslims at their marches and via social media (Allen, 2019; McGlashan, 2019). However, they are a small fringe movement compared to European ultra groups. There are other European football clubs with similar Jewish associations because of their heritage and ownership who are also the target of antisemitism, such as AFC Ajax in the Netherlands, ŁKS Łódź and MKS Cracovia in Poland, and MTK Budapest in Hungary, as well as Club Atlético Atlanta in Argentina (see Poulton, forthcoming). 35

Hate Crime in Football

References Allen, C. (2019) The Football Lads Alliance and Democratic Football Lad’s Alliance: an insight into the dynamism and diversification of Britain’s counter-jihad movement. Social Movement Studies, 18(5): 639–646. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (2001) The Changing Face of Football: Racism, Identity and Multiculture in the English Game, Oxford: Berg. Baddiel, D. (2013) ‘Yes, David Cameron, “Yid” really is a race-​hate word. Here’s why’, The Guardian, [online] 17 September, Available at: www. theg​uard​ian.com/​commen​tisf​ree/​2013/​sep/​17/​david-​came​ron-​yid-​rea​ lly-​is-​race-​hate-​word [Accessed 2 November 2022]. Baddiel, D. (2021a) Jews Don’t Count, London: TSL Books. Baddiel, D. (2021b) ‘27.1k angry reactions, to what is basically Happy Easter for Jews. Ugh’ [Twitter], 29 March, Available from: https://​twit​ter.com/​ Badd​iel/​sta​tus/​1376​5831​7135​4062​852 [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Bashir, B. and Farsakh, L. (2021) The Arab and Jewish Questions: Geographies of Engagement in Palestine and Beyond, New York: Columbia University Press. BBC (2021a) ‘Aston Villa condemn anti-​Semitic abuse posted online’, [online] 29 March, Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/​sport/​footb​all/​56570​189 [Accessed 2 November 2022]. BBC (2021b) ‘Chelsea fan jailed for anti-​Semitic tweets aimed at Spurs supporters’, [online] 5 November, Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​ uk-​engl​and-​lon​don-​59178​681 [Accessed 2 November 2022]. Bennett, H. and Jönsson, A. (2017) ‘Klick it out: tackling online discrimination in football’, in D. Kilvington and J. Price (eds) Sport and Discrimination, London: Routledge, pp 203–​214. Bradbury, S., van Sterkenburg, J. and Mignon, P. (2018) ‘The under-​ representation and experiences of elite level minority coaches in professional football in England, France and the Netherlands’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 53(3): 313–​334. Brunssen, P. and Schüler-​S pringorum, S. (eds) (2021) Football and Discrimination: Antisemitism and Beyond, Abingdon: Routledge. Burdsey, D. (2006) ‘“If I ever play football, Dad, can I play for England or India?”: British Asians, sport and diasporic national identities’, Sociology, 40(1): 11–​28. Burdsey, D. (2011) Race, Ethnicity and Football: Persisting Debates and Emergent Issues, London: Routledge. Burdsey, D. (2014) ‘One week in October: Luis Suárez, John Terry and the turn to racial neoliberalism in English men’s professional football’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(5): 429–​447. Burdsey, D. (2020) Racism and English Football: For Club and Country, London: Routledge.

36

Antisemitism in Football

Campaign Against Antisemitism (2022a) ‘Burnley supporter arrested after appearing to perform Nazi salutes during match with Tottenham Hotspur’, [online] 17 May, Available at: https://​antis​emit​ism.org/​burn​ley-​sup​port​ ers-​arres​ted-​after-a​ ppeari​ ng-t​ o-p​ erfo ​ rm-n ​ azi-​salu​tes-​dur​ing-​match-​with-​ totten​ham-​hots​pur/​ [Accessed 29 November 2022]. Campaign Against Antisemitism (2022b) ‘Football fan banned from matches for three years for performing Nazi salute at Tottenham Hotspur supporters’, [online] 20 July, Available at: https://​antis​emit​ism.org/​footb​ all-​f an-​ban​ned-​from-​matc​hes-​for-​three-​years-​for-​per​form​ing-​nazi-​sal​ ute-​at-​totten​ham-​hots​pur-​sup​port​ers/​ [Accessed 29 November 2022]. Campaign Against Antisemitism (2022c) ‘Rangers supporter convicted of performing Nazi salute during game against German team’, [online] 27 November, Available from: https://​antis​emit​ism.org/​rang​ers-​suppor​ter-​ convic​ted-​of-​per​form​ing-​nazi-​sal​ute-​dur​ing-​game-​agai​nst-​ger​man-​team/​ ?mc_​cid=​367​2d90​fb1&mc_​eid=​1dd​f26e​ded [Accessed 29 November 2022]. Campaign Against Antisemitism (2022d) ‘West Ham fan who performed Nazi salutes to Austrian supporters is banned from attending football matches for three years’, [online] 26 May, Available from: https://​antis​emit​ ism.org/​west-​ham-​fan-​who-​perfor ​med-​nazi-​salu​tes-​to-​austr​ian-​sup​port​ ers-​is-​ban​ned-​from-​attend​ing-​footb​all-​matc​hes-​for-​three-​years/​ [Accessed 29 November 2022]. Campaign Against Antisemitism (2022e) ‘Wimbledon fan given three-​year football ban for performing Nazi salute during game’, [online] 4 November, Available from: https://​antis​emit​ism.org/​wimble​don-​f an-​g iven-​three-​ year-​footb​all-​ban-​for-​per​form​ing-​nazi-​sal​ute-​dur ​ing-​game/​ [Accessed 29 November 2022]. Chakraborti, N. and Garland, J. (2009) Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses, London: Sage. Chelser, P. (2003) The New Antisemitism, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-​Bass. Clavane, A. (2012) Does Your Rabbi Know You’re Here? The Story of English Football’s Forgotten Tribe, London: Quercus. Cleland, J. (2014) ‘Racism, football fans and online message boards: how social media has added a new dimension to racist discourse in British football’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38(5): 415–​431. Cleland, J. and Cashmore, E. (2014) ‘Fans, racism and British football in the 21st century: the existence of a colour-​blind ideology’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(4): 638–​654. Cleland, J. and Cashmore, E. (2016) ‘Football fans’ views on racism in British football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(1): 27–​43. Cooke, M., Gurden, A. and Wainwright, T. (2014) ‘Defence team statement re dropping of “Yid” charges’, Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust, [online] 8 March, Available from: www.thsto​ffic​ial.com/​thst-​news/​defe​nce-​team-​ statem​ent-​re-​dropp​ing-​of-​yid-​char​ges [Accessed 22 May 2023]. 37

Hate Crime in Football

CST (Community Security Trust) (2020) Antisemitic Incidents Report 2019 [online], Available from: https://​cst.org.uk/​data/​file/​9/​0/​Inci​dent​sRep​ ort2​019.161​5559​889.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2022]. CST (2021a) Antisemitic Incidents Report 2020 [online], Available from: https://​cst.org.uk/d​ ata/fi ​ le/7​ /2​ /I​ ncide​nts%20Rep​ort%202​020.161​ 5559​608.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2022]. CST (2021b) The Month of Hate: Antisemitism & Extremism during the Israel-​ Gaza Conflict, Research Briefing [online], Available from: https://​cst. org.uk/​data/​file/​4/​a/​The_​Mo​nth_​of_​H​ate.162​6263​072.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2023]. CST (2022a) Antisemitic Incidents January-​June 2022 [online], Available from: https://​cst.org.uk/​data/​f ile/​3/​b/​Incide​nts%20Rep​ort%20Jan-​ Jun%202​022.165​9023​930.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2022]. CST (2022b) Antisemitic Incidents Report 2021 [online], Available from: https://​cst.org.uk/​pub​lic/​data/​file/​f/​f/​Incide​nts%20Rep​ort%202​ 021.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2022]. CST (nd) Categories of Antisemitic Incidents [online], Available from: https://​ cst.org.uk/​publ​ ic/d​ ata/fi ​ le/f​ /2​ /D ​ ef​i ntio ​ ns%20leaf​l et%20v2.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2022]. Davis, M. (2014) ‘Charges dropped against Tottenham fans facing prosecution for “Yid” chant’, The Independent, [online] 7 March, Available from: www. inde​pend​ent.co.uk/​sport/​footb​all/​news/​char​ges-​drop​ped-​agai​nst-​totten​ ham-​f ans-​f ac​ing-​pros​ecut​ion-​for-​yid-​chant-​9176​982.html [Accessed 2 November 2022]. Doidge, M. and Lieser, M. (eds) (2020) The Ultras: A Global Football Fan Phenomenon, Abingdon: Routledge. Egorova, Y. and Ahmed, F. (2017) ‘The impact of antisemitism and Islamophobia on Jewish-​Muslim relations in the UK: memory, experience, context’, in J. Renton and B. Gidley (eds) Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe: A Shared Story? London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 283–​301. The FA (The Football Association) (2013) ‘FA statement: use of the Y-​word in football’, [online] 9 September, Available from: www.thefa.com/​news/​ gov​erna​nce/​equal​ity/​2013/​sep/​footb​all-​asso​ciat​ion-​posit​ion-​on-​y-​word [Accessed 15 January 2020] Farrington, N., Hall, L., Kilvington, D., Saeed, A. and Price, J. (2015) Sport, Racism and Social Media, London: Routledge. Feldman, D. (2016) ‘Will Britain’s new definition of antisemitism help Jewish people? I’m sceptical’, The Guardian, [online] 28 December, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​commen​tisf​ree/​2016/​dec/​28/​brit​ain-​def​ init​ion-​antis​emit​ism-​brit​ish-​jews-​jew​ish-​peop​ le [Accessed 22 May 2023].

38

Antisemitism in Football

Feldman, D. (2020) ‘The government should not impose a faulty definition of antisemitism on universities’, The Guardian, [online] 2 December, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​commen​tisf​ree/​2020/​dec/​02/​the-​gov​ernm​ ent-​sho​uld-​not-​imp​ose-​a-​fau​lty-​def​i nit​ion-​of-​antis​emit​ism-​on-​unive​rsit​ ies [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Fine, R. (2009) ‘Fighting with phantoms: a contribution to the debate on antisemitism in Europe’, Patterns of Prejudice, 43(5): 459–​479. Garland, J. and Rowe, M. (2001) Racism and Anti-​Racism in Football, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Garland, J. and Rowe, M. (2014) ‘The hollow victory of anti-​racism in English football’, in M. Hopkins and J. Treadwell (eds) Football Hooliganism, Fan Behaviour and Crime, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 92–​105. Gidley, B., McGeever, B. and Feldman, D. (2020) ‘Labour and antisemitism: a crisis misunderstood’, The Political Quarterly, 91(1): 413–​421. Gilman, S.L. and Katz, S.T. (eds) (1991) Anti-​Semitism in Times of Crisis, New York: New York University Press. Gould, R. (2020) ‘The IHRA definition of antisemitism: defining antisemitism by erasing Palestinians’, The Political Quarterly, 91(4): 825–​831. Graham, D. and Boyd, J. (2022) Jews in Britain in 2021: First results from the Census of England and Wales, London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Hall, N. (2013) Hate Crime (2nd edn), Abingdon: Routledge. Harpin, L. (2022) ‘Footballer investigated after claiming “Hitler would be proud” of win against Jewish team’, Jewish News, [online] 20 September, Available from: www.jew​ishn​ews.co.uk/​foo​tbal​ler-​inves​tiga​ted-​after-​ claim​ing-​hit​ler-​would-​be-​proud-​of-​win-​agai​nst-​jew​ish-​team/​ [Accessed 2 November 2022]. Harrison, B. and Klaff, L. (2021) ‘In defence of the IHRA definition’, in A. Johnson (ed) In Defence of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, Fathom, pp 27–​34. Hirsh, D. (2018) Contemporary Left Antisemitism, London: Routledge. Hirsh, D. (2019) ‘Contemporary struggles over defining antisemitism’, in J.G. Campbell and L.D. Klaff (eds) Unity and Diversity in Contemporary Antisemitism: The Bristol-​Sheffield-​Hallam Colloquium on Contemporary Antisemitism, Boston: Academic Studies Press, pp 17–​39. Hodges, A. (2019) Fan Activism, Protest and Politics: Ultras in Post-​Socialist Croatia, Abingdon: Routledge. Home Office (2022) ‘Official statistics: hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022’, [online] 6 October, Available from: www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​ sta​tist​ics/​hate-​crime-​engl​and-​and-​wales-​2021-​to-​2022/​hate-​crime-​engl​ and-​and-​wales-​2021-​to-​2022 [Accessed 5 December 2022]. Hylton, K. (2018) ‘I’m not joking! The strategic use of humour in stories of racism’, Ethnicities, 18(3): 327–​343.

39

Hate Crime in Football

IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) (2016) ‘Working definition of antisemitism’ [online], Available from: www.holoc​aust​reme​ mbra​nce.com/​work​ing-​def​i nit​ion-​antis​emit​ism [Accessed 22 May 2023]. ITV News (2022) ‘Everton fan banned from matches for three years following anti-​Semitic chants’, [online] 24 January, Available from: www. itv.com/​news/​g ran​ada/​2022-​01-​24/​footb​all-​f an-​cal​led-​out-​by-​sup​port​ ers-​for-​anti-​semi​tic-​cha​nts [Accessed 7 December 2022]. Jansen, Y. and Meer, N. (2020) ‘Genealogies of “Jews” and “Muslims”: social imaginaries in the race–​religion nexus’, Patterns of Prejudice, 54(1–2​ ): 1–1​ 4. jerusalemdeclaration.org (2021) Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism [online], Available from: https://​jerus​alem​decl​arat​ion.org/​ [Accessed 5 December 2022]. Jewish News Reporter (2018) ‘Football fan guilty over anti-​Semitic tweet: “Hitler not only one to silence 70,000 Yids”’, Jewish News, [online] 4 April, Available from: www.jew​ishn​ews.co.uk/​footb​all-​anti-​semi​tic-​ tweet-​hit​ler-​abc/​ [Accessed 5 December 2022]. Jewish News Reporter (2022) ‘MP warns Jewish children are receiving antisemitic abuse on the football pitch’, Jewish News, [online] 22 June, Available from: www.jew​ishn​ews.co.uk/​mp-​warns-​jew​ish-​child​ren-​ are-​ receiv​ i ng-​ a nti​ s emi​ t ic-​ a buse-​ o n-​ t he-​ f ootb​ a ll-​ p itch/​ [Accessed 2 November 2022]. Johnson, A. (ed) (2021) In Defence of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism [e-​book], Available from: https://​f athom​jour​nal.org/​f at​ hom-e​ book-i​ n-​defe​nce-​of-​the-​ihra-​work​ing-d​ ef​i niti​ on-o ​ f-a​ ntise​ miti​ sm/​ [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Joseph, A. (2022) ‘West Ham fans spared prosecution for alleged antisemitism due to “insufficient evidence” over where offence took place’, Sky Sports, [online] 19 July, Available from: www.skyspor​ ts.com/​footb​all/​news/​11095/​ 12655​176/​west-​ham-​f ans-​spa​red-​pros​ecut​ion-​for-​alle​ged-​antis​emit​ism-​ due-​to-​insuf​fi ci​ent-​evide​nce-​over-​where-​offe​nce-​took-​place [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Kahn-​Harris, K. (2019) Strange Hate: Antisemitism, Racism, and the Limits of Diversity, London: Repeater. Kennedy, P. and Kennedy, D. (eds) (2014) Fan Culture in European Football and the Influence of Left Wing Ideology, London: Routledge. Kick It Out (nd) ‘Reporting statistics’ [online], Available from: www.kickit​ out.org/​report​ing-​sta​tist​ics [Accessed 7 December 2022]. Kilvington, D. (2020) ‘The virtual stages of hate: using Goffman’s work to conceptualise the motivations for online hate’, Media, Culture & Society, 43(2): 256–​272. Kilvington, D. and Price, J. (2019) ‘From backstage to frontstage exploring football and the growing problem of online abuse’, in S. Lawrence and G. Crawford (eds) Digital Football Cultures Fandom, Identities and Resistance, London: Routledge, pp 69–​85. 40

Antisemitism in Football

Klug, B. (2012) ‘Interrogating “new anti-​Semitism”’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(3): 468–​482. Klug, B. (2021) ‘The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism: why the oldest hatred needs a new definition’, The Nation, [online] 1 April, Available from: www.thenat​ion.com/​arti​cle/​soci​ety/​jerusal​ em-d​ ecla​ rati​ on-a​ ntise​ mit​ ism-​ihra/​ [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Kushner, T. (2013) ‘Anti-​Semitism in Britain: continuity and the absence of a resurgence?’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(3): 434–​449. Lawrence, S. and Davis, C. (2019) ‘Fans for diversity? A critical race theory analysis of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) supporters’ experiences of football fandom’, International Journal for Sport Policy and Politics, 11(4): 701–​713. Mann, J. (2010) Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Antisemitism and Islamophobia, London. Mann, J. and Cohen, J. (2007) Antisemitism in European Football: A Scar on the Beautiful Game. London: The Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism. Available from: https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2019/02/Football_Booklet.pdf McGlashan, M. (2019) Collective identity and discourse practice in the followership of the Football Lads Alliance on Twitter. Discourse and Society, 31(3): 307–328. Meer, N. (ed) (2013) ‘Special issue: racialization and religion: race, culture and difference in the study of antisemitism and Islamophobia’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(3): 385–​529. Meer, N. (2014) Key Concepts in Race and Ethnicity, London: Sage. Meer, N. and Noorani, T. (2008) ‘A sociological comparison of anti-​ Semitism and anti-​Muslim sentiment in Britain’, The Sociological Review, 56(2): 195–​219. Meikle, J. and Willsher, K. (2013) ‘Tottenham fans injured in “antisemitic” attack before Europa League tie in Lyon’, The Guardian, [online] 21 February, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​world/​2013/​feb/​ 21/​totten​ham-​fans-​anti​semi​tic-​att​ack-​lyon [Accessed 9 December 2022]. Millward, P. (2008) ‘Rivalries and racisms: “closed” and “open” Islamophobic dispositions amongst football supporters’, Sociological Research Online 13(6): 5. Available from: www.socre​sonl​ine.org.uk/​13/​6/​5.html PA Media (2022) ‘England fans arrested for Nazi salutes and hotel room damage in Munich’, The Guardian, [online] 7 July, Available from: www. theg​uard​ian.com/​footb​all/​2022/​jun/​07/​engl​and-​fans-​arres​ted-​mun​ich-​ nazi-​salu​tes-​hotel-​room-​dam​age [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Penfold, C. and Cleland, J. (2022) ‘Kicking it out? Football fans’ views of anti-​racism initiatives in English football’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(2): 176–​198.

41

Hate Crime in Football

Pollard, S. (2022) ‘Why I changed my mind on Spurs and The Y Word’, The Jewish Chronicle, [online] 16 February, Available from: https://www. thejc.com/lets-talk/all/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-spurs-and-the-yword-15wKTwkh7mpnHqHbXKtUqD Poulton, E. (2016) ‘Towards understanding: antisemitism and the contested uses and meanings of “Yid” in English football’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(11): 1981–​2001. Poulton, E. (2020) ‘Tackling antisemitism within English football: a critical analysis of policies and campaigns using a multiple streams approach’, International Journal for Sport Policy and Politics, 12(1): 25–​47. Poulton, E. (2021) ‘Collective identity and forms of abuse and discrimination in football fan culture: a case study on antisemitism’, in P. Brunssen and S. Schüler-​Springorum (eds) Football and Discrimination: Antisemitism and Beyond, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 11–​34. Poulton, E. (ed) (forthcoming) Antisemitism in Football: International Perspectives, Abingdon: Routledge. Poulton, E. and Durell, O. (2016) ‘Uses and meanings of “Yid” in English football fandom: a case study of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(6): 715–​734. Rich, D. (2018) The Left’s Jewish Problem, London: Biteback Publishing. Rich, D. (2021) ‘The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism: a flawed definition that risks setting back efforts to tackle antisemitism’, CST Blog, 1 April, Available from: https://​cst.org.uk/​news/​blog/​2021/​04/​01/​the-​ jerusal​ em-d​ ecl​arat​ion-​on-​antis​emit​ism-​a-​fla​wed-​def​i nit​ion-​that-​r isks-​sett​ ing-​back-​effo​rts-​to-​tac​kle-​antis​emit​ism [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Rothberg, M. (2009) Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in an Age of Decolonization. Stanford: Stanford UP. Seijbel, J., van Sterkenburg, J. and Oonk, G. (2022) ‘Expressing rivalry online: antisemitic rhetoric among Dutch football supporters on Twitter’, Soccer & Society, 23(8): 834–​848. Seijbel, J., van Sterkenburg, J. and Spaaij, R. (2022) ‘Online football-​ related antisemitism in the context of the COVID-​19 pandemic: a multi-​ method analysis of the Dutch Twittersphere’, American Behavioral Scientist. doi: 10.1177/​00027642221118286 Staetsky, L.D. and Boyd, J. (2015) Strictly Orthodox Rising: What the Demography of British Jews Tells Us about the Future of the Community, London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (2014) ‘Y-​word consultation update’, [online] 21 March, Available from: www.totten ​ hamh ​ otsp​ ur.com/n ​ ews-a​ rch​ ive-​1/​y-​word-​consu​ltat​ion-​upd​ate/​ [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (2019) ‘Y-​word consultation update’, [online] 16 December, Available from: www.totten ​ hamh ​ otsp​ ur.com/n ​ ews/​ 2019/​decem​ber/​y-​word-​consu​ltat​ion-​upd​ate/​ [Accessed 22 May 2023]. 42

Antisemitism in Football

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (2022) ‘WhY word: time to think about it’, [online] 10 February, Available from: www.totte​nham​hots​pur.com/​the-​ club/​the-​why-​word/​#:~:text=​Our%20sup​port​ers%27%20use%20of%20 the,by%20s​ome%20of%20our%20sup​port​ers [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Treadwell, J and Garland, J. (2016) ‘More than violent whites? From “P*** Bashing” to the English Defence League’. In Hobbs, D (ed.) Mischief, Morality and Mobs: Essays in Honour of Geoff Pearson. London: Routledge. Wistrich, R.S. (1991) Anti-​Semitism: The Longest Hatred, New York: Pantheon Books. Woźniak, W. (2018) ‘Poland’. In J.M. De Waele, Gibril, S., Gloriozova, E., Spaaij, R. (eds.) The Palgrave International Handbook of Football and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 223–244. The Y-​Word (2011) [film] written by D. Baddiel and I. Baddiel, directed by R. Young, UK: Kick It Out, Available from www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​ RIvJ​C1_​h​Kt8 [Accessed 22 May 2023].

43

3

Spot Kick on Racism: Marcus Rashford and Criminally Damaging Penalty Shoot-​Outs Matt Long and Catherine Armstrong

Introduction According to Carrington, ‘sport provides a contested arena through which competing definitions of race, gender, sexuality, class, and region are articulated’ (2008: 424). In the context of race more specifically, when people speak of racism, they often allude to two distinct social practices –​namely antilocution and physical attack (see Allport, 1954). Language is rightly an important social practice (Bourdieu, 1991), which in turns shapes other social practices to do with the expression of racism. A high-​profile example of when this issue reared its ugly head took place in 2004 when former manager Ron Atkinson –​who perhaps most famously guided Manchester United to win the FA Cup (the Football Association Challenge Cup) in 1983 –​then an ITV football pundit, resigned after making overtly racist comments about Chelsea football player Marcel Desailly. ‘Big Ron’, as he was affectionately known in the football industry, unwittingly believed his broadcast had finished and his microphone had been muted. In making reference to what he perceived to be the poor performance of the French defender, who had been playing in a Champions League match for Chelsea against Monaco, Atkinson said, ‘He’s what is known in some schools as a fucking lazy thick n****r’ (quoted in Prior, 2004). Atkinson’s conversation was picked up by microphones which ordinarily would have been switched off once the broadcast from the stadium had ended. The remarks were inadvertently broadcast to an international audience. Big Ron was ‘outed’ as a ‘closet racist’, with some expressing disbelief that a manager renowned for having given fledgling Black players a so-​called 44

Spot Kick on Racism

‘chance’ when others were unwilling to do so way back in the 1970s could express such sentiments. Those who sought to defend Atkinson the man while at the same time censuring his comments pointed out that at best there seemed to be a level of dissonance between his verbalizations and his social practices, which appeared at face value to be antiracist. In an attempt to defend himself, Atkinson pleaded: ‘I have had Cyrille [Regis] and big Paul Williams both on the phone. I was one of the first, if not the first, to play black players’ (Kelso, 2004, square brackets in original). Friends of Atkinson will always cite his paternal development of Black players such as Cyrille Regis, Brendan Batson and Laurie Cunningham during his first spell as manager of West Bromwich Albion between 1978 and 1981. The fact that those players were affectionately, though perhaps unwittingly, dubbed ‘The Three Degrees’, after the Philadelphia-​based R&B and soul band, is indicative of an era when Black players could be tolerated if not embraced if they could proverbially ‘take a joke’ from an overwhelmingly White fan base (see Irish Examiner, 2004; Cleland and Cashmore, 2016). In past decades, Black musicians and sportspeople who ‘entertained’ the White masses were said to have ‘earned’ the right not to be treated with prejudice or be a target for violence (McLeod, 2009). In this context, we can understand the damage caused by racist language. This being said, as we revisit Gordon Allport’s (1954) classic scale of prejudice, there has rightly been long-​standing criminological concern with the physicality of racist attacks, which can lead to death. Never was this more in the public’s consciousness than after the racist murder of Black London teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 (Rollock, 2009). Looking at recent figures from the Home Office (2021), over a third (40 per cent) of hate-​ related offences in 2020 were for violence against the person, and while we should rightly be appalled by this, that leaves 60 per cent of offences which did not involve physical violence. The place of ‘hate vandalism’ needs to be understood. Even though this does not involve violent attack on the ‘body’ of a Black person, it is still a physical attack on the visual representation of them. Given this context, one can understand why there is an preoccupation with antilocution on the one hand and physical attack on the other. We posit in this chapter that racially motivated vandalism is an important social practice which may provide some clues as to the interrelationship between racist abuse and racist attack against the person. So why has racially motivated vandalism been overlooked, if not practically ignored, in the criminological literature? There are a number of reasons. First, vandalism itself, despite being the most common of crimes, has not been given much attention historically. It is not regarded as a hot topic of study. Those embarking on the study of vandalism more generically –​as the lead author has done (see Long and Hopkins Burke, 2015) –​find that there are 45

Hate Crime in Football

a number of obstacles which clutter their research path. For a start, official statistics on vandalism are notoriously unreliable. There is evidence that criminal damage as an offence may be hugely under-​reported, as many victims may not realize their property has been deliberately destroyed and those who do may feel that the police would not wish to record it as an offence since there is often relatively little prospect of an offender being apprehended (see Long and Hopkins Burke, 2015). This is because on the part of the transgressor, vandalism often contains the appeal of what Katz (1988) refers to as ‘the sneaky thrill’. He suggests that vandalism typically involves ‘secret defilement’, and he offers a graphic sexual metaphor in relation to this: ‘colloquially the thief and the vandal fuck their victims’ (Katz, 1988: 72). According to Katz, the gratification is all one-​way for the perpetrator, who effects an act of ‘rape’ on the victim before running off into the darkness of the night; he continues, ‘the sneaky property criminal is not participating in a consensual act; the pleasure is distinctively asymmetrical’ (Katz, 1988: 72). Vandalism in a football context has traditionally focused on events within and around stadia and tends to be associated with the traditional White working-​class heavy drinking culture in which the game has been deeply rooted for decades. Most notoriously, Scotland’s 2–​1 win over England at Wembley in 1977 went down in history because large sections of the 98,000 strong crowd who were from north of the border swarmed onto the pitch to celebrate after the final whistle, as goals from Gordon McQueen and Kenny Dalglish meant Scotland retained what was then the British Home Championship. In what BBC commentator John Motson referred to as ‘so typically Scottish’ scenes, jubilant fans ripped up the sections of the hallowed turf as mementoes and rode the goalposts like triumphant jockeys crossing the winning post in the Grand National, snapping the crossbar in the process. The legendary Rod Stewart was among the crowd that day, and the event tends to be looked back on with nostalgia and good humour by both Scottish and England football fans more than four decades later (Shergold, 2016). This being said, those were different times, and incidents of racially motivated vandalism are most certainly not a justification for shared ‘banter’ with malicious and divisive intent. In light of this, we have established that vandalistic practices in football are indeed well worthy of study, and this brings us back to the long-​standing work of Gordon Allport (1954). There are two ways of interpreting Allport’s (1954) aforementioned scale of prejudice. The first is in mechanistic terms, which would see a unilinear ‘ramping up’ of antilocution all the way through to ‘extermination’. In the 21st century, this is too simplistic, and it’s fair to say that many scholars have questioned and refined Allport’s (1954) original work without wishing to proverbially ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ (see, for example, Reicher, 2007). Taking the second interpretation, racially 46

Spot Kick on Racism

motivated vandalism in a soccer context is seen as worthy of study for two reasons: first, it is one of a range of racist social practices directed towards Black players and supporters, such as active avoidance and discrimination, which are intertwined with each other; and, second, it may be correlated with physical attacks. Next, we begin to ground the analysis in this chapter in a contemporary empirical context. The 2020 UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championship, or Euro 2020 (held in the summer of 2021 due to the impact of the pandemic), was the biggest football tournament hosted in England since Euro 1996, in which the national team excelled itself by reaching the semifinals, held at Wembley, before bowing out on penalties against arch-​r ivals and eventual tournament winners Germany.

Euro 2020 As it had done in Euro 1996, the English national team exceeded most expectations by reaching the final, this time against the formidable Italians. After a tense game which finished 1–​1 after extra time, a nail-​biting penalty shoot-​out ensued, of the type, held at Wembley Stadium, English sporting fans have come to dread. The only time England had won a major tournament previously was when they hosted the World Cup back in 1966. The ‘Boys of ’66’, as the revered team came to be known over subsequent generations, contained no Black players. Fast-​forward more than 50 years and the demographic of both society and the national team had changed. At face value –​with players like Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho in the England squad –​ the team appeared to reflect a more inclusive and embracing approach to the diversity of sporting talent available to pull on the white shirts adorned with the ‘three lions’. This being said, we can begin to see how precarious this inclusivity and ‘embracement’ actually was. According to Back and Mills: When the whistle blew at the end of extra time in the Euro 2020 final between England and Italy, more than the outcome of a drawn football match was at stake. As the players faced a nerve-​racking penalty shootout, two different visions of England’s past and future were held in the balance. (2021: 11) The aforementioned trio of players were that summer’s athletic embodiment of England’s multicultural future. They were on the cusp of attaining the status of ‘national treasure’ –​something which previously would have been inconceivable. In the 1970s and 1980s, Black players in the national team, such as Viv Anderson, Cyrille Regis, Ricky Hill, Luther Blissett and John 47

Hate Crime in Football

Barnes, were routinely booed by fans despite their talent. Indeed, back in the late 1970s, the aforementioned Regis of so-​called ‘Three Degrees’ fame infamously received a bullet in the post with a death threat should he consider pulling on an England shirt. With Rashford, Saka and Sancho all missing their shots from the penalty spot, we can begin to see the myth of inclusivity being exposed as the Italians were crowned European champions at Euro 2020. According to Burdsey and Doyle, ‘Football is a realm where the contingent veneration of black footballers has existed, paradoxically, alongside other racisms’ (2022: 541). The politics of race were always going to be linked to Euro 2020 in the context of the divisiveness of Brexit and the fact that, after the Black Lives Matter movement was reinvigorated, the England team had begun to take the knee routinely before games. As a result of this act, the team was mocked by Home Secretary Priti Patel, who expressed the opinion that the team members were indulging in ‘gesture politics’. Also, in the build-​up to the championships, the team was booed by sections of the crowd. In the words of Back and Mills: ‘As the penalty shoot-​out unfolded against England, and young Black players failed to score one after another, the stirring of England’s past and its legacy of empire and racial nationalism rumbled like a culturequake through social media, but also in streets and neighbourhoods up and down the country’ (2021: 112). Ben Carrington (2021) wrote that ‘the promised New England that was to be magically birthed through football evaporated inside 10 minutes and three misplaced penalty kicks’. In the context of the COVID-​19 pandemic, the return to a mega sporting event with crowds in the stadia meant the stakes were considerably heightened. We now turn our attention to the reaction to those who missed the spot kicks, in the days after England trudged up the steps to collect their silver medals.

Hate vandalism Social media trolling and overt racist abuse ensued after the final whistle of Euro 2020. Police arrested 11 people as part of a hate crimes investigation into social media messages sent after the final. The United Kingdom Football Policing Unit received 600 reports of racist comments sent to England’s Black players after the defeat, 207 of which were treated as a criminal matter, mostly with regard to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (Grant, 2021) –​ under subsection 1(a), ‘a person is guilty of an offence if he sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’. As well as this hate speech, the Withington-​based mural of Marcus Rashford, which had been painted by the street artist Akse P19 in 2020, was 48

Spot Kick on Racism

deliberately defaced with graffiti (BBC, 2021b). The attack on the mural is significant because it had been designed to give this relatively deprived area in south Manchester a sense of identity and pride. Back in 2018, it was reported that a neighbourhood near Withington Girls’ School (an elite private school) had witnessed the biggest increase in poverty rate in Greater Manchester, rising to 34 per cent in 2015 from 22 per cent the year before (Gouk, 2018). On the mural, Rashford’s regal appearance had been painted in the sense of what Marschall would term a ‘heroicizing theme’ (2002: 48). Unlike those who do graffiti tagging, the creators of murals ordinarily have express permission for their works, and murals tend to be ‘artistically valued and usually follow a legal and strategic urban plan’ (de Miguel Molina et al, 2020: 201). The defacement of the mural would have been an affront to large sections of the Withington community, regardless of race, as it can be classified as what Marschall would term a ‘community mural’ rather than a ‘merely decorative’ or ‘commercial’ painting (2002: 41). de Miguel Molina et al characterize this kind of community-​based mural as a kind of ‘outdoor museum’, which is far more publicly accessible and democratizing than the exclusivity and commercialization of enclosed museums ‘as they allow a broader audience to experience art directly and aim to connect with the local community in some way’ (2020: 207). The mural of Rashford was surely a visual representation of Withington’s expression of love for him and his embodiment of their area. A picture which needed no words. According to Heidenry, for ‘oppressed and marginal groups, … formation of community is wrapped in visual culture and the public expression of identity’ (2014: 136). At the same time, the mural is more than a picture. Its symbolic value of having both artist and Rashford prominently placed in a local community cannot be underestimated. As de Miguel Molina et al point out, ‘[m]‌urals are powerful tools in building neighbourhood solidarity across ethnic groups and generations’ (2020: 207). The desecration of the mural –​which had been proudly displayed in the centre of the south Manchester suburb, on the wall of The Coffee House Cafe, in close proximity to where Rashford had lived with his family before relocating to Wythenshawe (another part of Manchester) –​received widespread censure. Prominent footballers, pundits, fans and even then Prime Minister Boris Johnson publicly backed both Rashford and the other Black British football players who had been abused following the Euro 2020 final. Within days of the defacement of the mural, thousands of people had gathered to leave heartfelt messages of support, some having travelled from different parts the country to participate in a moment of shared solidarity against racially motivated vandalism (BBC, 2021a). The mural of Rashford was undoubtedly painted not just to celebrate the athletic prowess of this footballer, who played for Manchester United and the national team, but in recognition of his campaigning work on food 49

Hate Crime in Football

poverty, as he had raised millions with the charity FareShare. Back in 2020, the Conservative government did a policy U-​turn by continuing a food voucher scheme which it had intended to abolish, and many credited the pressure exerted on them by Rashford as being a direct cause of the policy change (BBC, 2020). The voucher scheme had been introduced in England near the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020, to help families who were struggling to afford meals at a time when schools were closed due to lockdown. It was estimated that more than one million children were eligible for the vouchers, worth £15 each, to help their families buy food. Before Rashford’s intervention in May 2020, the scheme had already cost more than £129 million, having covered the Easter and Spring half-​term holidays; after Rashford’s campaign, what became known as the Covid Summer School Fund, of about £120 million, was set up by the government to provide food vouchers to cover the summer holidays. What made Rashford such a national hero was the way he linked his own personal lived experiences as a disempowered young Black working-​class man, before his celebrity status. In a letter to members of Parliament, he said: My story to get here is all-​too-​familiar for families in England: my mum worked full-​time, earning minimum wage to make sure we always had a good evening meal on the table. But it was not enough. The system was not built for families like mine to succeed, regardless of how hard my mum worked. (quoted in Maltby, 2020) A somewhat shamed Boris Johnson would echo sentiments as Prime Minister to the effect that the debate was welcomed (Siddique, 2020). Writing in The Times newspaper, Rashford (2020) poignantly said: Today I focus on a trophy that stands for something much bigger than football. In this case, the trophy is combating child poverty. I don’t claim to have the education of an MP in parliament, but I do have a social education. I am clued up on the difference a U-​turn decision would make on the 1.3 million vulnerable children across the UK who are registered for free school meals because 10 years ago I was one of them. Following the policy reversal, Rashford’s message was not one of arrogance or partisanship, but reconciliation, as he remarked in a tweet: ‘Just look at what we can do when we come together, THIS is England in 2020’ (quoted in BBC, 2020). So if the mural was painted as a nod to Rashford for speaking up for the poor and the disempowered, its desecration was not just an assault to Rashford but to the very people he was being celebrated for giving a voice to. Clearly the desecration was an act of hate vandalism as articulated under 50

Spot Kick on Racism

the typology developed by Long and Hopkins Burke (2015). It cannot be reduced to other modes of vandalism described by the authors, like ‘exploratory vandalism’ –​associated with the playful acts of the experimental child –​or ‘drift vandalism’ –​associated with the kind of antisocial activity committed by the bored teenager who decides to desecrate a bus shelter. Nor can it simply be reduced to the label of ‘target vandalism’ because, while the mural of Rashford was indeed a target, to attack a cultural object like a car or a school tends not to be politically driven. It isn’t ‘context vandalism’, as this implies that vandalism is normalized, like at house parties where property damage is expected if not encouraged. And it cannot be referred to as ‘collateral vandalism’, as there was nothing to steal from the mural and its desecration was not a means to an end, but rather an end in itself.

Theorizing hate vandalism In attempting to make sense of why Rashford’s mural was targeted, one first has to acknowledge that in the absence of the apprehension of offenders and subsequent testimony, clear causal motive is difficult to establish. This being said, it is not unreasonable to assess that some orthodox theories of hate crime are simply too limited. Merton’s (1968) strain theory, for instance, would have it that Rashford was targeted because he is a high-​earning, wealthy person. This may offer a partial explanation, but it is laden with superficiality because it is a reductionist argument. Agnew (1992) developed this theory and added a little more sophistication, but still the ‘strain’ aspect reduces the argument to one of materialism. While the appearance of the likes of Rashford, Saka and Sancho as ‘integrated’ members of the England football team, apparently selected on merit, is a comforting narrative of a supposedly more diverse and inclusive 21st-​century Britain, Back and Mills (2021) draw on the notion of ‘contingency’ to highlight the precarious social position of famous Black footballers in contemporary England. Black English footballers have to ‘earn’ their right to be regarded as ‘English’, not once, not twice, but time and again. Their falls from grace can occur as instantaneously as a misplaced spot kick. Contrast the abuse of Rashford, Sancho and Saka with the way Gareth Southgate was dealt with following his infamous penalty kick against Germany in the final of Euro 1996 at Wembley. Not only was this man, who would go on to become national team manager, ‘forgiven’ for his misplaced spot kick, but he went on to make money out of his ‘misfortune’ by appearing in a Pizza Hut commercial which made light of his blunder; also appearing in the commercial were former England players Stuart Pearce and Chris Waddle, both of whom missed penalties in the semifinal stage of the Italia 1990 World Cup. The idea that Rashford, Sancho and Sako would get the call to do such a thing is practically unthinkable. While 51

Hate Crime in Football

in the 1990s the fiercely patriotic Pearce and Waddle were treated with compassion and sympathy as White working-​class footballers, Rashford, Sancho and Sako suffered what the late Jock Young (2007) referred to as the ‘vertigo of late modernity’ –​that is, their failure from the spot saw them fall from a great height. What is significant about the vandalism of the Rashford mural is that the media treated it as a shocking aberration, whereas in fact it may have represented a far more normalized and routine occurrence for those from ethnic minority groups. According to Hamad, this is simply not true, as ‘[r]‌acist abuse is actually a rather more quotidian affair for people of colour in Britain, both in the social dynamics of everyday life, and at the highest institutional levels, including (and especially in this case) of government’ (2022: 127). So the social dynamic of the response to the vandalism of the mural can be explained not by the bankrupt orthodox criminological theory but by reference to critical race theory, which has always suggested that racism is ordinary and routine rather than being something extraordinary which can be pathologized in the way that much of the orthodox criminological and psychological literature does (see Delgado and Stefancic, 2007).

Critical race theory Critical race theory is intertwined with and draws on postcolonial perspectives, and as Cunneen (2021) suggests, postcolonialism is a social process rather than an event in time. It becomes a form of cognition for those who represent both the colonizer and the colonized, and is indicative of a ‘colonizing of the mind’ (see wa Thiong’o, 1996, on decolonizing the mind). While it is impossible to ascertain motive, as previously mentioned, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in the mind of the mural vandal(s), Rashford represented someone who, having ‘failed’ to prove himself ‘British’ by missing a penalty and costing his nation’s team, was an unwelcome ‘immigrant’. Marcus Rashford was born on 31 October 1997 in Wythenshawe, Manchester, to Robert Rashford and Melanie Maynard, and he was raised in poverty by his mother. Robert is from Jamaica while Melanie is from Saint Kitts. Jamaica was originally named Santiago by the Spanish but was colonized and renamed by the English in 1655. For almost two centuries, the plantation economy was dependent on slavery, and it was not until 1962 that the country became independent. Saint Kitts and Nevis achieved independence more than two decades after Jamaica in 1983. Rashford’s Caribbean roots mean he is ‘othered’ by some White working-​class football fans who view being White as a prerequisite for being ‘British’. Napolitano argues that ‘[a]‌s a second-​generation Caribbean English man, Rashford is a particularly interesting figure, because he is mediatically linked to luxury brands (such as Burberry), while simultaneously perpetuating self-​narratives 52

Spot Kick on Racism

of his “down to earth” origins and present-​day interactions’ (2022: 4). He is the self-​made star who is free to conspicuously consume material wealth because he can demonstrate to his fan base that he will ‘never forget his roots’, which is a key signifier in working-​class self-​made success and not an uncommon narrative for those in a range of entertainment industries. What may have made Rashford’s mural a target for the hate vandal is the fact that not only is he Black, but he is also perceived by a minority as a dangerous politically motivated Black man. By the relatively young age of 24, he had earned an MBE (in full, Member of the Order of the British Empire), a Pride of Britain award, plus an honorary doctorate from the University of Manchester. His taking of the knee in England games in the run-​up to Euro 2020 can be seen in the context of what Allen and Miles (2020) term ‘unapologetic blackness in action’. The taking of the knee more specifically can be seen as an ‘embodied resistance tactic to challenge anti-​Blackness in pop cultural spaces’ (Allen and Miles, 2020). On Saturday 20 September 2020, for instance, Sky News reported that the striker was one of 22 players on the pitch at Old Trafford pitch for a Manchester United versus Tottenham Hotspur fixture who took the knee in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement; in addition, however, Rashford raised a clenched fist, which was symbolic because the origin of this political gesture is associated with the Black Power civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Rashford himself cited the racist taunting of Raheem Sterling as a ‘turning point’ for footballers hoping to help bring an end to racist abuse, implying that he was part of a more politicized generation more willing to vocalize their dissent rather than passively accept their victimization. Significantly he said, ‘[w]‌e have to make England what we want it to look like’ (Sky News, 2020). This is what Burdsey and Doyle refer to as an act of ‘mediatised activism’ (2022: 534). The politicization articulated here is not separate from but inextricably linked to Rashford’s campaigning on food poverty. In the spring of 2020, during a pandemic-​ravaged football season, Rashford became, in Olusoga and Olusoga’s (2020) words, ‘a formidable voice for social justice’. So it is at the intersectionality of race and social class that one must understand why Rashford’s mural was a target for the hate vandal(s). Rashford is both a voice for his race and a voice for all disempowered poor working-​class people living in a marketized society where economic austerity has been exacerbated by the global pandemic. According to Napolitano (2022), ‘Marcus Rashford enlivens a theopolitical charisma animated by a sovereign force that undoes a failed welfare economy of the state and goes well beyond it’ (2), and he undertakes ‘bottom-​up practices for just societal redistribution’ (3). Yet in contrast to his ‘unapologetic blackness in action’ (Allen and Miles, 2020) in taking the knee over racial injustice, his stance on class-​based issues of poverty is more measured –​though he still refuses to be silenced. For 53

Hate Crime in Football

example, in 2020 he refused to overtly censure or directly blame the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson for attempting to drop the food voucher scheme. As Napolitano notes: Rashford’s humbling force undoes perspectives of racist and classist portraits of the life of an Estates in England and the stigma attached to free school meals. Yet, he does not directly condemn such views but articulates that he did not and still does not understand those views to start with. (2022: 8) It is quite possible that those who desecrated the mural of Rashford were themselves disempowered White working-​class people –​the very people that Rashford’s food poverty campaign was aiming to support. This being said, Rashford’s intervention was, in philosophical terms, socialistic, and for the sections of the working class who shifted their allegiance to the political Right and the populism of the likes Boris Johnson (and in the United States, Donald Trump) with their thinly veiled racism (Mondon and Winter, 2019), this may be neither understood nor appreciated because welfarism is a sign of weakness and failure for those who seek it. There is a long history of disempowered working-​class football fans taunting other disempowered fans. The lead author, having held a season ticket at Old Trafford in the 1980s, regularly heard Manchester United fans taunting Liverpool fans for ‘eating rats in your council houses’. The narrative of the mural desecration does not end there, however.

Prosocial acts of ‘repair’ Withington residents soon assembled to cover the slurs on the mural, replacing them with positive messages such as ‘hero’ and ‘Marcus for Prime Minister’. And Akse P19 revisited the site of his original artwork to repaint and restore it. Protest organizer Sabby Dhalu stated: ‘We condemn the racist abuse Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho have received since the end of the Euro 2020 Final. This includes the vandalism of the Rashford mural in Manchester’ (Clarke, 2021). What is significant about this condemnation is its unequivocal assertion that while the graffiti was not explicitly racial, its undertones and motivations were indeed related to race. So the graffiti repair can be seen as a prosocial act to remedy something that, under black letter law, would be classed as criminal damage. However, according to Napolitano, the support from people who visited the site took place ‘[a]gainst an economy of defacement that through a violent act unmask[ed] the raw power of an ongoing racial project’ (2022: 7). This begs the question as to whether the ‘real’ damage can ever be repaired. Of course, the coming together of activists and a large number of people from 54

Spot Kick on Racism

any local community has to be seen as a good thing in terms of sending a zero-​tolerance message about racism. This being said, perhaps the real damage was not to the Rashford memorial in physical terms but to race relations in ideological terms. While the media rightly covered the repair of the Rashford memorial, the overwhelming narrative we are left with was that it was attacked in the first place. It should not have needed repair. So the reconstruction of the mural was part of a political struggle over local identity, which according to Heidenry is ‘innately connected to societal discourse, allowing both compromise and conflict to act out on walls’ (2014: 123). For those who reconstructed their ‘material marker’ (Heidenry, 2014: 126), they were part of a project aimed at continually engaging viewers, be they local passers-​by or visitors to Withington. Desecration and reconstruction are narratives which are never ‘final’, for there is the ongoing prospect that the mural can be desecrated once more. As Heindenry reminds us, ‘murals remain open to interpretation with few guarantees of preservation. Both murals and memories are open to debate, both are fragile and both can vanish’ (2014: 127).

Conclusion We have made the case in this chapter that racially motivated vandalism is a social practice worthy of study in its own right as much as practices such as antilocution and physical attack. We theorized the intersectional nature of Rashford’s race-​and class-​based protests in the context of Black Lives Matter and child food poverty campaigning through recourse to postcolonial narratives. We took as our empirical focus the Euro 2020 football tournament and the resultant vandalism of the Marcus Rashford mural in south Manchester following England’s defeat against Italy in the final. We located hate vandalism in this context as an ideological signifier. References Agnew, R. (1992) ‘Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency’, Criminology, 30(1): 47–​87. Allen, S. and Miles, B. (2020) ‘Unapologetic Blackness in action: embodied resistance and social movement scenes in Black celebrity activism’, Humanity & Society, 44(4): 375–​402. Allport, G.W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Boston: Addison-​Wesley. Back, L. and Mills, K. (2021) ‘“When you score you’re English, when you miss you’re Black”: Euro 2020 and the racial politics of a penalty shoot-​ out’, Soundings, 2021(79): 110–​121. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (2001) The Changing Face of Football: Racism, Identity and Multiculture in the English Game, Oxford: Berg.

55

Hate Crime in Football

Bacon, J. (2021) ‘Marcus Rashford mural restored by artist as hundreds of fans gather for peaceful anti-​racism demonstration in support of Manchester United star and other England team mates’, [online] 13 July, Available from: https://​talksp​ort.com/​footb​all/​911​697/​engl​and-​man-​utd-​mar​ cus-​rashf​ord-​mural-​peace​ful-​rac​ism-​prote​sts-​euro-​2020-​final/​ [Accessed 15 September 2022]. BBC (2020) ‘Marcus Rashford forces government U-​turn after food voucher campaign’, [online] 16 June, Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/​newsro​und/​ 53061​952 [Accessed 2 September 2022]. BBC (2021a) ‘Defaced Marcus Rashford mural covered in supportive notes’, [online] 12 July, Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​uk-​engl​and-​man​ ches​ter-​57806​142 [Accessed 18 September 2022]. BBC (2021b) ‘Marcus Rashford mural defaced after England Euro 2020 defeat’, [online] 12 July, Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​uk-​engl​ and-​man​ches​ter-​57803​161 [Accessed 5 September 2022]. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burdsey, D. and Doyle, J. (2022) ‘Football and the sounds of the Black Atlantic’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(2): 533–​550. Carrington, B. (2008) ‘“What’s the footballer doing here?” Racialized performativity, reflexivity, and identity’, Cultural Studies↔Critical Methodologies, 8(4): 423–​452. Carrington, B. (2021) ‘Once England had Tebbit’s cricket test –​now it’s the penalty kick test’, The Guardian, [online] 14 July, Available from: www. theg​uard​ian.com/​commen​tisf​ree/​2021/​jul/​14/​engl​and-​teb​bit-​cric​ket-​ test-​pena​lty-​kick-​team-​rac​ist [Accessed 7 September 2022]. Clarke, E. (2021) ‘Stand Up to Racism protest: date, time and location for the Withington demonstration’, LBC, [online] 13 July, Available from: www.lbc.co.uk/​news/​uk/​stand-​up-​to-​rac​ism-​prot​est-​today-​wit​hing​ ton/​[Accessed 2 October 2022]. Cleland, J. and Cashmore, E. (2016) ‘Football fans’ views of racism in British football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(1): 27–​43. Cohen, S. (1973) ‘Property destruction: motives and meanings’, in C. Ward (ed) Vandalism, New York: Van Nostrand Ueinhold, pp 23–​53. Cunneen, C. (2011) ‘Postcolonial perspectives for criminology’, in M. Bosworth and C. Hoyle (eds) What is Criminology? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 249–​266. de Miguel Molina, M., de Miguel Molina, B. and Santamarina Campos, V. (2020) ‘Visiting African American murals: a content analysis of Los Angeles, California’, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 18(2): 201–​217. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2007) ‘Critical race theory and criminal justice’, Humanity & Society, 31(2–​3): 133–​145.

56

Spot Kick on Racism

Duvall, S.-​S. and Heckemeyer, N. (2018) ‘#BlackLivesMatter: Black celebrity hashtag activism and the discursive formation of a social movement’, Celebrity Studies, 9(3): 391–​408. Gant, J. (2021) ‘More than 100 foreign social media accounts are linked to racist abuse hurled at England stars after Euro 2020 compared to 35 in UK –​as British police arrest 11 people’, Mail Online, [online] 5 August, Available from: www.dailym​ail.co.uk/​news/​arti​cle-​9862​627/​Pol​ice-​prob​ ing-​onl​ine-​rac​ial-​abuse-​Mar​cus-​Rashf​ord-​Jadon-​San​cho-​Buk​ayo-​Saka-​arr​ est-​11-​peo​ple.html [Accessed 13 September 2022]. Gouk, A. (2018) ‘How bad is child poverty in your neighbourhood?’, Manchester Evening News, [online] 12 February, Available at: www.manche​ stere​ veni​ ngne​ ws.co.uk/​news/​grea​ter-​man​ches​ter-​news/​child-​pove​rty-​grea​ ter-​man​ches​ter-​inte​ract​ive-​14276​505 [Accessed 16 September 2022]. Goulding, S. and McCroy, A. (2021) ‘Representing the (un)finished revolution in Belfast’s political murals’, Critical Discourse Studies, 18(5): 538–​564. Hamad, H. (2022) ‘Black Lives Matter 2014–​2020: celebrity flashpoints and iconic images’, Celebrity Studies, 13(1): 123–​129. Heidenry, R. (2014) ‘The murals of El Salvador: reconstruction, historical memory and whitewashing’, Public Art Dialogue, 4(1): 122–​145. Home Office (2021) Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2020 to 2021, London: Home Office. Irish Examiner (2004) ‘Atkinson counts cost of racist outburst’, [online] 22 April, Available from: www.irishe​xami​ner.com/​sport/​soc​cer/​arid-​ 30144​002.htm [Accessed 25 September 2022]. Katz, J. (1988) Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil, New York: Basic Books. Kelso, P. (2004) ‘Atkinson blames racist outburst on anger’, The Guardian, [online] 23 April, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​uk/​2004/​apr/​ 23/​footb​all.race [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Long, M. and Hopkins Burke, R. (2015) Vandalism and Anti-​Social Behaviour, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Maltby, M. (2020) ‘Marcus Rashford’s open letter to government in full as star calls for kids’ meal scheme extension’, Mirror, [online] 15 June, Available from: www.mir​ror.co.uk/​sport/​footb​all/​news/m ​ arc​ us-r​ ashfor​ ds-o ​ pen-l​ et​ ter-​gov​ernm​ent-​22191​742 [Accessed 1 October 2022]. Marschall, S. (2002) ‘Sites of identity and resistance: urban community murals and rural wall decoration in South Africa’, African Arts, 35(3): 40–​53. McLeod, K. (2009) ‘The construction of masculinity in African American music and sports’, American Music, 27(2): 204–​226. Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press. Mondon, A. and Winter, A. (2019) ‘Whiteness, populism and the racialisation of the working class in the United Kingdom and the United States’, Identities, 26(5): 510–​528. 57

Hate Crime in Football

Napolitano, V. (2022) ‘Young kings: Marcus Rashford and theopolitical charisma’, Political Theology, 24(1): 70–​81. Olusoga, D. and Olusoga, P. (2020) ‘What Marcus Rashford’s campaign for hungry children tells us about the footballer –​and Britain’, The Guardian, [online] 22 December, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​lifea​ndst​ yle/​2020/​dec/​22/​what-​mar​cus-​rashfo​rds-​campa​ign-​for-​hun​g ry-​child​ ren-​tells-​us-​about-​the-​foo​tbal​ler-​and-​brit​ain [Accessed 3 October 2022]. Prior, I. (2004) ‘TV pundit Ron Atkinson sacked for racist remark’, The Guardian, [online] 22 April, Available from: www.thegu ​ ardi​ an.com/m ​ edia/​ 2004/​apr/​22/​footb​all.race​inth​euk [Accessed 12 October]. Rashford, M. (2020) ‘Ending child poverty is a bigger trophy than any in football’, The Times, [online] 16 June, Available from: www.theti​mes. co.uk/​arti​cle/​endi​ ng-c​ hild-p​ over​ ty-i​ s-a​ -b​ igg​ er-​tro​phy-​than-​any-​in-​footb​ all-​vz7z3b​r pp [Accessed 4 October 2022]. Reicher, S. (2007) ‘Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice’, South African Journal of Psychology, 37(4): 820–​834. Rollock, N. (2009) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On: An Analysis of the Literature, London: Runnymede Trust. Shergold, A. (2016) ‘Recalling the iconic moment Scotland fans stormed the Wembley pitch and snapped the crossbar after stunning England in 1977’, Mail Online, [online] 11 November, Available from: www.dailym​ ail.co.uk/​sport/f​ ootba​ ll/a​ rtic​ le-3​ 9273​ 02/R ​ ecall​ing-​ico​nic-​mom​ent-​Scotl​ and-​f ans-​stor​med-​Wemb​ley-​pitch-​snap​ped-​cross​bar-​stunn​ing-​Engl​and-​ 1977.html [Accessed 1 September 2022]. Siddique, H. (2020) ‘Marcus Rashford forces Boris Johnson into second U-turn on child food poverty’, The Guardian, [online] 8th November, Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/08/ marcus-rashford-forces-boris-johnson-into-second-u-turn-on-child-foodpoverty Sky News (2020) ‘Marcus Rashford takes a knee and raises fist in return to football after forcing govt U-​turn’, [online] 20 June, Available from: https://​news.sky.com/​story/​mar​cus-​rashf​ord-​takes-​a-​knee-​and-​ rai​ses-​fist-​in-​ret​urn-​to-​footb​all-​after-​forc​ing-​govt-​u-​turn-​12010​792 [Accessed 7 September 2022]. Towler, C., Crawford, N. and Bennett, R. (2020) ‘Shut up and play: Black athletes, protest politics, and Black political action’, Perspectives on Politics, 18(1): 111–​127. wa Thiong’o, N. (1996) Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature, London: James Currey. Young, J. (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity, London: Sage.

58

4

‘England till I Die’: Memoirs of a South Asian Football Fan Amjid Khazir

Introduction For me, 1986 was an important year. In that summer, the final of the English FA Cup (the Football Association Challenge Cup) was won by Liverpool, as the ‘Red’ half of the city triumphed against the ‘Blues’ (Everton) and led to the cup double (Liverpool also won the English Football League that year). Some readers might also remember that year for the infamous divinely inspired ‘hand of God’ goal that sent the English national team home from the FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) World Cup at quarterfinal stage; their opponents, Argentina, went on to take victory in the tournament. During this era, post the Falklands War of 1982 and the Heysel Stadium disaster in Brussels in 1985, there was a renewed tribal, national and international dimension in football. A five-​year banning order was in place for English clubs, preventing them from playing in European competitions, and rampant hooliganism had become part and parcel of football, and part of my early experiences of being an England-​born boy of Pakistani heritage who had his own divided loyalties and issues around identity. After the summer holidays of 1986, I had returned to the hallowed turf of Breckon Hill Primary School playing fields in Middlesbrough, where I recalled hearing the names of famous footballers like Diego Maradona and Jorge Burruchaga. They may have sounded strange and alien to us at the time, but they helped me as a youngster to identify with football and become the person I am today. I wanted to be like them and play the beautiful game. I was only eight at the time, and my knowledge of football, racism, religion and other historical events was minimal. Unlike many of my friends’ experiences, my father had never taken me to watch ‘the Boro’ 59

Hate Crime in Football

(Middlesborough) at their home ground, Ayresome Park, so I had no allegiances in the context of patriotism, loyalty and identity. My father was from a generation of Pakistanis that had been in the United Kingdom (UK) since the 1960s, and at that time, he and his friends and cousins were too busy working long shifts as taxi drivers, at British Steel, at ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) or at the docks to make any time for or care about a team or a sport they really didn’t know anything about. At the same time, the next generation was growing up fast. Our parents worked incredibly hard to provide, and us kids would help to translate at the doctor’s and the dentist’s when needed but we spent the rest of our days doing what kids do –​playing football. The previous generation had come to terms with the fact that their children, who now had strong northern accents, had new will and desire to become the next modern-​day footballers. At Eid (a religious festival) and on birthdays, presents of football shirts were handed out by our parents, but they did not see football grounds as a place for children. Not only had hooliganism led to the European ban for English clubs, but also, aside from the odd feature on the evening news, football matches weren’t even shown on TV, further supporting our parents’ case and increasing their confusion at our love for the so-​called ‘beautiful game’. One of my earliest experiences of football was when I asked Dad to take me to a Boro match, with his reply being “just watch it on the telly, Son”. Most of my friends’ parents felt the same. Football during this period was seen as a space for hooliganism and racism. Yet, despite this, for me and my friends, obsession with football had become the new norm. Both at school and on the streets, we played the game at every opportunity, and it became part and parcel of our culture. By now, we’d also nailed our colours to mythical masts and chosen our allegiances –​ to Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and even Aston Villa and latterly Manchester United. These were the teams that featured most on TV. I remember the tragic events at the Heysel Stadium during the final of the 1985 European Cup (the UEFA –​Union of European Football Associations –​Champions League) where 39 Juventus fans died, and the Hillsborough disaster during an FA Cup (Football Association Challenge Cup) semifinal in 1989, where 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives. I remember watching an entire 30-​minute news report about the horrific events in Liverpool, and this incident became the trigger for me to get involved with politics, media, religion and race. As we devotedly followed our teams, we even had the nicknames. To this day, some people still call me ‘Barnsey’ after John Barnes, a former Liverpool and England Player, and my best pal –​still a die-​hard Blues supporter –​was called ‘Sharpey’ or ‘Sheedy’ –​after top scorers Lee Sharpe and Keven Sheedy, respectively –​when he blasted in a goal, and his brother is still called ‘Gazza’, 60

‘England till I Die’

after the famous player Paul Gascoigne. Their younger brothers followed Leeds and Newcastle –​for them, the road to fandom was via TV coverage of Premier League games and, of course, wanting to be different to their older brothers. We played the game day and night as we all lived opposite the school field –​we had to be hauled in by our mothers when the sun went down. The joy of being part of a team resonated with me, and I am still friends with those people. I was lean, tall and fast, and I would play all day. At the time, Liverpool footballer John Barnes was the main player in the English Football League, and I would try to copy him every chance I got. I played competitively for my senior school, as did my friends from around the town who came to Boynton Comprehensive (which later amalgamated with Hustler School to become Hall Garth School). Playing for the school football team was a totally odd thing for our parents to contend with, because they had tried to shield us from all the racism and hooliganism associated with football. The beautiful game came with some real social challenges for me!

The kick-​off Football had made me question my sense of belonging and identity and what hate actually looks like. I remember when, aged 12, I was first called a ‘P***’ by an opponent from another school team. I reacted by attempting to push and then fight. Even as I told the referee what had happened, he simply said, “you can’t react like that –​get that chip off your shoulder”, and nothing more was done about the incident. I had other experiences like this one, but ultimately it was an incident in 2011 which changed my life forever. That summer, my father’s younger brother, Mohammed Zabir, a taxi driver and father of seven, was violently assaulted by a passenger just outside of Darlington, at the completion of a taxi journey. My uncle had come to this country in the 1960s, shortly after my father. The assault took place the night before an English Defence League (far-​Right group) march, and six weeks later my uncle died of a heart attack. We believe and maintain that the severe chest injuries he received on the night of the assault led to his death, and the police were certain of this too. The young man who attacked my uncle was just 17 years old, and it was alleged that the incident was racially motivated. In court, the young man spoke about how he too had experienced racism growing up. In 2022, for the first time in its history, the FIFA World Cup took place in a Muslim country –​Qatar. Rather than celebrating this global moment of inclusion and assessing how this pinnacle event could be used to tackle Islamophobia, the main news headlines were about workers’ rights in the country. Every facet of countries’ role in and duty to the global village we now live in, and specifically what this means for minorities, requires that any host nation must be open to intrusive inspection. But using that same 61

Hate Crime in Football

logic, shouldn’t we also be asking questions of other nations regarding their internal politics and practices –​these would include questions about: • raiding of mineral resources in Africa; • centuries-​old colonial practices and agreements that are backed up my modern-​day treaties with despotic leaders; • internal and domestic policies of nations in Europe that lead to the suffering of the people, whose lives are impacted by increased living costs, smaller pensions and frightening crime rates; • curtailment of human rights and ability to practise one’s faith freely; • illegal invasions and settlements; • closing of Muslim schools and places of worship; and • banning of Minaret or Hijab.

Supporting Liverpool Sport is a team event, but recent data shows that in 2022 only 0.3 per cent percent of professional players in the UK identified as South Asian, whereas the overall UK population belonging to this diaspora was 7.5 per cent.1 In this chapter, as I look back at what being a football fan means to me, key questions that come up, along with whether we will ever get a South Asian footballer in the Premier League, are about the role football can play in community cohesion and whether antiracism campaigns in football are effective. The Northeast is a hotbed for football, and if you live in this part of England, you pretty much play or follow football. Indeed, a recent report has shown, nearly 59 per cent of people in the region are ‘active’ in weekly sports.2 When I reflect on my past experiences with football, it makes me appreciate my roots and cultural upbringing. The team I support is Liverpool, and the reasons for this involve my Pakistani heritage. For a short time, I thought that the Liverpool footballer Glenn Hysén (to me, this was pronounced the same as ‘Hussain’) may have Pakistani roots, so that was a reason why I supported that team. In fact, he is a White Swede. Also, Liverpool had Jan Mølby (the South Asians reading this may guess what is coming next) so, because molbee or maulvi (Urdu/​Punjabi) is one of the titles we use for a male imam or teacher, this was another reason why I wanted to be a Red. Like Hysén, Mølby is not South Asian or Muslim, but the Scouse Jan will always be a legend to Liverpool fans regardless. And as for me, I learned the words to ‘You’ll never walk alone’ (the famous Liverpool anthem adapted from the Gerry and the Pacemakers single of 1963), filled my sticker albums full of Liverpool players, owned the famous ‘Candy’ shirt and saw the emergence of Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman and Jamie Redknapp –​I became a

62

‘England till I Die’

Red for life. I have since learned more about the club, having followed the many ups and downs, the politics and passion of the people of Liverpool, the immigrant heritage, the songs, drama and emotion. Though I am out of the city, and even at times out of the country, this is my team and I hope one day that my kids will follow them too.

England ‘till I die’ My support for England came from my loyalty to Liverpool players –​if they played for England, I wanted them to do well and win. Despite the impact of Maradona in 1986, this wasn’t when I started following England; strangely, it was after the team’s 1988 demolition by the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) at the UEFA European Football Championship (Euro 1988). I didn’t yet fully understand that much of the criticism and abuse of the Black England footballer player John Barnes was racial and not about his performance. I had no way of understanding how this could happen, no knowledge of the history of bananas being thrown onto the pitch or the suffering of the likes of Cyrille Regis or Viv Anderson, no comprehension of the links between football and racism. By 1990, during Italia ’90 (as the 1990 FIFA World Cup is affectionately called), as the sounds of ‘Nessun dorma’ (sung by Luciano Pavarotti) and ‘World in motion’ (performed by New Order and the England football team) worked the nation into a frenzy, I was well and truly along for the ride! Like many of my Asian peers, my appreciation for music had begun to edge toward hip-​hop and rap –​and to think, ‘Digger’ (John Barnes) was rapping on this track! The little Italia ’90 Coca-​Cola soccer balls, the incredible goals, England’s late winner by David Platt against Belgium, their win in the end-​to-​end game against Cameroon and even their loss to Germany –​all of this took me on an emotional rollercoaster, almost akin to being a Liverpool fan. Even with what I now know about Britain’s past –​the history of colonialism, the wars fought, the significant links between racism and sport –​and the impact hate is having on our world in general, nothing could have prepared me to read about the terrible comments on social media directed at Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka following their missed penalties in the Euro 2020 final. The incessant abuse and online hate directed at these footballers has highlighted that hateful, racist and extremist ideologies are still prevalent in England and across the UK and globally, and that football is a still a place where vitriol will manifest time and again. After supporting England in many World Cups and watching the heart-​breaking penalty shoot-​out losses, it is hard for me to take in that for some in ‘our’ country, being an England fan or an England player still

63

Hate Crime in Football

comes with qualifications based on skin colour. It is incredibly difficult to see and hear of Asian football fans being abused in the street and online for daring to wear the England shirt or mocked for adorning their cars with the St George’s flag. This hate and abuse can come from far-​Right groups, but also from the average football fan. Today, we still have to prove we have a place in the UK. From a societal angle, we speak the language, we know the history, we hold the same passport, we work in the NHS and in the local factories, we drive the taxis and run the takeaways, we work hard, pay our taxes and vote in elections –​ yet we are still abused. I have visited many clubs in the past ten years and can count on one hand the number of Asians I’ve encountered at any level. I am confident the lack of representation will speak for itself to all who wish to take a look or research further. Proving my credentials and loyalty is about me and not anyone else. I have Muslim values, British values, Pakistani values and human values. My love of sport as I was growing up meant my role models were also Pakistani and included the likes of Pakistani cricketers Imran Khan, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram. The maverick talent and enigmatic personas they bring to the world are truly inspiring and endearing. Identifying with a person, sporting role model, country or club is less about where you were born, or the colour of your skin, as it is about emotion, talent, entertainment, drama and a sense of reward for your commitment –​the payoff of a win as recognition of your devotion. Does this make me a legacy fan? Does this make me a glory supporter? Does this make me English or British? Does it even matter?

Social unity and sport Together with my friends at college, in the mid to late 1990s, I delivered a cultural unity event to raise money for BBC Children in Need. We raised almost £400 from skint 16-​to 19-​year-​old students. This event, aiming to bring together groups that sat apart in the canteen, was needed, as though there was no racial tension or segregation as such, not much united us other than music and food. So this event was organized for those from the college who listened to Oasis or Tupac or bhangra and who, through our shared humanity, wanted to give back to the less fortunate. Following on from the impact of September 11 and the attack on my uncle, doing more around community cohesion, counter-​extremism and antiracism felt like a calling to me. In 2012, I established Media Cultured and now I work to promote social unity and prevent radicalization and extremism through film, sport, art and education. Sport, and football in particular, can and must make a bigger difference. There was and still is a real lack of South Asian representation 64

‘England till I Die’

at every level of the game as well as an incredible lack of quality provision within all sports to address issues of racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and extremism. Lack of knowledge on the faiths most often practised by South Asians –​be it Islam, Sikhism or Hinduism –​is a real problem in football. If we want to tick a few boxes and make up the numbers, we’re making some progress; but for real change to take place, we must go far deeper be more strategic, educating players, staff and supporters at every level, every year. Clubs still don’t know nearly enough about the lives, needs and beliefs of this incredibly diverse demographic, which represents in the region of two billion people globally, and makes up almost 4.2 million people in England and Wales.3 What are we doing at the grassroots and professional levels in football to make these groups feel more welcome and say to them clearly that they can belong to our clubs the same as anyone else, and that the clubs belong to them? The people who belong to these faiths may not share the same spaces as other groups –​they may not go for that post-​work pint, for instance. So what are we doing to bring these communities to our football grounds? Many clubs in England and across the UK are failing to fill their stadiums, often despite being located in highly populated urban areas where minority groups typically reside. So these fans are potentially on the doorsteps of the clubs but are not going into the grounds –​why? Certain clubs are finally making slight improvements regarding linking to their local communities, though, sadly, this tends to be through food banks and refugee programmes rather than outreach policies. Clubs like Blackburn Rovers, Bradford City (with the Bangla Bantams), and Aston Villa (with the Punjabi Villains) have begun to address supporter representation at the club level. However, the failure of clubs and county FAs to have true representation of their local communities on their boards can’t be ignored. It is the same at every level of the scouting system, which still isn’t unearthing British South Asian talent to the extent that it should. This is a stark reminder of how far we have yet to go. I’ve heard the same old tropes first-​hand.

Reactive not proactive Some years ago, fans of Middlesborough Football Club attended a game at Birmingham and were alleged to have torn up copies of the Quran and to have sung racist songs about Islam. This incident led my local club to reach out to Media Cultured and since then we have worked closely on staff, supporter and player education programmes, covering everything from extremism to Islamic awareness. We also assisted in the establishment of Boro Fusion in 2018, the first ever supporters’ group for local Asians who follow the team. Even though Media Cultured has worked in and around football since its beginning, we still feel somewhat like the outsiders. Our 65

Hate Crime in Football

work is internationally accredited and has won numerous awards. We have worked alongside the likes of the Premier League, Show Racism the Red Card, and Kick It Out and their Fans For Diversity initiative, and we have delivered ‘Preventing Extremism’ workshops to clubs like Stoke City, Crystal Palace, Arsenal and Manchester City. Our work has gained international acclaim, and we hope to deliver further sports-​led projects internationally. The world-​class, locality specific education and training we provide has been received incredibly well, and we know it is making a difference.

Will we ‘walk alone’? I don’t look back in anger, but I do look forward with a certain sense of uncertainty. I feel we, as British South Asians, may still have to work this all out for ourselves, just as we had to work out the rules of the game and what it means to support a football team, as well as where we belong in society more generally. I find myself looking at the state of the game now with many questions still, and not many real answers. Yes, football is more inclusive than it was, and now the taking of the knee is applauded rather than booed at grounds across England. I do have hope that as the marginally increased numbers in respect to South Asian representation in football improves even further, we will one day have more household names in football and that Hussains, Patels, Khans and Singhs will come to the fore and become role models and legends of the game across the UK. The road to such a sacred place is long and will take much more cooperation, sincere effort, planning and trust. Even with the milestones that Media Cultured have reached in football, it still feels like it’s not what you know but who you know in the business when it comes to belonging. We have delivered incredibly well-​received workshops and received excellent feedback. There are many amazing people in football to thank –​people who have helped us make inroads into a competitive space where time, funding and opportunity are scarce. Whether inspired by far-​R ight ideologies or misguided religious fundamentalism, the role of football in preventing racism, hate and nonviolent extremist beliefs and attitudes is incredibly powerful. Not only giving a platform for upcoming talent to help them make it to the top, but also working more effectively with communities to promote social inclusion –​these are challenges and opportunities that all clubs and the football authorities must take more seriously and do better at. The experiences of Azeem Rafiq, a sportsperson of South Asian heritage who played cricket, a sport in which Asians are massively visible, must be a lesson to the world of football. We cannot rest on our laurels, thinking that similar issues of social inclusion won’t affect football 10 or 20 years from now. There 66

‘England till I Die’

is no club in this country that can’t improve on its outreach and inclusion programmes with the clear aim of tackling racism and hate. There are still Asian fans who feel they don’t belong in football, and there are still fans who send racist abuse to Black and Asian footballers to make them feel like they should not be playing the game. It is completely unacceptable to shout racist abuse from the stands, but behind closed doors, and online, in our homes and in our clubs and schools, the sense of division and the ‘us versus them’ mentality persists. This must change, and we must do better collectively to communicate our concerns, improve inclusion and education strategies, and tackle hate in and through football more effectively. We can’t wait another 30 odd years to simply be at the same point. There are clear issues to address but also clear strategies we can put in place. The frustration I directed at my parents when they wouldn’t allow me to go to the football is now redirected at those decision makers who pass the buck, the clubs who wish to tick boxes and those organizations that treat this duty we all share as an exclusive challenge that they are best placed or trusted to address. We are here. We were born here. We will ask questions about everything from Windrush and Grenfell to the abuse aimed at footballers, and we will get our answers. Hate will never win. We will tackle your ignorance with education and take this country and this world, for all its faults and difficult histories, forward on a path of unity. We have nothing to prove to you about loyalty, and we don’t care about what you think being ‘English’ means. We will hold our flags proudly aloft, and we will get behind our teams and take the dreams of our children to realization, just as our parents did for us through hard work and dedication. We Are England till We Die. Notes 1 2 3

iplsoccer.tv/home/ https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8181/CBP-8181.pdf https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/ bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

67

5

Racism in Football: Perspectives from Two Sides of the Atlantic Christos Kassimeris

Introduction Football has a long history of racial discrimination, and racism in football was first addressed officially at an extraordinary congress held by FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) in 2001. There are cultural differences among the many nations playing football, and equally racism in football has many different shapes and forms –​therefore, eliminating racism from the game of football is certainly an overwhelming task. In this context, it is useful to present the case of racism in football within different cultural settings. I first examine racism in English football and American ‘soccer’, because of the historical ties between these two nations; then I present the case of racism in the wholly different cultural setting of Italy in order to demonstrate the manifold shapes of racial discrimination in football across the world. My point of departure is FIFA’s Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-​Discrimination, for it openly states that ‘one racist comment … does not necessarily make a person racist’ (FIFA, nd: 91), further complicating the already obscure relationship between racial discrimination and the popular game of football.

How football governing bodies are tackling racism Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA first addressed matters pertaining to racism at an extraordinary congress in Buenos Aires in 2001. Despite FIFA’s good intentions, racism remained widespread. In March 2013, the FIFA Task Force Against Racism and Discrimination was set up, only to be terminated three years later 68

Racism in Football

with the statement: ‘A FIFA task force is a temporary structure with a defined mission. Once this mission is complete –​as was the case with the FIFA Task Force Against Racism and Discrimination once it had made its recommendations –​the structure is dissolved’ (FIFA, 2016). Its mission, it appears, was to identify relevant antidiscrimination initiatives in time for the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia. FIFA is, of course, genuinely committed to eliminating racism in football. If anything, it has accumulated much knowledge and experience on the issue of racism in football, and it has never hesitated to present us with relevant examples of, as well as possible clarifications on, what may constitute discrimination. This is evident in the following excerpt from the guide on good practice: ‘One of my best friends is gay, so what I said can’t be homophobic at all.’ Or: ‘I have worked for many years with people from other countries and continents/​cultures, so what I said can’t be racist at all.’ Explanation: The fact that someone has friends or colleagues from different countries, or friends or colleagues who are homosexual, does not mean that this person will not make racist or homophobic comments. Likewise, one racist or homophobic comment does not necessarily make a person racist or homophobic. (FIFA, nd: 91, emphasis added) This quote is relevant to the case of Luis Aragonés, head coach of the Spanish national football team, who stated: ‘I am a citizen of the world. Some of my best friends are black, including those I have known since childhood. The fact I make a joke in order to motivate a player does not mean I am racist in the slightest’ (quoted in Lowe, 2004). Aragonés had previously tried to ‘motivate’ José Antonio Reyes during a training session by saying ‘Tell that n***o de mierda [black shit] that you are much better than him’ (quoted in Lowe, 2004). For the record, the ‘black shit’ Aragonés was referring to was Thierry Henry, one of Reyes’ teammates at London-​based Arsenal Football Club. Following FIFA’s rationale, therefore, ‘a citizen of the world’, as Aragonés would like to think of himself, and someone who counts Black people among his best friends could not possibly ever make a racist remark, let alone embarrass one of his players by means of insulting a Black teammate of his. Unless, of course, football’s world governing body has got it completely wrong, for there is no doubt that Aragonés’ remarks cannot be viewed as having a non-​racialized context.

Union of European Football Associations As per the statutes of UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), one of its objectives is to ‘promote football in Europe in a spirit of peace, understanding and fair play, without any discrimination on account of 69

Hate Crime in Football

politics, gender, religion, race or any other reason’ (2018: Article 2(1b)). To this end, the statutes also stress that Member Associations shall implement an effective policy aimed at eradicating racism and any other forms of discrimination from football and apply a regulatory framework providing that any such behaviour is strictly sanctioned, including, in particular, by means of serious suspensions for players and officials, as well as partial and full stadium closures if supporters engage in racist behaviour. (UEFA, 2018: Article 7(7)) Moreover, Article 45 (Provocative action and racism) of the ‘UEFA safety and security regulations’ states that provocative action by spectators in or around a stadium (such as foul language, banners/​flags and racist behaviour) must be prevented by the match organizer, the police and the safety and security officer, who must intervene by making use of the public address system and by removing any offensive material or offenders (UEFA, 2019). As for the instruments available to combat racial discrimination in football, UEFA has outlined a ten-​point plan on racism, which calls on clubs to: • issue statements denouncing racism and any other kind of discrimination and state the actions that will be taken against offenders; • denounce racism using their public address systems; • demand that season ticket holders abstain from racist abuse; • prevent dissemination of racist material in and around stadiums; • take disciplinary action against players who take part in racist abuse; • communicate their antiracism policies to other associations or clubs; • encourage common strategy for stewards and police when dealing with racial abuse; • adopt equal opportunities policies; and • collaborate with all pertinent parties to raise awareness (UEFA, 2019: Annex A). Similarly, the ‘Guidelines for match officials in cases of racist behaviour’ (UEFA, 2019, Annex C) give referees the authority to halt a football match in the event of a serious racist incident and make a public announcement against the racist behaviour (step 1). Referees are also authorized to suspend the match should racist behaviour persist after the match has resumed, and to order the two teams to the dressing rooms before a second public announcement is made; all the while, the referee should be in consultation with the UEFA match delegate, the UEFA security officer, the police, and the stadium’s security (step 2). Should the second step also prove ineffective, referees may decide, following consultation with all the pertinent parties, to 70

Racism in Football

abandon the match (step 3). This three-​step protocol was first implemented during an official match in Sofia between the national teams of England and Bulgaria, with Bulgaria receiving a one-​match stadium ban and a €75,000 fine. UEFA’s response was based on the ‘European football united against racism’ resolution, which states: 7. Any player or team official found guilty of racist conduct must be suspended for at least ten matches (or a corresponding period of time for club representatives). 8. If supporters of a club or national team engage in racist behaviour this must be sanctioned (for a first offence) with a partial stadium closure concerning the section where the racist incident occurred. For a second offence, this must be sanctioned with a full stadium closure, as well as a financial penalty. In addition, supporters found guilty of racist behaviour should be banned from attending matches in future by the state authorities. (UEFA, nd, emphasis in original)

Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football On the other side of the Atlantic, the statutes of the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf) state in Article 3 (Neutrality; nondiscrimination; gender equality; human rights): 1. CONCACAF shall be neutral in matters of politics and religion. 2. Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of race, skin color, ethnic, national or social origin, gender, disability, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion. 3. CONCACAF shall be committed to respecting all internationally recognized human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights. (Concacaf, 2016: Article 3) To this end, Concacaf ’s Diversity Handbook features a code of conduct, which includes the following in relation to ‘core principles’: 3.3 Zero tolerance of discrimination and harassment We are committed to a diverse culture. There shall be no discrimination on account of age, race, skin color, ethnicity, national or social origin, gender, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation, 71

Hate Crime in Football

physical disability or any other reason, or engagement in any kind of verbal or physical harassment based on any of the aforementioned or any other criteria. (Concacaf, 2015: 116) The Diversity Handbook also includes a code of ethics, which states: Art. 23 Non-​discrimination and stance against racism –​Persons bound by this Code may not offend the dignity or integrity of a country, private person or group of people through contemptuous, discriminatory or denigratory words or actions on account of age, race, skin color, ethnic, national or social origin, gender, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation, physical disability or any other reason. (Concacaf, 2015: 116) Finally, Concacaf ’s ‘Protocol for racist incidents during matches’ reflects the very same guidelines for match officials as UEFA’s (see Concacaf, 2015: 112–​115).

Race in English, American and Italian football To this day, none of the three international governing bodies have exhausted the means available for disciplining national teams, clubs, coaches, players or fans, perhaps fearing that any severe kind of disciplinary action would blemish the popular (in financial terms) game as much as racism has. No points have ever been deducted from either national associations or clubs, and neither have any national associations or clubs been ejected from a competition. And while expelling the Bulgarian Football Union, for example, might have had no severe repercussions –​political, economic or otherwise –​the same cannot be argued in the case discussed in the next section, of racist abuse towards players in one of football’s more prominent nations.

England Racism in English football is well illustrated in non-​playing positions, such as football managers or head coaches and referees. Les Back, Tim Crabbe and John Solomos raise an interesting question with regard to racism in English football: ‘If black players can pull on the England shirt, is it possible that one day there could be a black manager of England?’ (Back et al, 2001). Paul Ince is widely known as the first Black manager in England’s top division, the Premier League; this came about in 2008 when Ince became manager of Blackburn Rovers Football Club, though he was removed after only a few months due to the club’s poor performance in the league. For 72

Racism in Football

the record, Ruud Gullit had been appointed manager at Chelsea Football Club in 1996 and Newcastle United Football Club in 1998; however, his Dutch descent must have taken precedence over the colour of his skin to make him a lesser-​known Black manager. In the lower divisions of English football, conditions for Black managers only improved when Edwin Stein was appointed manager at Barnet Football Club in the 1992/​93 season. Though even at the beginning of the 2021/​22 season, there were only eight Black managers in England’s four professional divisions (with 92 football clubs in total), of which, half were non-​British. More disturbingly, only two of the managers were involved with Premier League clubs –​both were non-​British and based in the more cosmopolitan (relative to the locations of other clubs) capital of England; these managers were Patrick Vieira at Crystal Palace and Nuno Espírito Santo at Tottenham Hotspur. Gareth Southgate, manager of the England national football team, recently voiced his concerns over the under-​representation of Black coaches due to what he described as a ‘White privilege’. Worse, Uriah Rennie was the last Black referee to officiate in England’s top league, and he retired back in 2008. Today, 40 referees are available for officiating football matches in England’s top two divisions –​all of them White. Out of some two hundred referees available to England’s top seven divisions, only four are Black or Asian –​Aji Ajibola, Sam Allison, Sunny Gill and Joel Mannix. It is no surprise, of course, that England’s Football Association, in an move to enhance diversity in the game, appointed a 14-​member referee committee that features no Black or Asian representatives. Currently, there are approximately twenty-​four and a half thousand referees, including those officiating amateur football, of which only about two thousand are minority ethnic (Ungoed-​Thomas, 2021). The 2020 UEFA European Football Championship (Euro 2020), staged in the summer of 2021 due to the COVID-​19 pandemic, offered ample opportunity for British politicians to voice their opposition to antiracism campaigning. Perhaps most visibly emphasizing England’s cultural division was the refusal of Priti Patel, Home Secretary in the United Kingdom (UK) government at the time, to offer any criticism towards football fans who booed the players of the England national football team while they took the knee during Euro 2020 matches. This signalled her outright dismissal of what she considered to be ‘gesture politics’ (Patel quoted in Liew, 2021). Prime Minister Boris Johnson also refused to condemn those same fans –​his spokesman stated that the English Premier was ‘focused on action rather than gestures’ (quoted in Walker, 2021). Giving a wholly different interpretation to the England players’ stand against racism, Nigel Farage, former leader of both the UK Independence Party and the Brexit Party, stated: Taking the knee to the Black Lives Matter organization isn’t about equality of opportunity, isn’t about racial justice, it’s about a Marxist 73

Hate Crime in Football

organization that wants to defund the police force, that wants to bring down Western capitalism, bring down our whole way of life and replace it with a new Communist order. … The moral of the story is very, very simple. All sporting teams, all sporting events should stay completely out of politics. Not get engaged with any political gestures of any kind whatsoever. (Quoted in Walker, 2021) Against this political background, the government’s response to the aftermath of the final of Euro 2020 could have been expected. In the final, three Black England players –​Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka –​each missed their penalty kick, thus allowing Italy to win the championship, and were met with racist abuse by supporters. Johnson condemned the abuse while also supporting the need for new legislation on hate offences (online), yet he never condemned his Home Secretary for her comments. Online racism is today a trend on social media of all sorts. The concept of ‘cyber racism’ was first coined by Les Back in 2002, following his research on online discourses relating to Whiteness and the rise of White Power online communities; he states that ‘the Net has provided a means for people to sense, listen, feel and be involved intimately in racist culture from a distance’ (Back, 2002). Twenty years later, Twitter announced the results of its own analysis into the online abuse directed at England players during the Euros. The social media platform said it had removed 1,622 messages containing racist language from its platform in the 24 hours during and after the final between England and Italy. It also claimed that the greatest number of abusive messages came from the UK. … Another claim made by Twitter was that 99% of the accounts suspended by the company for offensive content were publicly identifiable. (MacInnes, 2021) The football matches involving the national football team of England at Wembley Stadium were a colourful representation of the kind of positive impact migration has had on several nations. The Football Moves People campaign of the Migration Museum in London not only helped emphasize the diversity of the England national football team, but also highlighted that very few of the starting 11 would have qualified to play for England had it not been for first-​and second-​generation immigration. Yet the cultural division of England in the post-​Brexit era was even more palpable during the final stage of the Euro 2020 competition. Although migration was one of the reasons that Britain left the European Union, it was unexpectedly celebrated during England games as the team progressed through the group stage matches, the round of 16, the quarterfinals and the semifinals, before their defeat in the final triggered a racist rhetoric that shamed an entire nation. 74

Racism in Football

United States When National Football League player Colin Kaepernick decided against standing during the American national anthem, to protest racial inequality and declare his solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, United States (US) President Donald Trump demanded that all sports clubs suspend and even terminate the contracts of all players displaying unpatriotic behaviour. To this end, soccer’s governing body in this country, US Soccer, prohibited all players of the US national soccer teams from protesting during the national anthem: ‘All persons representing a Federation national team shall stand respectfully during the playing of national anthems at any event in which the Federation is represented’ (US Soccer, 2019). When, on 25 May 2020, George Floyd’s name was added to the long list of victims that suffered police brutality, support for the Black Lives Matter movement in the US and across the world was reignited, prompting US Soccer to rethink their policy of requiring players to stand for the national anthem. In a statement released by US Soccer, the federation’s board of directors affirmed its position against racial injustice and decided to repeal Policy 604-​1, which required players to stand during the national anthem. The policy was put in place after Megan Rapinoe kneeled in solidarity with the peaceful protest inspired by Colin Kaepernick, who was protesting police brutality, and the systematic oppression of Black people and people of color in America. It has become clear that this policy was wrong and detracted from the important message of Black Lives Matter. (US Soccer, 2020) The board of directors also acknowledged its failure in both understanding racial injustice and tackling racial discrimination by making good use of sports. US President Donald Trump was obviously displeased when he posted on his personal Twitter account that he would never again watch a soccer match, while Republican congressman Matt Gaetz tweeted: ‘I’d rather the US not have a soccer team than have a soccer team that won’t stand for the National Anthem. You shouldn’t get to play under our flag as our national team if you won’t stand when it is raised’ (Evas, 2020). What both of them failed to comprehend, of course, was that those players did not disrespect either the flag or the anthem; rather, they were protesting police brutality and racial injustice. A fact that serves to emphasize American soccer’s lack of diversity is the low number of players, head coaches, club chief executive officers (CEOs) and sports journalists from an ethnic background. During the 2020 Major League Soccer (MLS) season, the share of players who were White increased slightly from the previous season, at 39.9 per cent compared to 38.3 per 75

Hate Crime in Football

cent in 2019, whereas the number of Hispanic or Latino players fell to 30.4 per cent compared to 33.4 per cent in 2019 and the number of Black or African American players fell to 22.4 per cent from 23.1 per cent in 2019; the percentage of Asian players remained the same, at 1.1 per cent (Lapchick, 2020). At the level of administration within the MLS in the League Office, 41.6 per cent of administrators were people of colour –​22.6 per cent were Hispanic or Latino, 7.9 were Asian and 6.6 per cent were Black or African American (Lapchick, 2020). The majority of MLS head coaches (59.3 per cent) were White, followed by Hispanics or Latinos (29.6 per cent), people with ‘two or more races’ (7.4 per cent) and Black people or African Americans (3.7 per cent; Lapchick, 2020: 8). Of those holding a CEO or club president position, 17.4 per cent were people of colour (Lapchick, 2020). Figures for 2018 clearly indicate that the sports sector of the US media industry is mainly White too, with 85 per cent of sports editors, 76.4 per cent of assistant sports editors, 80.3 per cent of columnists, 82.1 per cent of reporters and 77.7 per cent of copy editors/​designers being White (Lapchick, 2018). From the presidential election of 2016 onward, the cultural and political divide between Democrats and Republicans has widened alarmingly. The population is divided over race, gender, religion, income and ideology, to name but a few. In 2020, the newly elected US President Joe Biden pledged during his first speech to bridge the deeply divided American society. With one recent government removing statues of Confederate generals and notable enslavers and another building border walls and (mis)handling a pandemic amid scenes of police brutality, the cultural distance separating the two Americas has become more visible in sports too, and soccer has been no exception. The figures on representation mentioned earlier, along with a president’s personal interference, and the, initially, unyielding position of US Soccer –​all these illustrate that football in the US is a clear reflection of that society’s division along racialized lines. There is no doubt that football in the US is indeed associated with ‘White privilege’.

Italy The Mediterranean country of Italy, on the other hand, offers an interesting account of a much different cultural setting in a society divided geographically in terms of wealth (the rich North–​poor South divide). Racism in Italy relates as much to the fascist history of the country in the previous century as to the modern-​day presence of xenophobic political parties in power. Simply put, Italian society has had a long history of imperialism, dating back to the times of the Roman Empire, and is certainly no stranger to racial discrimination nowadays, including in the popular sport of football. As a matter of fact, reflecting the society’s racialized division, Italy’s top football league, Serie A, has witnessed a considerable number of racist 76

Racism in Football

incidents, particularly in the recent past. In an attempt to tackle racism in Italian football, on 29 November 2019, 20 clubs signed an open letter addressed to ‘all those who love Italian football’. The letter stresses the fact that racism in football is a serious problem that has long been overlooked: Images of players being racially abused in Italian football have been viewed and discussed all around the world this season and that shames us all. No individual should ever be subjected to racist abuse –​inside or outside of football –​and we can no longer stay silent on this issue or wait for it to magically disappear. Driven by the clubs, positive conversations have been held in recent weeks with Lega Serie A, FIGC [Fererazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio] and international experts on how to tackle and eradicate this issue from the game. (Juventus Football Club, 2019, original in italics) Those conversations prompted Serie A to pledge its support to combat racism in Italian football as well as to educate all pertinent actors. A few days later, on 5 December, Corriere dello Sport ran an article on a match between two Italian clubs –​Inter Milan and AS Roma –​and, despite the clubs’ good intentions, featured a front-​page photo of Inter Milan’s Romelu Lukaku and AS Roma’s Chris Smalling alongside the caption ‘BLACK FRIDAY’. As it happens, the football match between the two Italian clubs was scheduled to take place the week after Black Friday had been held in Italy. The article’s purpose was to draw attention to the phenomenon of racism in Italian football, yet the approach was obviously awkward. The Executive Director of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE), Piara Powar, stated: Part of the problem we have with Italy and countries like that at the moment is people do not know where to draw a line. … We have been told by our colleagues in Italy that in fact inside the paper the story is about how these are old colleagues from [Manchester] United and how they have both been standing up to racism after being subjected to it quite extensively, but the front cover is at the very least clumsy. … We have identified some time ago Italy having a particular problem and those problems exist from the discourse coming from its politicians to media reporting on social issues, migration and media reporting on football and the failure of governing bodies there to take action. This is a good example of something outside of the stadium and something that is clearly related to football and is fuelling racism inside stadiums and wider attitudes towards people of African heritage in Italy. (Quoted in Fourfourtwo, 2019a) 77

Hate Crime in Football

Equally embarrassing was the outcome of Serie A’s decision to campaign against racism. The campaign included artwork commissioned from Simone Fugazzotto, an artist better known for painting apes! As one might expect, the famous artist produced three paintings depicting apes; in his words, this was because ‘they are the metaphor for human beings’. He stated: I’ve always been painting monkeys, so I thought I’d make this work to teach that we’re all apes. I made the western monkey with blue and white eyes, the Asian monkey with almond-​shaped eyes and the black monkey positioned in the centre, where everyone comes from. The monkey becomes the spark to teach everyone that there is no difference, there is no man or monkey, we are alike. If anything, we are all monkeys. The artwork did draw attention was the campaign’s main purpose, receiving enormous, though of course negative, publicity. FARE’s post on their official Twitter account is telling: Once again Italian football leaves the world speechless. In a country in which the authorities fail to deal with racism week after week #SerieA have launched a campaign that looks like a sick joke. These creations are an outrage, they will be counter-​productive and continue the dehumanization of people of African heritage. It is difficult to see what Serie A was thinking, who did they consult? It is time for the progressive clubs in the league to make their voice heard. (FARE, 2016) Once the campaign was made public, an apologetic De Siervo, Chief Executive of Serie A, stated: I express sincere apologies for the artwork that was presented yesterday, I realized it was inappropriate. … What cannot be questioned is the strong and constant condemnation by Serie A against all forms of discrimination and racism, and we are committed to eradicate this from our beloved league. The league is working on its official anti-​racism campaign, which cannot be identified with Simone Fugazzotto’s work, and will be presented by the end of February. (Quoted in Foufourtwo, 2019b) Even if we dismiss the incident involving Corriere dello Sport as a genuinely unfortunate attempt to highlight the phenomenon of racism in Italian football, surely the same cannot be argued in the case of the ill-​conceived idea to organize a campaign against racism centred around artworks depicting apes. 78

Racism in Football

Given that racist behaviour at football matches commonly includes monkey chanting and bananas being thrown at Black players, Italian football’s governing bodies could not possibly have overlooked the inherently racist connotations of the three paintings that were publicly displayed. Regardless of the artist’s sincere intentions and (I dare say) rational justification in defence of his artwork, the sheer ignorance that was so manifestly demonstrated by the campaign’s organizers is at the least shocking. Ignorance, lack of doubt and lack of education more generally not only persistently defy all known social norms, but also facilitate almost effortlessly the spread of racism and hate crime.

Conclusion Football has had a long history of racial discrimination, the many shapes and forms of racism rendering its elimination from the popular sport an unenviable task. While it is usually directed at players and fans, racial discrimination is also evident in the under-​representation of ethnic minority backgrounds in management positions, whether it be as coaching staff, board council members or even members of governing bodies. Of course, the kinds of discriminatory behaviour and practice witnessed in football only reflect racial discrimination in society at large. Populism, extreme Right political formations and all-​ encompassing issues such as the economy and migration, not to mention the global COVID-​19 pandemic, have divided societies the world over. But oversimplifying the causes of racism does not serve the objectives of any given campaign against racial discrimination, for the citizens of societies better characterized by social divisions may not always express their frustration in a socially acceptable manner and, based on FIFA’s understanding at least, ‘one racist comment … does not necessarily make a person racist’ (nd: 91). Endorsing the validity of this argument would only suggest that the instruments currently available, at international and national levels, to football’s governing bodies for combating racial discrimination –​including national legislation –​ are obviously obsolete. In essence, if we continue with FIFA’s irrational rationale, social scientists would have to develop the all-​important mechanism for quantifying racist behaviour and lawmakers would have to shape the relevant legislation for when the limits of tolerable racism are reached before governments, politicians and the guardians of football will take any concrete action to eradicate racism from the popular game. This is an argument as absurd as the idea of a nonchalant Black player eating the banana that landed next to him before taking a corner (which is what happened to Dani Alves of FC Barcelona while playing away against Villarreal CF) or of fans flying over a stadium in a plane towing a banner that says ‘White Lives Matter’ (which happened during a game between Manchester City and Burnley) –​that absurd! As absurd as listening to White commentators employing racist stereotypes 79

Hate Crime in Football

regarding speed, stamina and physique –​athleticism more generally –​to praise the performance of football players with darker skin and comparing them to gazelles (as ABC journalist Salvador Sostres did). Football’s governing bodies are as dogmatic as any other institution in any given society, and they often mirror the social anxieties, political tensions and economic divisions present in society. In predominantly White societies, the popular game of football has not escaped the prevailing social ‘norms’ that govern them. As a mere reflection of society, football reproduces those same stereotypes that have long divided societies across the world. England, the US and Italy are not exceptions; they are the general rule. And the kind of anonymity that football offers as masses of fans watch a single football match makes racial discrimination in football all the more acceptable. The histories of racial discrimination in England and the US far outdate football in those countries. Both societies continue to celebrate, albeit inadvertently, racial segregation. And while pulling down statues will not help eclipse a racist past –​it is certainly not in any society’s interest to efface history –​ eradicating racism requires a nonaggressive contribution from every member of society and not just a reaction to victimization throughout time. To this end, the popularity alone of the game of football is a useful tool that no governing body, whether in football or in politics, should overlook when addressing the kind of social divisions described in this chapter. Ultimately, only ignorance and lack of education could have us believe that, indeed, one racist comment does not necessarily make a person racist. References Back, L. (2002) ‘Aryans reading Adorno: cyber-​culture and twenty-​first-​ century racism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(4): 628–​651. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (2001) The Changing Face of Football: Racism, Identity and Multiculture in the English Game, New York: Berg. BBC (2019) ‘Serie A uses monkeys in anti-​racism posters’, [online] 16 December, Available from: www.bbc.com/​sport/​footb​all/​50814​275 [Accessed 4 July 2021]. Concacaf (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football) (2015) Diversity Handbook, Concacaf. Concacaf (2016) Statutes of the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football [online], Available from: https://​stco​ncac​ afwp​001.blob.core.wind​ows.net/​media/​ye0pc​4nb/​conca​caf-​statu​tes-​edit​ ion-​2016-​final.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Evans, J. (2021) ‘President Donald Trump says he won’t watch NFL, U.S. national soccer team if there’s kneeling during anthem’, USA Today, [online] 13 June, Available from: eu.usatoday.com/​story/​sports/​2020/​ 06/​13/​donald-​trump-​nfl-​us-​soccer-​kneeling-​during-​national-​anthem/​ 3184906001/​[Accessed 14 June 2021]. 80

Racism in Football

FARE (Football Against Racism in Europe) (2016) ‘Once again Italian football leaves the world speechless. In a country in which the authorities fail to deal with racism’ [Twitter], 16 December, Available from: https://​twit​ter.com/​ fare​net/​sta​tus/​1206​6394​5972​0220​674?lang=​en [Accessed 22 May 2023]. FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) (2016) ‘Clarification on FIFA Task Force Against Racism and Discrimination’ [online], Available from: www.fifa.com/​who-​we-​are/​news/​clarif​i cat​ion-​on-​fifa-​task-​force-​ agai​nst-​rac​ism-​and-​dis​crim​inat​ion-​2837​757 [Accessed 14 June 2021]. FIFA (nd) Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-​Discrimination [online], Available from: https://​dig​ital​hub.fifa.com/​m/​6363f​7dc6​16ff​877/​origi​nal/​ wg4ub​76pe​zwcn​xsao​j98-​pdf.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Fourfourtwo (2019a) ‘Anti-​discrimination boss condemns Italian newspaper’s “Black Friday” headline’, [online] 5 December, Available from: www.four​ four​two.com/​news/​anti-​dis​crim​inat​ion-​boss-​conde​mns-​ital​ian-​new​spap​ ers-​black-​fri​day-​headl​ine [Accessed 14 June 2021]. Fourfourtwo (2019b) ‘Serie A chief executive apologises for “inappropriate” monkey artwork’, [online] 17 December, Available from: www.four​four​ two.com/​news/​serie-​a-​chief-​execut​ive-​apo​logi​ses-​inappr​opri​ate-​mon​ key-​artw​ork [Accessed 14 June 2021]. Juventus Football Club (2019) ‘An open letter to those who love Italian football’, [online] 29 November, Available from: www.juven​tus.com/​en/​ news/​news/​2019/​an-​open-​let​ter-​to-​those-​who-l​ ove-i​ tali​ an-f​ ootba​ ll.php [Accessed 30 November 2019]. Lapchick, R. (2018) The 2018 Associated Press Sports Media Racial and Gender Report Card, The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport [online], Available from: www.tidesp​ort.org/​_​fi​les/​ugd/​7d86e5_​9dca4​bc20​6724​ 1cdb​a67a​a2f1​b09f​d1b.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Lapchick, R. (2020) The 2020 Racial and Gender Report Card: Major League Soccer, The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport [online], Available from: www.tidesp​ort.org/​_​fi​les/​ugd/​326b62_​b206e​ccbe​5a74​67da​6b05​ fcbd​dda1​6ea.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Liew, J. (2021) ‘The England squad is built on immigration –​yet our xenophobic government dares to cheer it on’, The New Statesman, [online] 7 July, Available from: www.newst​ates​man.com/​polit​ics/​2021/​07/​engl​and-​ squad-b​ uilt-i​ mmig​ rati​ on-y​ et-o ​ ur-x​ eno ​ phob​ ic-g​ ove​ rnme​ nt-d​ ares-c​ heer-i​ t [Accessed 8 July 2021]. Lowe, S. (2004) ‘Spain coach in mire over Henry jibe’, The Guardian, [online] 7 October, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/f​ ootba​ ll/2​ 004/o ​ ct/0​ 7/​ newsst​ory.spo​rt5 [Accessed 8 February 2022]. MacInnes, P. (2021) ‘Racist abusers to be banned from all Premier League grounds’, The Guardian, [online] 10 August, Available from: www.theg​ uard​ian.com/​footb​all/​2021/​aug/​10/​rac​ial-​abus​ers-​to-​be-​ban​ned-​from-​ all-​prem​ier-​lea​gue-​g rou​nds [Accessed 11 August 2021]. 81

Hate Crime in Football

UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) (2018) UEFA Statutes –​ February 2018 Edition [online], Available from: www.uefa.com/​Mult​imed​ iaFi​les/​Downl​oad/​uefa​org/​Gene​ral/​02/​56/​20/​45/​25620​45_​D​OWNL​ OAD.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2023]. UEFA (2019) ‘UEFA safety and security regulations’, [online] 15 June, Available from: https://​docume​nts.uefa.com/​r/​UPE0​QDp~FJs​o7vS​x8sl​ qLQ/​V0h​uOQD​gsI~hP9S​2axM​kqg [Accessed 22 May 2023]. UEFA (nd) IX Resolution: European Football United Against Racism, Geneva: UEFA. Ungoed-​Thomas, J. (2021) ‘Elite football in England has 40 referees –​all White. Why don’t Black officials get top jobs?’, The Guardian, [online] 20 November, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​world/​2021/​nov/​ 20/​elite-​footb​all-​in-​engl​and-​has-​40-​refer​ees-​all-​white-​why-​dont-​black-​ offici​als-​get-​top-​jobs [Accessed 21 November 2021]. US Soccer (2019) Bylaws, 2019–​2020 Policy Manual [online], Available from: www.ussoc​cer.com/​gov​erna​nce/​byl​aws [Accessed 14 June 2021]. US Soccer (2020) ‘U.S. Soccer Board of Directors votes to repeal national anthem policy’, [online] 10 June, Available from: www.ussoc​cer.com/​stor​ ies/​2020/​06/​us-​soc​cer-​board-​of-​direct​ors-​votes-​to-​rep​eal-​pol​icy-​natio​ nal-​ant​hem-​pol​icy [Accessed 14 June 2021]. Walker, A. (2021) ‘England’s new culture war: football’, Politico, [online] 7 June, Available from: www.polit​ico.eu/​arti​cle/​engla​nds-​new-​cult​ure-​ war-​footb​all/​ [Accessed 8 June 2021].

82

6

A Critical Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns to Challenge Online Racism in English Professional Football Daniel Kilvington, Jack Black, Mark Doidge, Thomas Fletcher, Colm Kearns, Katie Liston, Theo Lynn, Gary Sinclair and Pierangelo Rosati

Introduction Inside Wembley Stadium, the men’s England manager, Gareth Southgate, huddles his players together for a final team talk before the players step up to take their penalty kicks. First for England is Harry Kane, who scores with a shot that is low and to the goalkeeper’s right. Next is Harry Maguire, who smashes the ball into the top right of the goal. However, Marcus Rashford hits the post and Jadon Sancho’s and Bukayo Saka’s efforts are saved by Italian goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma. It is the final of the UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championship (Euro 2020), held in July 2021 due to the COVID-​19 pandemic, and England have been defeated on penalties. Sadly, the online racist abuse which followed soured what should have been a proud moment for English football, as the national men’s team had reached their first major tournament final since 1966. After the penalty kicks, in the ensuing moments online, the three young England players who missed theirs were rendered Black and ‘foreign’ above anything else, thereby exposing people’s deeply held views concerning race relations. Of particular interest here is the fact that a Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) report released in June 2022 highlighted that more than a third of the online abuse during the final came from online accounts based in the United Kingdom (UK). To offer further context, the 83

Hate Crime in Football

abuse mirrored online reactions a decade prior towards Black English players Ashley Cole and Ashley Young, who also missed penalties against Italy during Euro 2012 (Press Association, 2012). The Euro 2020 case illustrates both the ease with which online racism is expressed and its frequency –​it sadly represents yet another chapter in the history of online racism within football. What is clear is that forms of hate and forms of racism are evolving, with much of this moving online. Indeed, while racist chants and insults, and even bananas, were once hurled at players inside football stadiums, we can now observe these epithets in multiple digital forms. Many strategies (past and present) have sought to challenge online racism in football, some being more effective than others. This chapter begins by drawing on the findings of a scoping review on sport, social media and hate conducted by the research team working on Tackling Online Hate in Football (see Kearns et al, 2022). The review provides important context for this chapter, principally in highlighting what knowledge exists and, arguably more importantly, what has been overlooked to date in this field. It is worth noting here that there has been a sustained rise in the number of academic outputs related to online racism and sport, and much of this has focused on ‘race’ and racism. Having a repository of this work, as provided by the scoping review, is useful for stakeholders wishing to learn about online racism and develop strategies to challenge it. Next, we build on the scoping review by analysing the relationship between football and online racism. This section illustrates the extent and volume of online racism, and wider forms of discrimination in football, via an array of quantitative studies. We also explore a range of theoretical contributions which add much-​needed nuance to our understanding of the contributory factors underpinning online racism. Lastly, we analyse several campaigns designed to challenge online racism in football. These include the efforts of antidiscrimination group Kick It Out, the relative efficacy of social media boycotts and of police sanctions. We conclude the chapter with ideas and countermeasures to challenge online racism in football.

Researching sport and online racism Understanding the current academic research on online racism in sport is an important precursor to the state of knowledge, still developing, on online racism in sport, which is one of the most prominent forms of hate, both expressed and studied. Let us first explain the purpose and benefits of a scoping review. A scoping review is an established method of identifying and mapping evidence on a research topic as well as clarifying key concepts and definitions used in academic literature. It also helps to highlight potential knowledge gaps, thus generating further research ideas and empirical questions (Twitter et al, 2021). Here, we limit our review to the published 84

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

research that was concerned primarily with online racism in sport, thereby eliminating studies with a peripheral focus. This also allows us to establish, with clarity, the extent of the work which has focused on online racism in football. A scoping review that examines the nexus of the internet, sport and discrimination is of paramount importance, as it enables researchers and practitioners to critically understand the ways in which online racism/​ abuse manifests itself and mutates within sport (Kearns et al, 2022). More importantly, scoping reviews are used to highlight knowledge gaps in the field and, in so doing, can generate new ideas and suggest possible avenues and strategies to counter online racism –​all of which should be considered by stakeholders looking to challenge online racism in sport. Throughout this chapter, we draw on some of the key themes and ideas concerning online racism in sport that were identified in Kearns et al (2022). The relevant publications identified in the scoping review were dated between 2005 and 2022. Four main selection criteria were utilized –​ research had to be: peer reviewed; written or available in English; primarily concerned with online hate and sport; and readily available in digital format. This process led to the identification of 41 texts. Each was subjected to further content analysis (for example, pertaining to the source, type, year, authors, number of citations, various sports, national contexts and online media platform). The field of online hate and sport has expanded exponentially since the mid-​2000s: 6 journal papers were published between 2005 and 2014 and a further 35 between 2015 and 2022. This rise is inevitably linked to the growth of social media itself. It has also been noted that the growth of the far Right in countries such as Brazil, India, the UK and the United States has contributed to the greater attention given by academic researchers to online hate more broadly (see Matamoros-​Fernandez and Farkas, 2021). In the context of sport-​related research, high-​profile protests (such as taking the knee against systemic racism; Duvall, 2020) and campaigns against everyday sexism in sport (such as #MoreThanMean; Antunovic, 2019) have also drawn attention to the existence of ‘culture wars’ in sport. Earlier publications on sport and online hate, notably between 2005 and 2011, focused primarily on digital message boards and fan forums. Subsequently, research attention shifted to the big social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. These platforms are particularly useful for research purposes as they generate engaged, real-​time public reactions to sporting events. In terms of the number of posts made, discussions on the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram dwarf those that took place in the more niche spaces of Web 1.0. Indeed, Twitter is now the most popular data source and social media platform for researchers exploring online racism in sport. As an open platform, it permits interactions between all its users, thus facilitating direct communication between sports fans and athletes, 85

Hate Crime in Football

depending on the permissions enabled by users. The platform also differs from others in terms of ease of data accessibility (Williams and Burnap, 2016). Within the scoping review by Kearns et al (2022), of the sports examined, football (or soccer) was the most popular, being the focus in 11 (26.8 per cent) of the published studies; this was followed by 8 studies on American football (19.5 per cent). Eight papers focused on sport generally, while Australian rules football accounted for four, basketball three, tennis and baseball two, and Olympic sports, esports and skateboarding one apiece. Online racism was the most explored category of hate, being the focus of 19 out of the 41 published papers. Football-​related online racism accounted for five (26.3 per cent) of this subset, and three of these focused specifically on English professional football. Here, it is important to clarify that the scoping review criteria refrained from using ‘racism’ as an umbrella term. This meant that those publications investigating Islamophobia and antisemitism comprised separate categories, in which two papers focused on the former and one on the latter. One of the two Islamophobia-​themed papers explored English professional football. Considering the anti-​Black racist abuse directed at England’s three penalty takers –​Rashford, Sancho and Saka –​on Twitter after the Euro 2020 final, and its policies on data access, it is highly likely that Twitter will become even more popular for researchers interested in racism within contemporary spaces of football fandom, digital spaces especially. Given this, we urge reflection on the methodological approaches that might be adopted in analyses of specific instances –​or flashpoints –​of hate that ebb and flow around key event moments, such as penalty misses, yellow and red cards, and even fan resistance to players taking the knee. This is because of the hodiocentric trap (see Liston, 2020) and the limits in understanding that arise from analyses of hate reduced to instances within matches, games and the like, thus missing opportunities to both identify and assess patterns of behaviour and their associated characteristics. Further engagement with anti-​hate stakeholders, policy makers and sports governing bodies is required in order to explore their awareness and understanding of online hate and racism, its impact on those who are targeted and how to best enact positive change. There is considerable value in collaboration between researchers and sports stakeholders, as the co-​creative knowledge exchange can bolster collective efforts to tackle online racism, protect and support victims, and educate users about digital literacy and ‘netiquette’. This chapter, and our scoping review, offer practitioners a solid foundation for understanding. While acting as an accessible entry point to the academic work published in this field, they also help to identify appropriate contacts for collaboration. In the section that follows, we take a closer look at football-​related online racism in the UK context, as well as the responses to it. 86

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

Understanding online racism in football Monkey chants and the throwing of bananas at Black footballers are a stain on the claimed virtues of game. Granted, these instances are now observed less frequently than in previous years (Kilvington and Price, 2017, 2019; Cable et al, 2022), but the threat of this sort of behaviour remains ever-​ present. The implementation of the Football Offences Act 1991, whereby indecent or racist chanting was made illegal, has helped to reduce overt racism in the stands (Back et al, 2001). In comparison to many other leagues across Europe, the English Premier League has arguably become safer due to stadium changes, and it has also become less tribal and more family orientated through the commercialization of the game (Inglis, 2001; Frosdick and Newton, 2006; Williams, 2006; Burdsey, 2015; Kilvington, 2019). That being said, in-​stadium hate speech and hate crime is still prevalent on match days. For example, the Home Office (2022) state that hate crimes were reported at 384 matches (13 per cent of the total) during the 2021/​ 22 season, with 283 of these cases being related to ‘race’. Although each of the 384 reports of hate inside football stadiums is one too many, when compared to the frequency of hate speech directed at players across social media platforms, a clear trend emerges of spectator hate in football having largely migrated from the football stands to digital spaces (Kilvington and Price, 2017; PFA, 2021b; FIFA, 2022). Players –​including Troy Deeney, Yakou Méïté, Tyrone Mings, James Tavernier, Lyle Taylor, Ivan Toney and Wilfred Zaha –​and pundits –​such as Karen Carney, Alex Scott and Ian Wright –​have publicly spoken out via their own social media accounts or the media about the racist and sexist abuse directed at them online. In fact, Kick It Out (2015) recorded around twenty-​two thousand discriminatory posts, across social media platforms, that were directed at players and teams during Euro 2016, and FIFA (2022) highlights that 55 per cent of players involved in the Euro 2020 final and the 2022 Africa Cup of Nations final had also received some form of online abuse. Finally, Signify, in association with the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), found that ‘there was a 48 per cent increase in unmoderated racist online abuse in the second half of the 2020/​21 football season, with 50 per cent of abusive accounts coming from the UK’ (PFA, 2021b). Social media has revolutionized how contemporary fans perform their fandom, as it provides instant, direct and potentially unlimited access to those players regarded as heroes or ‘enemies’. For some, Twitter represents the modern-​day public house or stadium (Cable et al, 2022). It is a space where large numbers of fans can interact, connect and perform their fandom, and where they can celebrate/​commiserate together in pre-​and post-​game euphoria. Yet, it is often an (un)sociable space where hate, abuse and trolling can fester. As the above-​mentioned statistics illustrate, hate is very prevalent, 87

Hate Crime in Football

and this is in tandem with changes in the broader sociopolitical context, in which, for example, the far Right is gaining support. The racist and fascist rhetoric espoused by presidents, prime ministers and other political leaders around the world on offline and online political podiums legitimizes hate speech and can inject even more momentum into the public posting of comments on social media platforms about sports events. Positioning the wider shift in sociopolitical currents alongside the trends in online communication, as well as the inadequate (and weakening) penalties and sanctions for online racism, affords us further insights into how and why online abuse inside, as well as outside, football might be increasing (Suler, 2004; Kilvington, 2021). Suler’s (2004) work on disinhibition allows us to understand the various ways in which online spaces affect human behaviour and interaction. Similarly, Brown (2017) compares online and offline communication, showing that anonymity is achieved much more easily online than that it is offline, which can enhance disinhibition and, therefore, exacerbate the likelihood of expressions of hate and abuse. Anonymity was a contested issue within the published research examined by Kearns et al (2022). While some studies posit it as a central factor in the circulation of hate online (for example, Sanderson, 2010; Love and Hughey, 2015; Page et al, 2016), others argue for a more nuanced understanding that goes beyond the simple assumption that transparency alone can curb online hate through a re-​imposition of mainstream taboos and fears of stigma (for example, Steinfeldt et al, 2010; Love et al, 2017; Matamoros-​Fernandez, 2017; Litchfield et al, 2018; Kavanagh et al, 2019). Following the Euro 2020 final, Twitter stated that of the accounts permanently suspended because of abuse, ‘99 per cent of account owners were identifiable’ (quoted in Williams, 2021). Put simply, verification of account holder identification would have been unlikely to prevent the abuse from happening. This corroborates other research findings which illustrate the limits of ‘silver bullet’ initiatives such as removing the anonymity of users, which in and of itself does not remove the potential for online hate (Santana, 2014). To move the analysis of online racism beyond practical issues such as anonymity, muting of comments and reporting procedures, Kilvington (2021) introduces the ideas of virtual ‘frontstage’ and virtual ‘backstage’ performances, remodelling Goffman’s dramaturgical metaphor for communication. For Goffman (1959), frontstage performances are those which take place in public and include audiences. Within the frontstage, individuals are expected to follow certain accepted rules in a bid not to offend. Backstage interaction is antithetical to this. Goffman argues that backstage language and behaviour include ‘profanity, open sexual remarks, elaborate griping, smoking, (and) rough informal dress’ (1959: 129). It is within this private space, Goffman argues, that more honest borderline and 88

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

abhorrent views can emanate (see Farrington et al, 2015; Hylton, 2018; Kilvington and Price, 2019). For an individual to ‘fit in’ socially, they are expected to participate within these private and informal conversations and adhere to the communication norms. Bonds are developed and strengthened through ‘team collusion’ (Goffman, 1959). Building on this model, Kilvington (2021) suggests that in virtual spaces, the boundaries between the frontstage and the backstage have blurred. Social media profiles are comprised of followers, fans, colleagues and friends, and this gives the appearance that the spaces within these platforms are personal, private and safe. For many, then, social media posts are composed within a space that simulates backstage communication and results in the sharing of more private and potentially secret or abhorrent views. Indeed, social media itself now provides a window into comments formerly reserved for backstage. But technological developments, such as new social media, have also presented humankind with a greater civilizing task/​problem (Elias, 1995). For many people today, having a social media account has become an adjunct to personal and professional life that has widened their freedom of communication. As humans, we are engaged in a collective learning process about the associated changes in the social standard of self-​regulation, the effectiveness of legally enforced regulations about communication via these media, and what is hidden behind the scenes of social life (Liston and Sinclair, 2022). In other words, we are in the process of learning how to deal with the various problems of new social media, as these platforms demand high discipline among users and a uniform and moderate self-​regulation in both the virtual frontstage and virtual backstage. As was the case with the invention of the motor car (Elias, 1995), in new social media, a certain degree of formal, legally enforced regulation and oversight is vital for its safe functioning. In whatever ways people might respond to this, the social standard of regulation is less effective when it is not translated into individual self-​regulation. The challenge to all stakeholders connected to the game of football is how to combat online racism and educate fans. The next section explores several existing approaches.

Assessing responses to online racism in football Kearns et al (2022) illustrate that sport and digital platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are increasingly popular areas of interest for academic research, especially research on football that includes specific incidents and flashpoints. More than half the papers examined in the scoping review used qualitative research methods to construct a picture of how hate is manifested online. As we noted earlier, future research should delve beyond such flashpoints to examine patterns and social context, not least how coordinated hate speech is enacted within the space of football. Moreover, 89

Hate Crime in Football

we argue that future work should critically explore how stakeholders can best challenge the growing problem of online racism, and wider forms of hate. Although Kilvington and Price (2017) postulate that the key stakeholders within professional football have been ‘caught off guard’ by the problem of hate and online abuse towards players, clubs and fans, several campaigns have been initiated in response to the problem. These include Kick It Out’s Klick It Out campaign in 2016, the #Enough campaign in 2019, the social media boycotts in 2019 and 2021 and the launch of the specialist digital unit of the United Kingdom Football Policing Unit (UKFPU). We examine these initiatives and strategies before offering closing remarks on ideas and countermeasures for the future.

Kick It Out and the Klick It Out campaign Initially, Kick It Out, formed in 1993 under the banner of Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football, sought to challenge racism in football stadiums. However, the charity soon refocused, and in 1997 it rebranded in a bid to challenge all forms of discrimination within football. A quarter of a century later, Kick It Out is a well-​recognized lobbying group which seeks to scrutinize the practice of stakeholders within football and hold them to account. Yet these stakeholders jointly fund the organization: the English Football League (EFL), the Football Association (The FA), the PFA and the Premier League each contribute around a quarter of a million pounds per year. This puts Kick It Out in a tenuous position. They received a further financial boost in 2021 from their partnership with Sky, worth £3 million per year across three years. Sky, a central player in the sports media landscape, constitutes a stakeholder (the media) that Kick It Out are tasked with scrutinizing, thus further illustrating the organization’s tenuous position. Nonetheless, this additional funding has helped Kick It Out to focus on their strategic objectives. In their words: Football should be a game for everyone, whether they play it, work it in it or support it. But not everyone is welcome. Kick It Out’s mission is to campaign for change to end discrimination and build belonging, so that everyone feels they can be a part of a sport that should be for all. (Kick It Out, nd-​a, emphasis added) Although social media is not mentioned specifically within their aims and objectives, Kick It Out recognize this is a critical medium of engagement for football supporters today (Guschwan, 2016). Their awareness of the challenges of online racism is certainly growing. Kick It Out provide a reporting function via their app, an email address, a phone number, social media sites and their own website, and they encourage 90

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

reports of discrimination by supporters at professional and grassroots games as well as reports of the use of social media to post hate and abuse. Reports of discrimination relating to the professional game have declined in recent seasons. There were 446 reports made to Kick It Out regarding professional games in the 2019/​20 season, dropping to 380 during the 2021/​22 season. Kick It Out began to receive reports relating to social media discrimination in football during the 2012/​13 season, and in response they appointed a full-​ time reporting officer to deal with these complaints. Bennett and Jönsson note that the reporting officer is tasked with conducting an ‘investigation of the [social media] user by looking through their account to find the team they support, a full name, location and date of birth’ (2017: 205). They add that if this information cannot be found, the case ‘is unlikely to go to court and reach an outcome’ (Bennett and Jönsson, 2017: 205). Instead, the expectation is that Kick It Out would work with the social media company to close down the account. Despite an array of recent studies illustrating that social media hate in football is rife (for example, PFA, 2021b; FIFA, 2022), reports to Kick It Out of incidents of discrimination on social media have steadily decreased in recent years, from 121 in 2019/​20 to 108 in 2020/​21 and 74 in 2021/​22 (Kick It Out, nd-​b). Kick It Out point out that this drop may have been, in part, due to the introduction of the Football Online Hate Working Group who claim to have ‘addressed processes around sanctions and enforcements, as well as communications and campaigns’ (Kick It Out, nd-​b). It may also be the case that online racism and abuse is being reported in other ways, such as via football club websites or apps as well as directly to social media platforms and to the police. Or perhaps people have become less willing to send reports to Kick It Out, and other organizations, as sanctions have traditionally been few and far between –​for example, Bennett and Jönsson (2017) note that during the 2014/​15 season, the police took no action, or failed to respond, to more than half of the 80 reports they received concerning social media hate in football. Alongside Kick It Out’s reporting functionality, they launched a social media expert group in 2015, which aimed to agree and set priorities for the football community, the police, social media organizations and governments around challenging online hate. The success of this group was limited, but it did lay the foundations for the Football Online Hate Working Group which launched subsequently in 2021. This collaborative group comprises representatives from the Home Office, Sky, the UKFPU, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and social media organizations. The group aims to: agree shared short-​, medium-​and long-​term strategies to challenge online racism and abuse in football; enforce proactive monitoring of social media platforms; collaborate in investigations and legal actions against online hate and abuse; develop educational resources; 91

Hate Crime in Football

share information and ideas about challenging online racism and abuse; and send direct and clear communication to fans encouraging them to report online hate and abuse and adopt a zero tolerance approach to such behaviour (Committees Parliament, 2021). This collaborative approach is a positive step and responds to the criticism by Kilvington and Price (2017) that stakeholders tend to work in silos. The fact that academics and researchers are not involved in this collaborative working group is a missed opportunity to utilize their expertise as a resource for policy makers in this field. Indeed, as the findings of our scoping review (Kearns et al, 2022) suggest, greater collaboration between academics and the various stakeholders working to stop online racism and abuse is required to grasp the practical insights gleaned from peer-​reviewed research that might shape ideas, campaigns and policy making. In May 2016, Kick It Out became the first key stakeholder in football to launch a bespoke campaign to challenge online racism. The Klick It Out campaign, which continued throughout the men’s Euro 2016 tournament, was supported by the Premier League, the EFL, The FA, the PFA, Twitter, Facebook and the Ministry of Justice. It used advertisements, educational films and a microsite to create awareness of the problem. Roisin Wood, then Director of Kick It Out, said: ‘We want this campaign to illustrate the level of discrimination that still occurs on social media that is a stain on football’ (quoted in O’Neil, 2016). Kick It Out’s multipronged efforts to challenge online racism in football deserve some credit. Their educational rehabilitation sessions with online offenders (Bennett and Jönsson, 2017) and the educational resources around online discrimination that are housed on their website are worth noting. Yet Klick It Out, which was a timely and worthwhile campaign, was short-​lived, and the methods for tracking and evaluating its impact were never shared. This campaign could have been repeated annually and/​or embedded within celebrations such as Black History Month, Pride Month or South Asian Heritage Month. Klick It Out might also have been taken into schools and other educational institutions, as well as across the football family, on a longer-​term basis, similar to the work of the educational charity Show Racism the Red Card. Kick It Out described the campaign as a ‘step in the right direction’ but acknowledged too that ‘a great deal of work still needs to be done alongside this’ (Bennett and Jönsson, 2017: 213). Kick It Out continue to be one of the leading stakeholders in the fight against online abuse in football and, alongside others, they have submitted evidence in support of the Online Safety Bill before Parliament at the time of writing. With the financial injection from Sky and other strategic collaborations, it is hoped that Kick It Out can build on their efforts against online racism and abuse. 92

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

Social media boycotts In April 2019, the PFA launched the #Enough campaign, which encouraged professional footballers in England and Wales to undertake a 24-​hour boycott of social media in protest against racist abuse on and off the pitch. Phil Neville, former England women’s manager, said: ‘I’ve lost faith in whoever runs these social media platforms, so I just wonder whether as a football community, in terms of sending a powerful message, it is: come off social media’ (quoted in Kilvington and Price, 2022: 109). This first boycott paved the way for other boycotts in 2021. For four days, starting 30 April 2021, The FA, the Premier League, the EFL, the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Championship, the League Managers Association, the PFA, Kick It Out, Women in Football and other organizations and individuals involved in cricket, tennis, rugby, Formula 1 and horse racing similarly boycotted social media platforms in protest against online racism. This boycott was also backed by FIFA, UEFA and a plethora of sports broadcasters. In a statement, the Premier League noted three clear aims of the boycott that were similar to those of the PFA two years prior. First, the boycott attempted to pressure social media organizations to be proactive in the fight against online racism. Second, it called on social media platforms to integrate a verification process to limit anonymity. Third, it asked for ‘real life’ penalties for online abusers, such as banning perpetrators, assisting with legal action and preventing account re-​registration (Premier League, 2021). The boycott called for a zero tolerance approach to online abuse within football, with key stakeholders uniting to challenge the practice of social media giants. The combined following of the online accounts that took part in the boycott totalled over 1.7 billion people (Walker, 2021), a clear illustration of the magnitude of this campaign. Kick It Out (2022) add that over eleven hundred press pieces focused on the boycott, which generated a reach of over two hundred and nineteen million people. As noted earlier, Kilvington and Price argue that the key stakeholders in football have tended to work in isolation from each other in their attempts to challenge online hate and that they must ‘open their channels of communication and agree on a unified and collaborative approach to challenging football-​related social media abuse’ (2017: 9). The 2021 boycott arguably shows greater unison and demonstrates that relationships and better communication between these stakeholders are being forged. These are likely to develop further with the presence of the Football Online Hate Working Group. The need for strength in numbers was highlighted by Simone Pound, Director of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at the PFA, who said: ‘In 2021, with a collective voice, we can hold social media companies to account and send a powerful message to a global audience –​abusive behaviour is unacceptable’ (quoted in PFA, 2021a). 93

Hate Crime in Football

Further analysis is required to explore whether the four-​day boycott in 2021 led fans to reflect on, and change, their conduct and online behaviour. It certainly would have provided them with a glimpse into a world without online access to players and clubs. The online silence by some of the biggest clubs and footballers in the world during this short period was symbolic of the growing seriousness with which football stakeholders are addressing online racism. Despite the efforts in 2019 and 2021, boycotts have been few and far between, thus limiting opportunities to assess their effectiveness. Their sporadic nature and short duration have been criticized by Manavis (2021), who states: ‘Even if someone only follows 200 accounts, on any platform, one account disappearing won’t make a major difference to their overall feed. Algorithms are built to fill whatever void appears with more content from other users, sponcon and older posts to keep you engaged.’ While the boycott represents a mini-​break-​cum-​vacation from social media, or a social media detox, for players, clubs and public relations teams across the sporting landscape, it was a missed opportunity to work collectively to develop educational outputs, ways to support and protect victims and ways to identify, prevent and challenge future perpetrators, as well as a missed opportunity for direct collaboration with social media platforms to identify and remove hate. We therefore embrace Manavis’ (2021) view that ‘the effective part isn’t leaving –​it’s the conversation’. Prior to the 2021 boycott, Jordan Henderson (who plays for Liverpool Football Club and England) partnered with nonprofit organization The Cybersmile Foundation, which educates people about online abuse and provides support for victims. For one week, Cybersmile took control of Henderson’s Twitter account, which had around 1.8 million followers, and posted a series of helpful materials on the impact of social media abuse on victims. These sorts of ‘conversation’ have great potential reach and could be used as part of a coordinated effort among stakeholders moving forward. When recipients of online abuse stay silent or permanently remove their accounts from social media, this is arguably a symbolic win for the trolls and perpetrators of online racism and abuse; but for many on the receiving end, this is a necessary act of protectionism given the lack of collective action or self-​regulation by stakeholders in football. The England men’s team manager, Gareth Southgate, mirrored Phil Neville’s suggestion and noted that high-​profile players who receive negative attention on social media should ‘think about’ deleting their profiles (Southgate cited in Young, 2021). This followed the action of former Arsenal and France player Thierry Henry, who quit social media in March 2021 due to online racism and bullying. If the aspiration is that online spaces should be inclusive, then further work is required to understand the balance of rights and responsibilities of those involved. Let us not forget that one of the unintended consequences of 94

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

boycotts is that while they are happening, they afford antisocial users of social media greater online space. The impact of the 2021 boycott did not live long in many spectators’ memories as torrents of racist abuse were posted online several months later, following the Euro 2020 final. Chelsea’s Raheem Sterling revealed that he was racially abused online within 48 hours of the end of the boycott (PFA, 2021b). Therefore, probing questions remain about the medium-​to long-​ term impact of social media boycotts. Do they change spectator behaviour online and, if so, in what ways? Can they lead to meaningful policy change by social media companies? And how might the relationships built between stakeholders be capitalized on to deliver the aims of such boycotts?

United Kingdom Football Policing Unit Following the Euro 2020 final, the UKFPU, a specialist police unit for football, was launched in the UK. The unit works closely with social media organizations to access relevant data to help progress reports of online racism/​ abuse. These arrive from local police forces, charities, football clubs and partner organizations. This unit is tasked with tracing perpetrators’ details and sharing these with relevant local police forces for further investigation. After the Euro 2020 final, the UKFPU received more than six hundred reports of online discrimination. It deemed 207 of those to be criminal, and within one month of the final, 11 arrests were made (Solon, 2021). Most of the discriminatory social media posts were from the United Kingdom (FIFA, 2022). Twitter revealed that owners were identifiable for 99 per cent of the permanently suspended accounts; this highlights the level of misunderstanding in the argument that anonymity is a contributory factor in online abuse (Williams, 2021). In a similar vein, Santana’s (2014) qualitative study on posts on the topic of immigration in online forums found that while 65 per cent of participants submitted hateful comments under the veil of anonymity, the remaining 35 per cent posted uncivil comments using their real names. Put simply, many online users were emboldened to post discrimination and abuse without hiding their personal details. The UKFPU is important in addressing online racism as it plays a key role in identifying perpetrators and escalating hateful accounts to the relevant police authorities. The work of the unit means there is now a greater likelihood that fans who post online hate, whether anonymously or not, will face consequences. For instance, on 29 June 2022, legal sanctions were passed meaning that people convicted of a football-​related online hate crime can face a banning order preventing them from attending live football matches. This new legislation also means that the CPS can ask courts for tougher penalties for abusive online posts about the protected characteristics of an individual or a group. For Barker and Jurasz: ‘Although legislation cannot 95

Hate Crime in Football

change attitudes, it can increase awareness and give victims more confidence and, combined with other measures outside of the law, can contribute to a gradual, attitudinal change’ (2018: 5, emphasis added). This reinforces the points made already in this chapter concerning the need for, and the benefits of, a more collaborative approach between all stakeholders. In order for the UKFPU to work effectively, it is pivotal that they establish clear channels of communication with professional clubs and social media organizations. Challenges already exist in that regard. Chief Constable Mark Roberts, head of the UKFPU, revealed that after writing to all 92 professional football clubs in England, only three Premier League clubs accepted the police invitation to help in tackling online hate (Parmenter, 2021). Roberts added that 49 clubs provided a positive response, but only 8 have since facilitated access to players. As Kilvington and Price (2017) note, first team players at some professional clubs are practically out of bounds and, in some cases, even club safeguarding officers cannot access them. It is essential then that clubs work with the UKFPU to embed a streamlined approach to assistance on legal matters. We also see an opportunity for collaboration between academics/​researchers and the UKFPU. This could draw, for instance, on the new longitudinal insights from the Tackling Online Hate in Football team concerning: when, how and why online racism spikes within football; what forms this takes and if it has changed over time; and whether cultivated and planned hate operates within this space and how this comes about.

Conclusion This chapter has critically explored online racism in English professional football within the context of current research on online hate. This research field is certainly expanding, with new and innovative areas of enquiry emerging all the time. Kearns et al (2022) show that athletes and players have been the main focus of work to date and that racism is the most explored form of hate. There is a need though for future research to consider the extent to which images, GIFs, emojis and similar ‘secret’ codes are being used online by individuals and hate groups to target individuals and communities. It was recently revealed that some Facebook groups are using the carrot emoji to hide anti-​vax content from automated moderation tools (Kleinman, 2022). No doubt similar techniques are being used to mask online racism in sport. Future studies should also examine the nuances, reach and impact of spontaneous individual and coordinated political attacks within the context of online racism in football. More collaborative and strategic work by stakeholders will also be required to address the latter, to move beyond sanctions for individual instances of hate. In this sphere, we believe that academics/​researchers can work with practitioners to build 96

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

effective partnerships. This might involve the co-​design, implementation and evaluation of interventions to tackle online racism. The chapter has also outlined the extent of online racism in football and drawn on key analytical concepts –​such as virtual frontstage and virtual backstage, and collective self-​regulation –​to explain the social conditions which enable online racism and abuse, as well as noting the ongoing challenges. A number of campaigns have sought to raise awareness of online racism in football, but the effectiveness of the campaigns is still unclear. The approaches are in their infancy and they demonstrate the complexities associated with social media, which transcends nations, cultures and legal systems. Considerable work remains in this regard. Football does not operate in a vacuum; rather, it is conceived of and practised in social contexts by human beings. Consequently, future recommendations for tackling online racism might focus on changes within the game and beyond. The work of Kick It Out and the intervention by some individual players are examples of attempts to encourage change. In countermeasures against offline racism and discrimination, change came from player and fan campaigns subsequently triggering developments in legislation and policing and generating greater ownership of the problem among the fans themselves. Slowly, players and organizations like Kick It Out are raising the issue of online racism, and the establishment of the UKFPU is one structural change in that direction. The relative autonomy of governing bodies in football contributes to the failure to take responsibility for addressing racism, offline or online, with some organizations passing the buck to others. Unintentionally or otherwise, this means that online racism may be ignored in a milieu in which no one organization wants to, or can, own the problem. Consequently, one of the recommendations for reform is that governing bodies and leagues –​like The FA, the EFL and the Premier League –​take the lead. In doing so, they could better support players, reinforce the efforts of Kick It Out and ensure that clubs are involved in these efforts too. This would require clubs to undergo training, establish reporting protocols and resolutions, and support their staff who may also be the victims of online racism. Clubs could take a central role in supporting the welfare of their players and staff on this issue, just as they do with other areas of safeguarding. Here, safeguarding officers could be trained to support people who are on the receiving end of online racism, and governing bodies would need to have appropriate sanctions in place to deal with issues as they arise. Football stakeholders might also exert their power and influence by lobbying government and social media companies to take the issue seriously. In the first instance, this would include the Football Online Hate Working Group. While to date much of the focus of this work has centred on online anonymity, the wider social acceptability of many forms of discrimination is a crucial social precondition for online racism that needs to be addressed 97

Hate Crime in Football

too. The UK government’s Online Safety Bill focuses on anonymous trolls, yet many journalists and politicians use racist, homophobic, misogynist and ableist abuse in their public writings and speeches. And when political leaders use homophobic and Islamophobic terms to criticize gay men or Muslim women, this is often defended in the media and in Parliament. This acquiescence goes some way towards explaining why football fans might engage in similar abuse towards footballers. Football is the world’s most popular sport. It captures the emotions and hearts of the wider public in a way that few other activities do. While it is hoped that stakeholders in the game will step up and show other sports what needs to be done to tackle online racism, the greater challenge is how to bring about coordinated social change such that formal regulations, reporting protocols and even punitive legal punishments become progressively unnecessary as online racism diminishes. As Liston (2019) notes in relation to the management of brain injuries in another sports-​related context, culture eats protocol for breakfast. The ultimate challenge relates to social norms, values and beliefs and the processes by which we live our lives in interdependence with one another. References Antunovic, D. (2019) ‘“We wouldn’t say it to their faces”: online harassment, women sports journalists, and feminism’, Feminist Media Studies, 19(3): 428–​442. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (2001) The Changing Face of Football: Racism, Identity and Multiculture in the English Game, Oxford: Berg. Barker, K. and Jurasz, O. (2018) Online Misogyny as a Hate Crime: A Challenge for Legal Regulation? London: Routledge. Bennett, H. and Jönsson, A. (2017) ‘Klick it Out: tackling online discrimination in football’, in D. Kilvington and J. Price (eds) Sport and Discrimination, London: Routledge, pp 203–​214. Brown, A. (2017) ‘What is so special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech?’, Ethnicities, 18(3): 297–​326. Burdsey, D. (2015) ‘Football fans must take the lead in the fight against racism’, The Conversation, [online] 25 February, Available from: http://​ thec​onve​rsat​ion.com/​footb​all-​fans-​must-​take-​the-​lead-​in-​the-​fight-​agai​ nst-​rac​ism-​37988 [Accessed 21 February 2017]. Cable, J., Kilvington, D. and Mottershead, G. (2022) ‘“Racist behaviour is interfering with the game”: exploring football fans’ online responses to accusations of racism in football’, Soccer & Society, 23(8): 880–​893. Committees Parliament (2021) Written Evidence Submitted by EFL, Kick It Out, The Football Association, The Premier League (OSB0007) [online], Available from: https://​com​mitt​ees.par​liam​ent.uk/​writ​tene​vide​nce/​ 38784/​pdf/​ [Accessed 20 October 2022]. 98

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

Duvall, S. (2020) ‘Too famous to protest: far-​Right online community bonding over collective desecration of Colin Kaepernick, fame, and celebrity activism’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 44(3): 256–​278. Elias, N. (1995) ‘Technization and civilisation’, Theory, Culture & Society, 12(3): 7–​42. Farrington, N., Hall, L., Kilvington, D., Price, J. and Saeed, A. (2015) Sport, Racism and Social Media, London: Routledge. FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) (2022) ‘AI monitoring: protecting professional players. Euro 2020 final +​AFCON 2022 final study’, FIFA Threat Matrix, [online] 18 June, Available from: https://​dig ​ital​hub.fifa.com/​m/​58e4c​303c​a219​7f5/​origi​nal/​FIFA-​ Thr​eat-​Mat​r ix-​Rep​ort.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2022]. Frosdick, S. and Newton, R. (2006) ‘The nature and extent of football hooliganism in England and Wales’, Soccer & Society, 7(4): 403–​422. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, London: Penguin Books. Guschwan, M. (2016) ‘New media: online fandom’, Soccer & Society, 17(3): 351–​371. Home Office (2022) ‘Football-​related arrests and banning orders, England and Wales: 2021 to 2022 season’, [online] 22 September, Available from: www.gov.uk/g​ ove​ rnme​ nt/s​ tat​ isti​ cs/f​ ootba​ ll-r​ elat​ ed-a​ rres​ ts-a​ nd-b​ ann​ ing-o ​ rde​ rs-e​ ngl​and-​and-​wales-​2021-​to-​2022-s​ eas​ on/f​ ootba​ ll-r​ elat​ ed-a​ rre​ sts-​and-​bann​ing-​ord​ers-​engl​and-​and-​wales-​2021-​to-​2022-​sea​son#repor​ ted-​incide​nts-​at-​footb​all-​matc​hes [Accessed 20 October 2022]. Hylton, K. (2018) Contesting ‘Race’ and Sport: Shaming the Colour Line, London: Routledge. Inglis, S. (2001) ‘All gone quiet over here’, in M. Perryman (ed) Hooligan Wars: Causes and Effects of Football Violence, Edinburgh: Mainstream, pp 87–​94. Kavanagh, E., Litchfield, C. and Osborne, J. (2019) ‘Sporting women and social media: sexualization, misogyny, and gender-​based violence in online spaces’, International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(4): 552–​575. Kearns, C., Black, J., Doidge, M., Fletcher, T., Kilvington, D., Liston, K., Lynn, T., Rosati, P. and Sinclair, G. (2022) ‘A scoping review of research on online hate and sport’, Communication and Sport, 11(2): 402–​430. Kick It Out (2015) Annual Report 2015/​16 [online], Available at: www. kickit​out.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2022-​06/​Kick_​It_​O​ut_​2​015-​16-​Rep​ ort-​Final.pdf [Accessed 19 September 2018]. Kick It Out (nd-​a) ‘Our aim and objective’ [online], Available from: www. kickit​out.org/​aim-​and-​object​ive [Accessed 22 May 2023]. Kick It Out (nd-​b) ‘Reporting statistics’ [online], Available from: www. kickit​out.org/​report​ing-​sta​tist​ics [Accessed 24 October 2022].

99

Hate Crime in Football

Kilvington, D. (2019) ‘Racist abuse at football games is increasing, Home Office says –​ but the sport’s race problem goes much deeper’, The Conversation, [online] 9 October, Available at: https://t​ heco ​ nver​ sati​ on.com/​ raci​ st-a​ buse-a​ t-f​ ootba​ ll-g​ ames-i​ s-i​ ncr​ easi​ ng-h ​ ome-o ​ ff​i ce-s​ ays-b​ ut-t​ he-s​ po​ rts-​race-​prob​lem-​goes-​much-​dee​per-​124​467 [Accessed 25 October 2019]. Kilvington, D. (2021) ‘The virtual stages of hate: using Goffman’s work to conceptualise the motivations for online hate’, Media, Culture & Society, 43(2): 256–​272. Kilvington, D. and Price, J. (2017) ‘Tackling social media abuse? Critically assessing English football’s response to online racism’, Communication and Sport, 7(1): 64–​79. Kilvington, D. and Price, J. (2019) ‘From backstage to frontstage: exploring football and the growing problem of online abuse’, in S. Lawrence and G. Crawford (eds) Digital Football Cultures: Fandom, Identities and Resistance, New York: Routledge, pp 69–​85. Kilvington, D. and Price, J. (2022) ‘The beautiful game in a world of hate: sports journalism, football and social media abuse’, in R. Domeneghetti (ed) Insights on Reporting Sports in the Digital Age: Ethical and Practical Considerations in a Changing Media Landscape, London: Routledge, pp 104–​119. Kleinman, Z. (2022) ‘Anti-​vax groups use carrot emojis to hide Facebook posts’, BBC, [online] 16 September, Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​ tec​hnol​ogy-​62877​597 [Accessed 20 October 2022]. Liston, K. (2019) ‘Concussion in Sport, GAA National Games Development Conference, Dublin, Croke Park’ [video], YouTube, Available from: https://​ youtu.be/​gWYI​IOWE​gaU [Accessed 20 October 2022]. Liston, K. (2020) ‘Figurational sociology and the sociology of sport’, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology [online], John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/​ 9781405165518.wbeosf054.pub2 Liston, K. and Sinclair, G. (2022) ‘The problem of self-​regulation and social media’, Presentation at The Fantasy-​Reality Continuum: Science, Religion, Politics, Culture, University of Warsaw, 8–​10 December. Litchfield, C., Kavanagh, E., Osborne, J. and Jones, I. (2018) ‘Social media and the politics of gender, race and identity: the case of Serena Williams’, European Journal for Sport and Society, 15(2): 154–​170. Love, A. and Hughey, M.W. (2015) ‘Out of bounds? Racial discourse on college basketball message boards’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(6): 877–​893. Love, A., Gonzalez-​Sobrino, B. and Hughey, M.W. (2017) ‘Excessive celebration? The racialization of recruiting commitments on college football internet message boards’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 34(3): 235–​247. Manavis, S. (2021) ‘Why social media boycotts never work’, The New Statesmen, [online] 27 April, Available from: www.newsta​ tesm ​ an.com/s​ cie​ nce-​tech/​2021/​04/​do-​soc​ial-​media-​boyco​tts-​actua​lly-​work-​prem​ier-​lea​ gue-​chri​ssy-​tei​gen [Accessed 20 October 2022]. 100

Analysis of Past and Present Campaigns

Matamoros-​Fernandez, A. and Farkas, J. (2021) ‘Racism, hate speech, and social media: a systematic review and critique’, Television & New Media, 22(2): 205–​224. O’Neil, J. (2016) ‘She Kicks supports Klick It Out’, She Kicks [online], Available from: https://​sheki​cks.net/​she-​kicks-​suppo​r ts-​klick-​it-​out/​ [Accessed 25 October 2022]. Page, J.T., Duffy, M., Frisby, C. and Perreault, G. (2016) ‘Richard Sherman speaks and almost breaks the internet: race, media, and football’, Howard Journal of Communications, 27(3): 270–​289. Parmenter, T. (2021) ‘Just three Premier League clubs accept police invitation to help tackle online racism, top officer reveals’, Sky News, [online] 14 October, Available from: https://​news.sky.com/​story/​prem​ier-​lea​gue-​ just-​three-​of-​20-​clubs-​say-​the​yll-​work-​with-p​ oli​ ce-t​ o-h ​ elp-d​ eal-w ​ ith-o ​ nl​ ine-​rac​ist-​abuse-t​ op-o ​ ffic​ er-r​ evea​ ls-1​ 24339​ 01 [Accessed 25 October 2022]. PFA (Professional Footballers’ Association) (2021a) ‘Latest news: social media boycott’, [online] 30 April, Available from: www.thep​ fa.com/n ​ ews/2​ 021/​ 4/​30/​stop-​onl​ine-​abuse [Accessed 20 October 2022]. PFA (2021b) ‘Online abuse –​AI research study (season 2020–​21)’, [online] 4 August, Available from: www.the​pfa.com/​news/​2021/​8/​4/​onl​ine-​ abuse-​ai-​resea​rch-​study-​sea​son-​2020-​21#:~:text=​Today%2C%20a%20 PFA%2Dfun​ded%20r​esea​rch,accou​nts%20com​ing%20f​rom%20the%20 UK [Accessed 25 October]. Premier League (2021) ‘No Room For Racism: English Football Announces Social Media Boycott’, [online] 24 April, Available from: https://www. premierleague.com/news/2116111#:~:text=%22We%20are%20calling%20 on%20organisations,tolerate%20discrimination%20in%20any%20 form.%22 [Accessed 7 August 2023] Press Association (2012) ‘Police investigate alleged racist Twitter abuse of Ashley Cole and Ashley Young’, The Guardian, [online] 26 June, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​uk/​2012/​jun/​26/​pol​ice-​alle​ged-​rac​ist-​ abuse-​twit​ter [Accessed 25 October 2022]. Sanderson, J. (2010) ‘Weighing in on the coaching decision: discussing sports and race online’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(3): 301–​320. Santana, A.D. (2014) ‘Virtuous or vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards’, Journalism Practice, 8(1): 18–​33. Sharpe, J.P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M., Warren, R., Wilson, C., Stelfox, H.T. and Straus, S. (2016) ‘A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(15): 1–​10. Solon, O. (2021) ‘Bulk of racist abuse after Euro soccer final sent from U.K. accounts, Twitter says’, NBC News, [online] 10 August, Available from: www.nbcn​ews.com/​tech/​soc​ial-​media/b​ riti​ sh-a​ ccoun ​ ts-s​ ent-b​ ulk-​ rac​ist-​abuse-​dur​ing-​euro-​2020-​final-​n1276​432 [Accessed 20 October]. 101

Hate Crime in Football

Steinfeldt, J.A., Foltz, B.D., Kaladow, J.K., Carlson, T.N., Pagano, L.A., Benton, E. and Steinfeldt, M.C. (2010) ‘Racism in the electronic age: role of online forums in expressing racial attitudes about American Indians’, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(3): 362–​371. Suler, J. (2004) ‘The online disinhibition effect’, CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(3): 321–​326. Twitter UK (2021) ‘Combatting online racist abuse: an update following the Euros’, Twitter Blog, [online] 10 August, Available from: https://​blog.twit​ ter.com/​en_​gb/​top​ics/​comp​any/​2020/​com​batt​ing-​onl​ine-​rac​ist-​abuse-​ an-​upd​ate-​follow​ing-​the-​euros [Accessed 20 October 2022]. Walker, C. (2021) ‘REVEALED: Football’s social media boycott reached 1.7BILLION people as big names including FA president Prince William, Gary Lineker and Lewis Hamilton joined the blackout to send a message to tech giants to clean up abusive platforms’, Mail Online, [online] 13 May, Available from: www.dailym​ail.co.uk/​sport/​spo​rtsn​ews/​arti​cle-​9574​393/​ Footba​lls-​soc​ial-​media-​boyc​ott-​reac​hed-​1-​7BILL​ION-​lead​ing-​stars-​spo​ rts-​joi​ned-​in.html [Accessed 25 October 2022]. Williams, J. (2006) ‘Protect me from what I want: football fandom, celebrity cultures and new football in England’, Soccer & Society, 7(1): 96–​114. Williams, M.L. and Burnap, P. (2016) ‘Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: a case study in computational criminology and big data’, British Journal of Criminology, 56(2): 211–​238. Williams, R. (2021) ‘99% of accounts Twitter removed for Euro 2020 abuse were not anonymous’, iNews, [online] 10 August, Available from: https://​ inews.co.uk/​news/​tec​hnol​ogy/​99-​of-​accou​nts-t​ witt​ er-r​ emov​ ed-f​ or-e​ uro-​ 2020-​abuse-​were-​not-​anonym​ous-​1144​621 [Accessed 25 October 2022]. Young, A. (2021) ‘Gareth Southgate wants all footballers to consider quitting social media like Thierry Henry’, Evening Standard, [online] 28 March, Available from: www.stand​ard.co.uk/​sport/​footb​all/​gar​eth-​southg​ate-​ foot​ball​ers-​quit-​soc​ial-​media-​thie​r ry-​henry-​b926​674.html [Accessed 25 October 2022].

102

7

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football Connor Humphries and Rory Magrath

Introduction English association football1 (soccer) has typically been a hostile environment for sexual minorities (Dunning, 1986). Through its historical association with physical strength, skill and power, professional football has promoted an orthodox form of masculinity, excluding and marginalizing any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality. Even in relation to the contemporary game, there are claims among some sections of media that a highly homophobic environment remains (see, for example, Jones, 2014; Myers, 2020); this is supported by the fact that Kick It Out –​English football’s most influential equality, diversity and inclusion organization –​have documented an overall (though not entirely consistent across all seasons) increase in reports of hate crime related to homophobia, biphobia and transphobia (HBT) at professional games –​and indeed all types of discrimination across the different levels of the game and online –​since they began collecting this data, during the 2012/​13 season. It is tempting to interpret these statistics as evidence of increased hate crime, and discrimination based on HBT specifically, in the men’s game. Countering these perceptions, however, there is a significant, and growing, body of evidence that suggests this may no longer be true. Indeed, research on football fans (for example, Cashmore and Cleland, 2012; Cleland et al, 2018, 2021; Magrath, 2018, 2021a, 2021b, 2022; Pearson, 2012; Cleland and Cashmore, 2016), elite footballers (for example, Magrath et al, 2015; Magrath, 2017a, 2022) and sports media (for example, Cleland, 2014, 2018; Billings and Moscowitz, 2018; Gaston et al, 2018) has shown increased levels of acceptance. Moreover, in recent years, there is a growing number –​albeit 103

Hate Crime in Football

still small –​of ‘out’ gay male professional players across the world; these include Josh Cavallo (at Adelaide United, Australia, when he came out), Zander Murray (at Gala Fairydean Rovers, Scotland) and Jake Daniels (at Blackpool, England). Against this somewhat paradoxical backdrop, this chapter explores the contemporary relationship between men’s football and homosexuality. To do so, we first explore the historical context of the professional game’s emergence (in the mid-​19th century), including its cultural significance. Then we document how improved attitudes towards homosexuality in the United Kingdom (UK) have parallels in football. We then interrogate, in more detail, the statistics for hate crime reported to Kick It Out before concluding with some important considerations regarding their significance.

Foundations of football: masculinity and sexuality Although the invention of machinery and transportation necessary for industrialization began in the early 1700s, the antecedents of today’s sporting culture can be traced to the years of the second Industrial Revolution: the mid-​1800s to the early 1900s. It was around this time that the organization, regulation and codification of most dominant team sports occurred (Guttmann, 1978) –​including association football, in 1863. At this time, sport –​particularly men’s competitive team sports, including football –​was thought to provide and instil the qualities of discipline and obedience necessary in dangerous occupations (Rigauer, 1981). For the sake of earning the requisite wages to support their dependent families, men were required to sacrifice their time and health working in what Anderson and Magrath (2019) refer to as ‘DAD [dangerous and dirty] jobs’. Thus, in service to the increased industrialized interests in Anglo-​American cultures, participation in sport was taught to boys to reinforce the value of self-​sacrifice (Anderson, 2009). Perhaps of greater significance to this chapter, the gender segregation conventions of the time enabled sport to play an important role in (re) masculinizing boys. Indeed, with the emergence of a supposed ‘crisis of masculinity’ –​one characterized by fears that boys were becoming overly feminized due to overbearing mothers and typically absent fathers –​men were forced to embody the vibrancy of their heterosexual identities. This was achieved by aligning their ‘gendered behaviours with an idealized and narrow definition of masculinity’ (McCormack and Anderson, 2014: 114). Kimmel (1994) argues that idealized attributes include repressing pain and concealing feminine and (homo)sexual desires/​behaviours while, at the same time, committing acts of violence against oneself and others. This was significant because, as Carter argues, sport provided ‘a clear hierarchical structure, autocratic tendencies, traditional notions of masculinity and the 104

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

need for discipline’ (2006: 5). Somewhat predictably, then, early modern (organized) sport was epitomized by high levels of violence, both on and off the field (Young, 2019). Because of sport’s historical role in facilitating these normative masculine ideals, it was not thought likely, or even possible, that a man who participated in sport would be gay. Accordingly, we can reasonably conclude that sport has served to privilege not all men, but rather –​more specifically –​straight men. The exclusion of sexual minorities and women from sport –​women’s participation in football was denounced and English football’s governing body, The Football Association (The FA), banned women’s games for a 50-​year period, from 1921 until 1971, on the grounds that they were ‘quite unsuitable’ (Williams, 2021) –​has historically led sport to promote and celebrate an orthodox form of masculinity (Anderson, 2009). It is unsurprising that boys and men within this cultural domain were socialized into an overwhelmingly heteronormative –​and homophobic –​environment. It is also unsurprising that sport has reflected developments in the broader cultural context. For example, the partial decriminalization2 of homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967 and its removal from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental illnesses in 1973 resulted in a steady growth in visibility of homosexuality in Western cultures. By the mid-​1980s, however, the advent of a new virus that, at the time, was deadly –​HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) –​became closely associated with the gay community and gay men in particular. The virus killed tens of thousands of gay men and, thus, drew attention to gay men’s existence in larger numbers in the general population. The conservative sociopolitical responses to the HIV/​AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) crisis, in both the UK and the United States (US), demonized the gay community in these countries, and deleterious attitudes towards homosexuality reached an all-​time high by the end of that decade. These hostile attitudes were evidenced in various social attitude surveys. Indeed, the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey showed that the share of adults who believed that same-​sex sex was either ‘always wrong’ or ‘mostly wrong’ increased by 14 percentage points –​from 62 per cent to 76 per cent –​between 1983 (when the question was first asked) and 1987 (Clements and Field, 2014). Against this homophobic backdrop, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government –​believing homosexuality to be a threat to ‘traditional’ family values –​introduced the infamous Section 28 legislation in 1988. This legislation was effectively designed to impede the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in British schools. By extension, the legislation also effectively erased any discussion of homosexuality whatsoever, contributing to a homophobic environment (see, for example, Epstein and Johnson, 1998). Although the law was finally repealed in 2003, its legacy is still felt by those who experienced it (Lee, 2019). 105

Hate Crime in Football

In the US, the statistics for intolerant attitudes were especially high: Twenge et al’s (2016) analysis of the data shows that in 1988, 80 per cent of American adults believed homosexuality was ‘always wrong’. Elsewhere, research in Germany showed that only 22 per cent of the population held favourable attitudes towards homosexuality, and in Spain this was as low as 13 per cent (Jensen et al, 1988; see also Gerhards, 2010). Writing about the UK and the US –​although there is more than sufficient evidence to suggest this can be applied further afield –​Anderson concludes that ‘1987 or 1988 seems to the apex of homophobia’ (2009: 89).

Football in a culture of hostility The hostile attitudes towards homosexuality in society generally were, unsurprisingly, also evident in sport. As Messner notes in relation to the US: ‘the extent of homophobia in the sports world is staggering. Boys (in sports) learn early that to be gay, to be suspected of being gay, or even to be unable to prove one’s heterosexual status is not acceptable’ (1992: 34). Also in the US, Curry found among the heterosexual athletes in his research that ‘[n]‌ot only is being homosexual forbidden, but tolerance of homosexuality is theoretically off limits as well’ (1991: 130). And the (closeted) gay men in Pronger’s Canadian research indicated that ‘they were uncomfortable with team sports. … Orthodox masculinity is usually an important subtext if not the leitmotif ’ (1990: 26). And finally, in the Netherlands, Hekma found that ‘gay men who are seen as queer and effeminate are granted no space whatsoever in what is generally considered to be a masculine preserve and macho enterprise’ (1998: 2). Given this hostile environment, sexual minority individuals tended to either avoid participation in ‘mainstream’ sport, hide their sexual identities (see, for example, Pronger, 1990) or restrict themselves to gay-​only sports leagues (Elling et al, 2003). The Gay Games, first held in San Francisco in 1982, is likely the biggest and best example of this. In her historical account of this event, Symons writes that ‘[t]‌he first Games were … a reaction to the deep and divisive homophobia which many gay athletes had encountered in mainstream sport and which had driven them to look for an alternative outlet for their love of sport’ (2010: vii). Indeed, unsurprisingly, elite-​level athletes who did come out during this time typically received abuse, faced rejection and found their careers in tatters. While, curiously, there is no published research into attitudes towards homosexuality in British men’s sport in the period from the 1980s until the early-2000s, we can reasonably conclude that the experience of Justin Fashanu –​the world’s first out gay male professional footballer –​is evidence of the hostility in the game at the time. In 1990, having learned that details of his private life were about to be revealed, Fashanu came out in The 106

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

Sun under the now-​infamous headline: ‘£1m football star: I AM GAY’. While he initially claimed that he was accepted by his teammates, Fashanu then suffered severe backlash from the football community –​including his own manager, Brian Clough. He never signed a professional contract in the English game again and eventually retired in 1997 (Mitchell, 2012). Following his retirement, with an allegation of sexual assault against a 17-​ year-​old boy in the US, Fashanu took his own life. It is generally accepted that the appalling mistreatment of Fashanu throughout his life –​he and his brother were sent to a care home when his parents split –​and career was a contributing factor in him taking his life. Indeed, the coroner wrote that Fashanu was likely to have been overwhelmed by the ‘degree of prejudice’ he had suffered (Ponting, 2012), including the racism and homophobia endemic in the football industry at the time. Accordingly, Magrath describes Fashanu as a ‘trendsetter’ for the relationship between football and homosexuality and someone who was ‘symbolic of [this] fractious relationship’ (2017a: 63). Contextualizing Fashanu’s experiences –​ as well as the extreme homophobia of this cultural epoch –​Raewyn Connell (1990, 1995, 2000) advances hegemonic masculinity theory to highlight the existence of a stratification of masculinities within a hierarchical structure. In Masculinities, she famously defines hegemonic masculinity as ‘the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees … the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’ (Connell, 1995: 77). Her theory, which recognizes the plurality of masculinities, places gay men –​what she refers to as ‘subordinated’ masculinity –​at the bottom of the intra-​masculine hierarchy, representing ‘the most conspicuous form of masculinity’ (Connell, 1995: 79). This is maintained through an archetype of masculinity being ‘culturally exalted above all others’ (Connell, 1995: 77), achieved through the deployment of violence, aggression, homophobia and sexism. Most men, however –​according to Connell’s (1987) stratification –​ represent a ‘complicit’ form of masculinity, which, despite having little connection with the hegemonic form of masculinity, still gives them the apparent patriarchal dividend of male privilege. Connell’s theorizing also conceptualizes men of colour and working-​class men as representing ‘marginalized’ forms of masculinity, socially excluded –​and marginalized –​ by their ethnicity and socioeconomic status. To illustrate this, Connell uses the example of Black athletes, who, despite representing hegemonic forms of masculinity in some ways, are still sidelined by the nature of race relations in the West. Given the extreme homophobia and subsequent marginalization of gay (and effeminate) men at the time when Connell put forward her theory, it was the most prominent attempt to theorize masculinities (Connell and 107

Hate Crime in Football

Messerschmidt, 2005) –​especially in the hypermasculine environment of men’s team sports.

A culture of inclusivity Since the turn of the millennium, the Western world has seen a considerable shift in attitudes towards homosexuality (Keleher and Smith, 2012). By the start of the new millennium, the BSA survey showed that 46 per cent of those sampled believed that same-​sex sex is ‘wrong’ (37 per cent believed it is ‘always wrong’ and 9 per cent believed it is ‘mostly wrong’; Clements and Field, 2014). Five years later, this had declined to 39 per cent (27 per cent believing it is ‘always wrong’ and 12 per cent believing it is ‘mostly wrong’), and by the end of that decade, this had decreased again, to 30 per cent (20 per cent believing it is ‘always wrong’ and 10 per cent believing it is ‘mostly wrong’; Clements and Field, 2014). In the summer of 2022 –​despite suggestions that acceptance of homosexuality has plateaued –​the overall figure stands at just 16 per cent (10 per cent believing it is ‘always wrong’ and 6 per cent believing it is ‘mostly wrong’). This marked change from the peak of homophobia is, as written in the BSA survey analysis, ‘almost unrecognisable from its … starting point, with homosexuality … viewed resolutely through a liberal lens’ (Curtice et al, 2019: 4). Similar trends towards acceptance are evident in other Western countries. Referring to the US, for example, Keleher and Smith’s analysis of social attitude surveys led them to contend that we are ‘witnessing a sweeping change in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men’ (2012: 1324). Indeed, around two thirds of American adults now believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society (Twenge et al, 2016). In Western Europe, Sweden is, according to data from the Pew Research Center (Pousher and Kent, 2020), the gay-​friendliest nation: 94 per cent of those sampled agreed with the statement ‘homosexuality should be accepted by society’. This was closely followed by the Netherlands (92 per cent), Spain (89 per cent), France and Germany (both 86 per cent) and Italy (75 per cent). And, in Canada, 85 per cent of those surveyed indicated support for homosexuality (Pousher and Kent, 2020). Changing cultural attitudes have also been underpinned by a range of legal changes, including, perhaps most notably, the introduction of same-​ sex marriage. Indeed, since 2001 when the Netherlands became the first country to recognize same-​sex marriage, 32 countries across the world have followed suit. This includes Canada (in 2006), the UK (in 2013), the US (in 2015) and Australia (in 2017). In 2019, Taiwan became the first Asian country to permit same-​sex marriage, while in 2022 Switzerland became the latest European country to implement this change. And by 2022 all states in Mexico had recognized same-​sex marriage. In addition to the introduction 108

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

of same-​sex marriage, the right for same-​sex couples to adopt children has been permitted in 33 countries across the world (Clark, 2022). But in the UK, despite these significant changes –​and of particular relevance to this ­chapter –​recorded hate crimes have consistently increased between 2010 and 2020 for all centrally monitored strands (race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender). The most recent Home Office statistics on sexual orientation, for example, released in October 2022 (Home Office, 2022), reveal a 41 per cent increase in hate crime against sexual minorities during 2020–21 and 2021–22 (in line with the broader increases). For transgender hate crimes, there was a rise of 56 per cent. Reasons for the inconsistency of improved attitudes but increased reporting of hate crime vary and are, naturally, complex. Similar trends are typically evident in contemporary football, with scholarly research documenting improved levels of acceptance, but increased reports of hate crime and discrimination –​the next sections of this chapter examine these trends in greater detail.

Football in a culture of inclusivity While there remain claims that sport –​football in particular –​is resistant to broader social change (see, for example, Butterworth, 2006; Jones, 2014; Myers, 2020), there is a plethora of academic evidence documenting improved cultural attitudes in sport (Anderson, 2011b; Anderson et al, 2016; Gaston and Dixon, 2020; Magrath, 2022). For example, Adams’ (2011) ethnography found that a US university football team expressed inclusive attitudes towards sexual minorities and challenged the traditional notion of orthodox masculinity (strength, self-​sacrifice and heterosexuality). Anderson (2011a) found similar levels of inclusivity among another university-​based football team in the US, while Adams and Anderson (2012) highlight the progressive attitudes in US football in the first-​ever first-​hand account (possible as a researcher was present at the time) of an athlete coming out as gay to the rest of the team. The teammates welcomed the player with open arms and mentioned that they felt closer to the player after learning his true sexual identity. A similar research project explored experiences of having a gay teammate. Antonio Hysén, the son of former Liverpool player Glenn Hysén, came out as gay while a semi-​professional footballer in Sweden. Humphries et al (2020) interviewed Hysén’s teammates and found that they viewed his sexuality as insignificant and did not think it affected team cohesion. There were some concerns about sharing changing rooms and the heightened media coverage when Hysén first came out, but these were in the minority. Moreover, the players were extremely critical of fans’ and opposing players’ use of homophobia to taunt Hysén. Interestingly, many of the players would evoke violence on opposing players (for example, going in to tackle harder than necessary) if they were homophobic towards Hysén (Humphries et al, 2020). 109

Hate Crime in Football

Similar experiences have been documented in the UK, though the ‘impregnable world [of] professional football’ (Magee and Sugden, 2002: 423) means no research has been conducted at that level of play. However, Magrath et al’s (2015) research on the next best demographic –​academy players –​shows overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards a hypothetical gay teammate, and the players agreed that their current best friend would still be their best friend if they came out as gay (see also Magrath, 2017a, 2017b). None of the participants feared sharing a bed with the hypothetical gay teammate, and none saw any issues with a gay athlete joining their team (Magrath et al, 2015). Accordingly, Magrath argues that ‘the hypothetical inclusivity articulated by these men serves as a roadmap for when one of their teammates does come out’ (2017a: 169). Similar, albeit perhaps not as progressive, levels of acceptance have been documented in other research on academy footballers (Adams and Kavanagh, 2018) and among UK university footballers (see, for example, Adams et al, 2010; Magrath, 2021b). Even research on football fandom –​a demographic which has traditionally been stigmatized as homophobic –​shows that tolerant attitudes towards homosexuality are increasingly commonplace. Cashmore and Cleland’s (2012) large-​scale quantitative research found that 93 per cent of fans were supportive of homosexuality in British soccer. These fans believed that a player’s on-​field performance should be the only significant criterion on which they are judged. When this research was replicated almost a decade later, this had increased to 95 per cent (Cleland et al, 2021). Magrath (2018) found that despite some of his sample engaging in chanting that featured animus towards homosexuality, they still maintained positive attitudes. And in research with gay and bisexual male football fans, Magrath (2021a, 2022) found that they felt football stadia had become more inclusive and safe spaces in recent years, though there were ongoing concerns regarding negative posts on social media. Similar findings are coming out of netnographic research on football fandom. Indeed, despite the anonymity of online fans forums, Cleland’s (2015) analysis of fans’ discussion of homosexuality found largely positive mentions of gay athletes, which he suggests is evidence of a ‘changing cultural context’. Indeed, the few posts containing homophobic sentiment were actively challenged by other users. The same was also true of fans’ responses to Thomas Hitzlsperger coming out (Cleland et al, 2018). Interestingly, however, these sorts of findings are typically dependent on the sport under discussion. In the context of American football, for example, Kian et al (2011) found homophobic posts went largely uncontested. In Brazil, Nabono Martins’ (2022) analysis found similar use of homophobic language despite fans’ assertions that they accepted homosexuality in football. However, online inclusivity has not been so evident, as on social media –​particularly Twitter and Instagram –​discrimination and abuse 110

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

towards footballers, football clubs, governing bodies and other fans is endemic. Indeed, in a recent scoping review of social media abuse, Kearns et al contend that ‘the mediatisation and digitalisation of sporting events position them as flashpoints for online hate’ (2022: 2). An analysis of football-​related abuse on social media conducted by Signify, on behalf of the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), in 2021 shows that homophobia is the most common form (32 per cent) of online discriminatory abuse targeting UK professional footballers in the men’s and women’s games (PFA, 2021). Interestingly, although that study found that homophobic abuse peaked during anti-​LGBT+​-p​ hobia campaigns such as Rainbow Laces (PFA, 2021), Hansen et al’s (2022) analysis documented that ‘only’ 10 per cent of comments about LGBT+​campaigns were negative. In more traditional media, though explicit discussions of male homosexuality in sport have typically been erased (Vincent and Crossman, 2008), there is evidence that sports media have become increasingly positive in their coverage and representation of LGBT+​athletes in recent years (Magrath, 2019; Morales and White, 2019; White et al, 2021). Media analyses of elite LGBT+​male athletes –​such as Jason Collins (Billings and Moscowitz, 2018), Michael Sam (Cassidy, 2017) and Tom Daley (Magrath et al, 2017) –​document that, as Kian et al put it, ‘the institution of sport, and the sport media industry itself, are both rapidly adopting more inclusive perspectives concerning gay men’ (2015: 634). These positive narratives have also extended to the domain of sports journalism, which has been shown to be an overwhelmingly inclusive domain (Kian et al, 2015; Magrath, 2020). Contextualizing the greater acceptance of sexual minorities in sport has required a paradigmatic shift in theory too. Indeed, recognizing that Connell’s theorizing –​discussed earlier –​is accurate in times of high homophobia, Anderson’s (2009) inclusive masculinity theory has been prolific in framing both improved experiences of sexual minorities and the subsequent impact on men’s expression of gender –​including an increase of physical tactility and emotional intimacy (the ‘bromance’), a decline of the ‘one-​time rule of homosexuality’ (that one same-sex sex experience homosexualises) and the removal of pernicious intent in ‘homosexually-​themed language’ (Cleland et al, 2021; see also Anderson, 2008; McCormack, 2011; Anderson and McCormack, 2015; Robinson and Anderson, 2022). Inclusive masculinity theory has, however, received some critique. de Boise, for instance, critiques the central premise of the theory and claims that –​ despite the overwhelming body of evidence (discussed earlier) –​‘homophobia is still prevalent’ and claims otherwise are ‘actively dangerous’ (2015, 334). Other scholars, including O’Neill (2015), contend that the theory fails to account for the role of women. While this is not an unreasonable criticism, Anderson –​and others who use the theory –​point out that this is not a focal point of the theory. Since these critiques were 111

Hate Crime in Football

addressed in the Journal of Gender Studies (Anderson and McCormack, 2018), the theory has received no other significant critique. Additionally, it has been widely employed in academic work on football –​including much of the work discussed in this section.

Combating homophobic hate crime Kick It Out is perhaps the highest-​profile organization committed to tackling all types of discrimination at all levels of football. Established in 1993 (initially as Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football) to combat antisocial behaviour (such as racism and hooliganism), Kick It Out’s remit was later extended to include discrimination based on HBT. It has since, according to Gardiner and Welch, been a ‘crucial component in promulgating education and attitude-​changing initiatives’ (2011: 227). Although it has not been without criticism –​some professional players have, on occasion, refused to endorse the organization due to its supposed inadequacies –​it is fair to say that it has had some success in facilitating a decrease (if not the complete disappearance) of overt racism in the professional game (see, for example, Burdsey, 2020). Tackling homophobia in football, however, can be a lot more challenging since sexuality, unlike racism, is invisible –​a footballer can hide their sexual orientation but not the colour of their skin. A lack of out gay male professional footballers also means that there may be a perceived lack of gay target for discriminatory chanting or other types of abuse. This problem, along with the lack of role models, makes the issue more challenging to address. But while Kick It Out and other key stakeholders –​such as The Justin Campaign and Football v Homophobia –​have been vocal in opposing discrimination, The FA have historically been far slower at overtly tackling this issue. The organization’s initial anti-​homophobia (or anti-​LGBT+​-​phobia) policy document, Irrespective of Sexual Orientation, published in 2006 (and focused on a four-​year period), provided a ten-​point plan that included specific focus on leadership, education, sanctions and encouraging the reporting of discriminatory behaviour. However, this campaign was criticized from many within the game as mere lip service (Magrath, 2017a). The following year, in 2007, they were praised for amending English football stadia regulations to ensure that homophobic abuse could be punishable in the same way as other forms of discrimination. Just over a decade later, former rugby union player Gareth Thomas, supported by Conservative Member of Parliament Damian Collins (then chair of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee), tabled a draft amendment to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 that would explicitly outlaw homophobic abuse at matches (replacing the previous terminology that referred simply to chanting of an ‘indecent or racialist nature’). 112

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

In 2012, seeking to move beyond their initial policy, The FA sought guidance from all the major stakeholders in English professional football (the Premier League, the English Football League –​EFL, the PFA and Professional Game Match Officials) to present their new action plan: Opening Doors and Joining In. The overall purpose of this plan is to advance LGBT+​ inclusion and to tackle homophobia and transphobia (biphobia is not explicitly mentioned). The 40-​page document is structured into four sections. The first two outline The FA’s commitment to ensuring ‘football for everyone’ and describe their previous work in this area. The third section, perhaps the most significant, comprises the six delivery themes of the action plan: education, visibility, partnerships, recognition, reporting discrimination and monitoring. Each theme has a list of actions and a note of ‘what success looks like’. The final section outlines the delivery partner that The FA will work with to ensure that football is ‘recognised as a welcoming place for fans and supporters by the LGB&T and wider football communities’ (The FA, 2012: 6). While on the surface this appears to be a reasonable and sensible strategy, scholarly examination of Opening Doors and Joining In is less optimistic. For instance, using Ahmed’s concept of ‘non-​performativity’ –​in this context, the idea of ‘being seen’ to ‘do’ inclusion –​Bury concludes that ‘the FA, rather than being fully committed to tackling homophobia and including LGB&T individuals, creates an effect of being committed to … LGB&T inclusion and tackling homophobia’ (2015: 221). Similarly, Magrath and Stott (2019: 32) are critical of the action plan’s intended breadth –​for example, both the men’s game and the women’s game (at all levels of the game) and all key stakeholders (fans, players, coaches, managers and referees) are covered –​as well as more complex issues, such as the conflation of homophobia with biphobia and transphobia. They also raise concerns over the ‘devolution of responsibility’ to other key stakeholders –​Kick It Out, Football v Homophobia, police, stewards and so on –​which they suggest leads to a diluted application of policy. Moreover, only 15 per cent of the 53 fans in this research were aware of The FA’s policy (Magrath and Stott, 2019). The FA’s focus on ‘reporting discrimination’ also raises concern; indeed, only two thirds of the fans in Magrath and Stott’s research knew about the collaboration between The FA and Kick It Out to provide fans with an additional medium through which to report discrimination (a smartphone app launched during the 2012/​13 football season to accompany other modes of reporting to Kick It Out). Kick It Out’s statistics on reports of discrimination show that the app did have some impact, however. Indeed, despite mixed levels of confidence among fans in the reporting process and its associated outcome (see, for example, Magrath and Stott, 2019; Penfold and Cleland, 2022), reports received by Kick It Out of all types of discrimination have increased on an annual basis since the 2012/​13 season, 113

Hate Crime in Football

aside from seasons affected by the COVID-​19 pandemic; indeed, reports of all types of discrimination increased by 269 per cent at all levels of the game (grassroots and professional) in the app’s first season. These statistics are interrogated in more detail in the next section.

Kick It Out’s statistics on hate crime in football As noted earlier, Kick It Out’s smartphone app has provided fans with an extra way to report any form of hate crime in the game (in addition to being able to report via email, telephone and via social media). Incidents of any form of discrimination at grassroots and professional levels of the game, as well as abusive social media posts, can be reported to Kick It Out, who then attempt to follow up cases with relevant organizations. We focus in this section on discrimination against sexual minorities (that is, discrimination based on HBT) reported by fans in attendance at the professional level of the men’s game. Table 7.1 provides statistics on overall reports –​that is, reports of all forms of discrimination at grassroots and professional levels as well as reports of abuse on social media –​and reports Table 7.1: Reports of discrimination based on homophobia, biphobia and transphobia to Kick It Out Season

Reports of all forms of discrimination at professional and grassroots games and on social media

2013/​14

284

64

10 (15.6%)

2014/​15

393

180

33 (18.3%)

2015/​16

402

122

28 (22.9%)

2016/​17

469

206

43 (20.9%)

2017/​18

520

214

56 (26.1%)

2018/​19

581

313

60 (19.2%)

2019/​20

661

446

117 (26.2%)

2020/​21

229

34

15 (44.1%)

2021/​22

610

380

110 (28.9%)

* *

Reports of all forms of discrimination at professional games

Reports of discrimination based on homophobia, biphobia and transphobia at professional games (Percentage of reports of all forms of discrimination at professional games)

Source: Kick It Out (nd); Magrath and Stott, 2019 Note: * Season affected by the COVID-​19 pandemic (most matches were played behind closed doors)

114

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

related to all forms of discrimination in the professional game, and reports of HBT specifically in the professional game. The statistics in Table 7.1 show an overall trend of increased reporting of all forms of discrimination across the professional and grassroots games and on social media and in reports of discrimination based on HBT at professional games; the 2020/​21 season is an exception due to stadia being closed to fans during the COVID-​19 pandemic; numbers rose again in 2021/​22, but not quite to the levels in 2019/​21. Interestingly, when the annual statistics were first released by Kick It Out, they referred to how many of these cases were proven (and thus led to a conviction and/​or sanction); however, for reasons unknown –​perhaps due to the low percentage of such cases (Magrath and Stott, 2019) –​this has not been provided since the 2014/​15 season. Regardless, it is tempting to conclude from these statistics that total discrimination, and discrimination based on HBT specifically, is worsening. Tony Burnett, Chief Executive Officer of Kick It Out, recently claimed in a Culture, Media and Sport select committee that these statistics indicate that football has been regressing and ‘going back to the 1970s and 1980s’ (PA Media, 2022). We argue, however, that closer examination of these statistics is required. Although the pattern is of increased reporting, the actual prevalence of reports indicates that one report of discrimination based on HBT was made every twenty matches or so in professional English football. This figure is based on 380 matches in a regular Premier League season, 1,656 matches in a regular EFL season (not including the 15 annual play-​off matches), all matches in the EFL Cup, and all matches in the FA Cup (from the first round onwards, not including any replays). It does not include matches played among the 24 clubs in the National League (the fifth tier of English football, where some clubs are professional), the EFL Trophy or any continental matches (that is, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League or the UEFA Europa Conference League); nor does it include international matches. Importantly, Kick It Out do not make explicit reference to whether duplicate reports are counted in its overall statistics (that is, whether two fans reporting one incident are counted separately). Important questions emerge following this inspection of the data. For instance, given that the total attendance (for league matches only) in the 2021/​22 football season was over thirty-​one million, is the rate of reporting mentioned earlier evidence of an endemic issue of HBT in football stadia? Perhaps more importantly, why have reports of discrimination based on HBT, and discrimination more broadly, been increasing over the past decade? While it is tempting to contend that this is because the issue is getting worse, it may be better explained by fans’ increased willingness to report discrimination, including that based on HBT, in line with improved attitudes among fans (see, for example, Cashmore and Cleland, 2012; Magrath, 2018, 2021b, 115

Hate Crime in Football

2022; Cleland et al, 2021), or it could be due to greater stigmatization of homophobia than of homosexuality (see, for example, McCormack, 2012; Cleland et al, 2018). It is perhaps also linked to the moves towards LGBT+​ inclusion in professional football, particularly with annual events such as Rainbow Laces (see, for example, Letts and Magrath, 2022).

Conclusion In this chapter, we have presented a range of scholarly evidence that shows there has been profound attitudinal change in English professional football (for example, Cashmore and Cleland, 2012; Magrath et al, 2015; Magrath, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2021a, 2021b; Cleland et al, 2021). Previous traditional definitions of masculinity, while still held by some at all levels of the game, are not wholly reflective of the culture of football in the 21st century. Naturally, of course, our research findings do not capture the views of all fans, players, administrators or journalists. Nor do we make any claim that homophobia has been fully eradicated. Behaviours that would once have led to homosexual suspicion and widespread stigmatization are no longer a threat to male heterosexual identity. Instead, our evidence concurs with Thorpe, who writes that masculinities ‘are multiple and dynamic; they differ over space, time, and context, and are rooted in the cultural and social moment’ (2010: 202). Despite the changes, the past decade has seen a significant increase in reports of discrimination based on HBT to Kick It Out, thus indicating that improved attitudes do not necessarily equate to improved behaviours (a halt to HBT-​themed chanting, for instance). A more detailed interrogation of the statistics allows for a more nuanced understanding, particularly when one considers how many professional matches are played each season (upward of two thousand) and the attendance at these matches (in excess of thirty million people). Even so, the presence of any discrimination remains problematic. Reports of such events are partial evidence of cultural lag –​in this case, football fans’ language does not reflect the more positive attitudes held generally towards sexual minorities (see, for example, Magrath, 2018); this lag also constitutes a concern. While these are legitimate concerns, contemporary football culture has evolved considerably over the past decade. Changing attitudes –​even if, as Kick It Out’s statistics might suggest, there continues to exist a cultural lag with behaviour –​is the first step in improving the sporting climate for all fans. Again, as we have previously acknowledged, there is also more focus on LGBT+​inclusion in football, with clubs now regularly ‘aligning their brand image with sexual minorities and [becoming] actively involved in a range of LGBT activities’ (Magrath and Anderson, 2017: 160). The increase (and influence) of LGBT+​fan groups aligned to professional football clubs is further evidence of inclusiveness (Magrath, 2021a). 116

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

Further investigation is required into how we address the inconsistency of more positive attitudes yet an overall trend of increased reports of discrimination based on HBT in the professional game (even with a critical eye on the nature of these statistics). Indeed, but for some notable exceptions (see, for example, Jones and McCarthy, 2010; Magrath, 2021a), little is known of the experiences of sexual minority fans, players, coaches and so on. Finally, given the critique levelled at existing policy in English football (see, for example, Magrath and Stott, 2019; Penfold and Cleland, 2022), the next phase of research could move beyond a simple attitudinal focus to look at how to improve the effectiveness of initiatives to tackle HBT in the professional game. Thus far, this has proven to be difficult given that practice and research rarely communicate effectively –​ particularly in sport (Harvey, 2017). Resolving these tensions could, therefore, be an important starting point to ensuring more effective policy. Notes 1

2

Although we make some references to the women’s game, this chapter predominantly focuses on men’s football. This refers to the decriminalization of same-​sex sex between two consenting males over the age of 21, a law which was not equalized in Scotland and Northern Ireland until over a decade later.

References Adams, A. (2011) ‘“Josh wears pink cleats”: inclusive masculinity on the soccer field’, Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5): 579–​596. Adams, A. and Anderson, E. (2012) ‘Exploring the relationship between homosexuality and sport among the teammates of a small, Midwestern Catholic college soccer team’, Sport Education and Society, 17(3): 347–​363. Adams, A. and Kavanagh, E. (2018) ‘Inclusive ideologies and passive performances: exploring masculinities and attitudes toward gay peers among boys in an elite youth football academy’, Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3): 313–​322. Adams, A., Anderson, E. and McCormack, M. (2010) ‘Establishing and challenging masculinity: the influence of gendered discourses in organized sport’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(3): 278–​300. Anderson, E. (2008). “Being masculine is not about who you sleep with...:” heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sex roles, 58(1-2), 104–115. Anderson, E. (2009) Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities, London: Routledge. Anderson, E. (2011a) ‘Inclusive masculinities of university soccer players in the American Midwest’, Gender and Education, 23(6): 729–​744. Anderson, E. (2011b) ‘Updating the outcome: gay athletes, straight teams, and coming out in educationally-​based sport teams’, Gender & Society, 25(2): 250–​268. 117

Hate Crime in Football

Anderson, E. and Magrath, R. (2019) Men and Masculinities, London: Routledge. Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2015). Cuddling and spooning: Heteromasculinity and homosocial tactility among student-athletes. Men and masculinities, 18(2), 214–230. Anderson, E. and McCormack, M. (2018) ‘Inclusive masculinity theory: overview, reflection and refinement’, Journal of Gender Studies, 27(5): 547–​561. Anderson, E., Magrath, R. and Bullingham, R. (2016) Out in Sport: The Experiences of Openly Gay and Lesbian Athletes in Competitive Sport, London: Routledge. Billings, A.C. and Moscowitz, L. (2018) Media and the Coming Out of Gay Male Athletes in American Team Sports, New York: Peter Lang. Burdsey, D. (2020). Racism and English football: For club and country. Routledge. Bury, J. (2015) ‘Non-​performing inclusion: a critique of the English Football Association’s action plan on homophobia in football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(2): 211–​226. Butterworth, M.L. (2006) ‘Pitchers and catchers: Mike Piazza and the discourse of gay identity in the national pastime’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30(2): 138–​157. Carter, N. (2006) The Football Manager: A History, London: Routledge. Cashmore, E. and Cleland, J. (2012) ‘Fans, homophobia and masculinities in association football: evidence of a more inclusive environment’, British Journal of Sociology, 63(2): 370–​387. Cashmore, E. and Cleland, J. (2014) Football’s Dark Side: Corruption, Homophobia, Violence and Racism in the Beautiful Game, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Cassidy, W. P. (2017). Inching away from the toy department: Daily newspaper sports coverage of Jason Collins’ and Michael Sam’s coming out. Communication & Sport, 5(5), 534–553. Clark, C. (2022) ‘Here are the countries where same-​sex marriage is legal’, Gay Times, [online] 4 August, Available from: www.gaytim ​ es.co.uk/o ​ rigin​ als/​here-​are-​the-​countr​ies-​where-​same-​sex-​marri​age-​is-​legal/​ [Accessed 3 November 2022]. Cleland, J. (2014) ‘Association football and the representation of homosexuality by the print media: a case study of Anton Hysén’, Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9): 1269–​1287. Cleland, J. (2015) ‘Discussing homosexuality on association football fan message boards: a changing cultural context’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(2): 125–​140. Cleland, J. (2018) ‘Britain’s first openly gay football referee: the story of Ryan Atkin’, in R. Magrath (ed) LGBT Athletes in the Sports Media, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 125–​146. 118

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

Cleland, J. and Cashmore, E. (2016) ‘Football fans’ views of violence in British football: evidence of a sanitized and gentrified culture’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 40(2): 124–​142. Cleland, J., Magrath, R. and Kian, E.M. (2018) ‘The internet as a site of decreasing cultural homophobia in association football: an online response by fans to the coming out of Thomas Hitzlsperger’, Men and Masculinities, 21(1): 91–​111. Cleland, J., Cashmore, E., Dixon, K. and MacDonald, C. (2021) ‘Analyzing the presence of homosexually-​themed language among association football fans in the United Kingdom’, Communication & Sport. doi: 10.1177/​ 21674795211005 Clements, B. and Field, C.D. (2014) ‘Public opinion toward homosexuality and gay rights in Great Britain’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(2): 523–​547. Connell, R. W. (1987) Gender and Power. Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics, Cambridge: Polity. Connell, R.W. (1990) ‘A whole new world: remaking masculinity in the context of the environmental movement’, Gender & Society, 4(4): 452–​478. Connell, R.W. (1995) Masculinities, Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R.W. (2000) The Men and the Boys, Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R.W. and Messer schmidt, J.W. (2005) ‘Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept’, Gender & Society, 19(6): 829–​859. Curry, T. (1991) ‘Fraternal bonding in the locker room: a profeminist analysis of talk about competition and women’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(2):119–​135. Curtice, J., Clery, E., Perry, J., Phillips, A. and Rahim, N. (2019) British Social Attitudes 36, London: The National Centre for Social Research. de Boise, S. (2015) ‘I’m not homophobic, “I’ve got gay friends”: evaluating the validity of inclusive masculinity’, Men and Masculinities, 18(3): 318–​339. Dunning, E. (1986) ‘Sport as a male preserve: notes on the social sources of masculine identity and its transformations’, Theory, Culture & Society, 3(1): 79–​90. Elling, A., De Knop, P. and Knoppers, A. (2003) ‘Gay/​lesbian sport clubs and events: places of homo-​social bonding and cultural resistance?’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38(4): 441–​456. Epstein, D. and Johnson, R., 1998. Schooling sexualities. McGraw-Hill Education. The FA (The Football Association) (2006) Irrespective of Sexual Orientation, The Football Association. The FA (2012) Opening Doors and Joining In, The Football Association. Gardiner, S. and Welch, R. (2011) ‘Football, racism and the limits of “colour blind” law: revisited’, in D. Burdsey (ed) Race, Ethnicity and Football: Persistent Debates and Emergent Issues, New York: Routledge, pp 222–​236.

119

Hate Crime in Football

Gaston, L. and Dixon, L. (2020) ‘A want or a need? Exploring the role of grassroots gay rugby teams in the context of inclusive masculinity’, Journal of Gender Studies, 29(5): 508–​520. Gaston, L., Magrath, R. and Anderson, E. (2018) ‘From hegemonic to inclusive masculinities in English professional football: marking a cultural shift’, Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3): 301–​312. Gerhards, J. (2010) ‘Non-​discrimination towards homosexuality: the European Union’s policy and citizens’ attitudes towards homosexuality in 27 European countries’, International Sociology, 25(1): 5–​28. Guttmann, A. (1978) From Ritual to Record: The Nature of Modern Sports, New York: Columbia University Press. Hansen, M., Kavanagh, E., Anderson, E., Parry, K. and Cleland, J. (2022) ‘An analysis of responses on Twitter to the English Premier League’s support for the anti-​homophobia rainbow laces campaign’ Sport in Society. doi: 10.1080/​17430437.2022.2028774 Harvey, A. (2017) ‘Academics vs activists: making sense of homophobia in male team sport’, in D. Kilvington and J. Price (eds) Sport and Discrimination, London: Routledge, 137–​150. Hekma, G. (1998) ‘“As long as they don’t make an issue of it …”: gay men and lesbians in organized sports in the Netherlands’, Journal of Homosexuality, 35(1): 1–​23. Home Office (2022) ‘Hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022’ [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-englandand-wales-2021-to-2022/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2021-to-2022 [Accessed 28 July 2023]. Humphries, C., Gaston, L., Magrath, R. and White, A.J. (2020) ‘Exploring the attitudes toward homosexuality of a semi-​professional Swedish football team with an openly gay teammate’, in R. Magrath, J. Cleland and E. Anderson (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 449–​463. Jensen, L., Gambles, D. and Olsen, J. (1988) ‘Attitudes toward homosexuality: a cross-​cultural analysis of predictors’, International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 34(1): 47–​57. Jones, L. and McCarthy, M. (2010) ‘Mapping the landscape of gay men’s football’, Leisure Studies, 29(2): 161–​173. Jones, O. (2014) ‘Footballer Thomas Hitzlsperger has made a brave and commendable move in announcing he is gay’, The Independent, [online] 8 January, Available from: www.inde​pend​ent. co.uk/​voices/​comment/​ owen-​ j ones-​ f ootballer-​ t homas-​ h itzlsperger- ​ h as- ​ m ade- ​ a - ​ b rave- ​ a nd-​ commendable-​move-​in-​announcing-​he-​is-​gay-​9046774.html [Accessed 3 November 2022].

120

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

Kearns, C., Sinclair, G., Black, J., Doidge, M., Fletcher, T., Kilvington, D., Liston, K., Lynn, T. and Rosati, P. (2022) ‘A scoping review of research on online hate and sport’, Communication & Sport. doi: 10.1177/​ 21674795221132728 Keleher, A. and Smith, E.R.A.N. (2012) ‘Growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990’, Journal of Homosexuality, 59(9): 1307–​1326. Kian, E.M., Clavio, G., Vincent, J. and Shaw, S.D. (2011) ‘Homophobic and sexist yet uncontested: examining football fan postings on internet message boards’, Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5): 680–​699. Kian, E.M., Anderson, E. and Shipka, D. (2015) ‘“I am happy to start the conversation”: examining sport media framing of Jason Collins’ coming out and playing in the NBA’, Sexualities, 18(5–​6): 618–​640. Kick It Out (nd) ‘Reporting statistics’ [online], Available from: www.kickit​ out.org/​report​ing-​sta​tist​ics [Accessed 7 December 2022]. Kimmel, M.S. (1994) ‘Masculinity as homophobia: fear, shame and silence in the construction of gender identity’, in H. Brod and M. Kaufman (eds) Theorizing Masculinities, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp 119–​141. Lee, C. (2019) ‘Fifteen years on: the legacy of Section 28 for LGBT+​teachers in English schools’, Sex Education, 19(6): 675–​690. Letts, D., & Magrath, R. (2022). English Football, Sexuality, and Homophobia. Routledge handbook of sport fans and fandom. Magee, J. and Sugden, J. (2002) ‘“The world at their feet”: professional football and international labor migration’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26(4): 421–​437. Magrath, R. (2017a) Inclusive Masculinities in Contemporary Football: Men in the Beautiful Game, London: Routledge. Magrath, R. (2017b) ‘The intersection of race, religion and homophobia in British football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52(4): 411–​429. Magrath, R. (2018) ‘“To try and gain an advantage for my team”: Homophobic and homosexually themed chanting among English football fans’, Sociology, 52(4): 709–​726. Magrath, R. (2019). LGBT Athletes, Changing Social Contexts, and the ‘Sports Media’. LGBT Athletes in the Sports Media, 1–26. Magrath, R. (2020). “Progress… slowly, but surely”: The sports media workplace, gay sports journalists, and LGBT media representation in sport. Journalism Studies, 21(2), 254–270. Magrath, R. (2021a) ‘Gay male football fans’ experiences: authenticity, belonging and conditional acceptance’, Sociology, 55(5): 978–​994. Magrath, R. (2021b) ‘Inclusive masculinities of working-​class university footballers in the South of England’, Sport in Society, 24(3): 412–​429. Magrath, R. (2022) ‘The experiences of bisexual soccer fans in the UK: inclusion, engagement, and digital lives’, Journal of Bisexuality. doi: 10.1080/​15299716.2022.2065557 121

Hate Crime in Football

Magrath, R. and Anderson, E. (2017) ‘Football, homosexuality and the Premier League: a changing cultural relationship’, in R. Elliott (ed) The English Premier League: A Socio-​Cultural Analysis, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 150–​164. Magrath, R. and Stott, P. (2019) ‘“Impossible to implement?”: The effectiveness of anti-​homophobia policy in English professional football’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(1): 19–​38. Magrath, R., Anderson, E. and Roberts, S. (2015) ‘On the doorstep of equality: attitudes toward gay athletes among academy-​level footballers’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(7): 804–​821. Magrath, R., Cleland, J. and Anderson, E. (2017) ‘Bisexual erasure in the British print media: representation of Tom Daley’s coming out’, Journal of Bisexuality, 17(3): 300–​317. McCormack, M. (2011). Hierarchy without hegemony: Locating boys in an inclusive school setting. Sociological perspectives, 54(1), 83–101. McCormack, M. (2012) The Declining Significance of Homophobia, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCormack, M. and Anderson, E. (2014) ‘The influence of declining homophobia on men’s gender in the United States: an argument for the study of homohysteria’, Sex Roles, 71(3–​4): 109–​120. Messner, M.A. (1992) Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mitchell, J. (2012) A Culture of Silence, London: Lulu. Morales, L., & White, A. J. (2019). Perception versus reality: Gay male American athletes and coming-out stories from Outsports.com. LGBT athletes in the sports media, 27–50. Myers, R. (2020) ‘Where are all the gay footballers?’, The Times, [online] 19 June, Available from: www.theti​mes.co.uk/​arti​cle/​where-​are-​the-​gay-​ foot​ball​ers-​homo ​ phob​ ia-p​ laye​ rs-q​ kl0bpg​ d5 [Accessed 3 November 2022]. Nabono Martins, J. (2022) ‘Homophobia in Brazilian football: a critical discourse analysis of fans’ comments in online football forums’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport. doi: 10.1177/​10126902221107323 O’Neill, R. (2015) ‘Whither critical masculinity studies? Notes on inclusive masculinity theory, postfeminism, and sexual politics’, Men and Masculinities, 18(1): 100–​120. PA Media (2022) ‘Discrimination on rise across football, Kick It Out tells DCMS committee’, The Guardian, [online] 25 October, Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/oct/25/discriminationon-the-rise-across-football-kick-it-out-tells-dcms-committee [Accessed 28 July 2023]. Pearson, G. (ed) (2012) An Ethnography of English Football Fans, Manchester: University of Manchester Press.

122

Homophobia, Hate Crime and Men’s Professional Football

Penfold, C. and Cleland, J. (2022) ‘Kicking it out? Football fans’ views of anti-​racism initiatives in English football’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(2): 176–​198. PFA (Professional Footballers’ Association) (2021) ‘Online abuse –​AI research study (season 2020–​21)’, [online] 4 August, Available from: www. the​pfa.com/​news/​2021/​8/​4/​onl​ine-​abuse-​ai-​resea​rch-​study-​sea​son-​ 2020-​21#:~:text=​Today%2C%20a%20PFA%2Dfun​ded%20r​esea​rch,accou​ nts%20com​ing%20f​rom%20the%20UK [Accessed 25 October]. Ponting, I. (2012) The Book of Football Obituaries, London: Pitch Publishing. Pousher, J. and Kent, N.O. (2020) ‘The global divide on homosexuality persists’, Pew Research Center [online], Available from: www.pewr​esea​ rch.org/​glo​bal/​2020/​06/​25/​glo​bal-​div​ide-​on-​homose​xual​ity-​persi​sts/​ [Accessed 3 November 2022]. Pronger, B. (1990) The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality, and the Meaning of Sex, London: GMP Publishers. Rigauer, B. (1981) Sport and Work, New York: Columbia University Press. Robinson, S., & Anderson, E. (2022). Bromance: Male friendship, love and sport. Springer Nature. Symons, C. (2010) The Gay Games: A History, London: Routledge. Thorpe, H. (2010) ‘Bourdieu, gender reflexivity, and physical culture: a case of masculinities in the snowboarding field’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(2): 176–​214. Twenge, J.M., Sherman, R.A. and Wells, B.E. (2016) ‘Changes in American adults’ reported same-​sex sexual experiences and attitudes’, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7): 1713–​1730. Vincent, J. and Crossman, J. (2008) ‘Champions, a celebrity crossover, and a capitulator: the construction of gender in broadsheet newspapers’ narratives about selected competitors at Wimbledon’, International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(1): 78–​102. White, A. J., Magrath, R., & Emilio Morales, L. (2021). Gay male athletes’ coming-out stories on Outsports.com. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 56(7), 1017–1034. Williams, J. (2021) The History of Women’s Football, Philadelphia, PA: Pen and Sword. Young, K. (2019) Sport, Violence and Society (2nd edn), London: Routledge.

123

8

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom: Feminism, Misogynoir and Hate Crimes Jayne Caudwell, Jane Healy and Aarti Ratna

Introduction We write this chapter about women footballers in the United Kingdom (UK) because we are mindful that many published collections focused on football seldom acknowledge that much of the work is about men’s football. In published work, the term ‘football’ is often assumed to mean the game played by men; ‘football’ is synonymous with men’s football, and women’s active involvement is usually prefixed, as in ‘women’s football’. The tags ‘women’ and ‘women’s’ operate to position women as the ‘Other’: ‘women footballers’ instead of ‘footballers’. However, this is not our intention here. Instead, we seek to make obvious that our discussions are about women players. This is a strategy that writers could adopt when writing about ‘men’s football’ (Caudwell, 2018). This chapter is timely because of the 2022 UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championships (Euro 2022) and the rise in interest, among both the public and policy makers (UK Government, 2022), in women and girl footballers, and their opportunities to play the game in the UK. Research conducted during the championships evidenced the ongoing nature of sexism experienced by international players (Deutsche Welle, 2022). In addition to the documentation of persisting sexism, Caudwell (2022) highlights the specific issues surrounding race and racism: ‘The spectacle of England’s women winning Euro 2022 will drive change and progress. But from their first game on July 6 to the final, it was noticeable that every English starting line-​up was made up of white players.’ The Whiteness of the team started an important discussion 124

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

(Asante, 2022; Trehan, 2022), which included the particular legacies of racisms experienced by Eniola Aluko during her time as an England international. Aluko played for England over one hundred times, scoring more than thirty goals. She played at three world championships and two European championships and was in the Great Britain team at the 2012 Olympics. In this chapter, we consider the compounded operation of sexism and racism experienced by Eniola Aluko and Rinsola Babajide (Babajide has, to date, played 23 times for England Under 19s, Under 20s and Under 21s, and she played for Liverpool Football Club from 2018 until she left in 2022 to play in Spain). We take a feminist framework that brings together the sociology of sport and the criminology of hate crimes to explore the racism experienced by these two international players. By doing so, we focus on women’s and girls’ experiences of abuse, discrimination, harassment, prejudice and violence to demonstrate that sexism, racism and misogyny, especially misogynoir, are often forgotten, ignored and missing from the academic literature. Of course, the sociology of sport literature does detail the nature and extent of racism, and there are accounts of how racism impacts men’s football and men footballers (see, for example, Back et al, 1998; Garland and Rowe, 2001; Cleland, 2014). It is clear that racism was present in the men’s game in the UK before, and after, the inception of the 1993 antiracist campaign Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football. The campaign was renamed in 1997, becoming Kick It Out, and in 2012 ‘the remit of the organization [was] broadened … to equality, diversity and discrimination in football’ (Bennett and Jönsson, 2017: 203). However, despite this work, less is known about racism experienced by women and girl players. The few studies that document UK women players acknowledge the intersectional operation of gender and race (see Scraton et al, 2005; Ratna, 2011; Burdsey, 2021). Intersectionality is an important concept for feminist criminologists who advocate for misogyny as a hate crime (Zempi and Smith, 2021). Currently, the law (in England and Wales) protects race or ethnicity, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. However, hate crime policy has failed to consider the intersections of multiple forms of marginalization, such as the impact of both disability and gender (Healy, 2021), and race and gender discrimination, on victims of hate crimes. Despite many police forces collecting data on misogyny, prosecutions are limited to protected hate crime strands, reducing the experiences of many women and girls to a single identity characteristic, which fails to acknowledge the reality of their lived experiences (Healy, 2021). We start this chapter with a brief discussion of feminism and football to show how race and gender operate simultaneously in processes of abuse, discrimination, exclusion, hostility and prejudice. The combined functioning of race and gender is further discussed through a focus on intersectionality and 125

Hate Crime in Football

hate crimes. By bringing together the sociology of sport and the criminology of hate crimes, we aim to show a new way to expose and transform the gender-​based violence experienced by women of colour footballers.1 We do this through, for example, an engagement with misogyny and racism, and we offer a discussion of the potential of misogyny –​and moreover, misogynoir –​as a hate crime. However, we end the chapter on a cautionary note by showing how the institutions that have the power to govern and regulate the game (including the UK judicial system) fail to protect against misogyny, racism and their intersections.

Feminism and football Sport feminists working within sport studies, specifically football studies, have, over the last two to three decades, challenged the male-​centric focus of research. However, football studies remains male dominated and inquiry continues to spotlight male players. For example, in 2022 an advertised funded research project reflected this approach: ‘From Viv Anderson to Black Lives Matter, we capture how print and online fanzines/​websites have both reproduced and challenged dominant racial discourses within British football from the 1970s to the present.’ What is clear from this contemporary research project is that race is central to the investigation of British football and that Viv Anderson –​who, in 1978, became the first male Black player to be selected to play for the England men’s team –​ is cited as a key figure. The reference to Black Lives Matter brings the historical trajectory of the study into the present moment. However, there is no mention of whether this contemporary investigation, of the past and present of British football, examines gender and its relation to race and racial discourse. Similarly omitting any mention of women and girl footballers, recent publications that debate taking the knee in football (for example, Bennett and King, 2021) focus on the men’s elite and professional game –​in particular, Euro 2020. Without doubt, the act of players taking the knee before a game (at matches from 2020 to 2022) met with political critique from a number of countries (for example, the UK and the United States –​US). Commentators (Evans et al, 2021) have highlighted the hypocrisy of political figures that advocate for racial equality yet dismiss the symbolic value of players’ agency to challenge racism. For example, Mathers (2021) sums up the responses by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel to the men’s Euro 2020: ‘Mr Johnson initially declined to call out England fans who booed players “taking the knee” in opposing racism, while Priti Patel described the act as “gesture politics.” ’ The critical academic scrutiny of taking the knee and responses to it tend to centralize male football players, men’s football matches and race. 126

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

Taking the knee emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement, and as Garza makes the point in her chapter ‘A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement’, the foundational aspects of the movement, which are ‘based on the work of queer Black women’ are often ignored and omitted, which is ‘racism in practice’ (2016: 24). She goes on to say: ‘It’s also heteropatriarchal. Straight men, unintentionally or intentionally, have taken the work of queer Black women and erased our contributions’ (Garza, 2016: 24). Kimberlé Crenshaw, in a public interview (TODAY, 2020), also makes the point about the omissions of gender. Crenshaw –​the first legal and civil rights feminist to introduce (in late 1980s) and develop the concept of intersectionality –​helped establish the #SayHerName campaign. This campaign, operating within the Black Lives Matter movement, brings to the fore the apparently forgotten operation of race and gender, namely the intersections of racism, sexism and misogyny, especially in the context of US (and arguably UK) criminal justice systems. In terms of racism, there is a range of evidence to demonstrate that UK sporting culture, practice and institutions are racist (Carrington and McDonald, 2002; Jarvie, 2003; Hylton, 2010; Ratna and Samie, 2017) and, moreover, that football cultures, practices and institutions are racist (Scraton et al, 2005; Ratna, 2007, 2011, 2017; Saeed and Kilvington, 2011; Burdsey, 2012, 2021). However, reflecting the arguments made earlier, only a small proportion of this evidence base takes a feminist lens to critically examine racism and gender in football in the UK. The work that does take a feminist approach gets to grips with race, gender and Whiteness (Scraton et al, 2005; Ratna, 2007). For example, in Ratna’s (2007) PhD research about British Asian girls’ and women’s experiences of football, there is evidence of overt and subtle forms of racism that were not one-​off occurrences, but reoccurring features of the women’s game. As part of the PhD research, Ratna spent time training with a predominantly British Asian women’s football team (once a week for six months) and conducted 19 semi-​structured interviews with British Asian women footballers. From this research, it became clear that many of the research participants initially denied and/​or downplayed the racism they experienced and/​or witnessed, such as name-​calling (using words like ‘P**is’), jokes about any random British Asian man walking past the training ground (as being ‘your uncle’) and other unfunny incidences. Racism was not absent from their participation in football, and their initial reactions to deny or downplay these incidents belied how racist occurrences made them feel inferior, strange and un-​belonging. The players participating in the observation and interview research, as a way of attenuating their racial difference in relation to the predominant Whiteness of opposition players and/​or their teammates, spoke at length about their experiences of sexism instead of dwelling on racist incidents. Unsurprisingly, many of them tended to call out sexism rather than racism. 127

Hate Crime in Football

Racial microaggressions therefore gain accumulative power through innocuous yet exclusionary forces; that is, as Kyeremeh (2019) argues, Black athletes get used to seeing their ‘race’ through Whitened frames of knowing and being. This Whiteness means that racist incidents get overlooked and downplayed. But, ultimately, the racial microaggressions observed and mentioned by the research participants in Ratna’s (2013) study operate to make British Asian players feel ‘out of place’. As Ratna (2013) further found, some of the British Asian players made subconscious and/​or conscious decisions to become like the White girls/​ women rather than be positioned as always and already ‘Other’ (see also Ratna and Samie, 2017). Through bodily practices of so-​called ‘girlieness’, ranging from wearing their hair in ponytails, talking about makeup, fashion and relationships with ‘the boys’, they were able to construct themselves as women who play a sport associated with men and masculinity. These social performativities matter, as Butler (1997) argues, to the negotiation of gendered and sexualized contexts that maintain heteronormativity, which is associated with the women’s game (Caudwell, 1999, 2002, 2003). Within this context, and for the players taking part in Ratna’s (2007) study, challenging sexism in the women’s game is easier than tackling the pervasiveness of racism because of the dominance, as well as the invisibility, of Whiteness. Players in Ratna’s study who did refer to antiracism campaigns such as Kick It Out often viewed the initiatives as failing girls and women (see Ratna, 2010). One said ‘We’re gonna set up a group called “Kick Out Sexism from Kick Out Racism” ’, to point to the contradictory operation of racism and sexism in Kick It Out (Ratna, 2010: 125). In this way, the woman was calling out racism by White authorities and calling out sexism from within antiracist organizations. This player continued to articulate that through her engagements in antidiscrimination campaigns and antiracist action, whether it be through official antiracist organizations and/​or at local grassroots community settings, her presence, achievements and experiences as a British Asian woman were overlooked, marginalized and treated tokenistically (Ratna, 2010). Antidiscrimination campaigns in football are shown to be ineffective, especially when it comes to homophobia and racism (Garland and Rowe, 2014; Bury, 2015; Magrath and Stott, 2018). For example, Bury provides a strong critique of ‘non-​performing inclusion’ in regard to The Football Association’s (The FA’s) action plan on homophobia in football (2015: 211), and Garland and Rowe present a case for the ‘hollow victory of anti-​racism in English football’ (2014: 92). In a recent piece, Ratna (2017) continues this critique of antidiscrimination campaigns in football, especially women’s experiences of antiracism campaigns. She shows how the treatment of Eniola Aluko (as an England international player during 2004–​16) demonstrates that 128

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

sexism and racism have become insidious within the structures of the game. Ratna (2017) argues that it is the style of governance of football that insists on fairness and equality which obscured the racism experienced by Aluko. Burdsey (2021) contributes further to this critical analysis by highlighting that Aluko’s challenging of racism within the structures of the game represents the process of ‘speaking truth to power’ (see also Lorde, 2007). Burdsey concludes that Aluko ‘peeled back the façade of sport’s self-​congratulatory management of racial diversity and established that it was, in this instance, a fabrication’ (2021: 87). In the meantime, it is worth asking how feminist sport sociologists move from identifying and calling out the imbricated and compounded operation of sexism and racism for women and girl footballers to mobilizing actual change. In the next section, we consider if there is scope to move from (ineffective, nonperforming or nonexistent) antidiscrimination campaigns that fail women and girl players (as well as some men) to a stronger framework of legislation relation to hate crimes.

Feminism and hate crimes Hate crimes emerged as a significant academic and policy interest at the turn of the 21st century, following the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence (see Caudwell, 1999). Prior to this, the UK had limited legislation in place to respond to racially motivated violence, and victims’ experiences remained in the shadows. The racist murder of teenager Stephen Lawrence by a group of young White men in 1993 and the resulting inquiry and recommendations led to a sea change in policing of racially motivated offences and the centring of victims’ experiences within the criminal justice system (Hall, 2013). The Macpherson report drew attention to victim experiences within ‘institutionally racist’ structures in the criminal justice system and laid the groundwork for the recognition of hate ‘strands’. Resultantly, additional hate crime legislation was enacted to protect specific identity groups, initially to address race-​ motivated hate crimes, with subsequent legislation enacted for crimes motivated by prejudice towards religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. Although discrimination and abuse of minority and marginalized groups has occurred throughout history, the introduction of a ‘hate crime’ label enabled policy makers, practitioners and academics to frame victims’ experiences within wider social and structural environments and draw attention to the extent of prejudice and hatred that minority groups experience (Mason, 2005; Chakraborti, 2010). Although ‘hate’ itself is an emotion, the legislation focuses specifically on the demonstration of hostility or prejudice towards a member, or perceived member, of one of 129

Hate Crime in Football

the five protected groups; hatred itself may be only part of the process (Hall, 2013). What the concept of hate crimes also offers is acknowledgement of the impact of these crimes on the victims and on their wider communities. The legislation and policy are founded on the understanding that hate crimes hurt more (Iganski, 2001) because they target an inherent feature of an individual’s identity, they have an impact not just on the initial victim but also the particular group that victim identifies with, and they recognize a degree of seriousness that needs to be responded to (Mason-​Bish, 2013). Furthermore, hate crimes contribute to restrictive binary constructions of ‘us’ and ‘them’, contributing to the Othering of marginalized groups within our society. As such, the College of Policing (nd) defines hate crimes as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice’ based on a person’s characteristics (in relation to race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender status). Hence, when conceptualizing hate crimes, it can be helpful to consider how emotion –​hatred, hostility or prejudice –​ creates an action (Ahmed, 2001). It is that action that is the subject of the legislation itself. However, legislation on hate crimes is not without limitations. The legislation is limited in scope, particularly for crimes towards transgender and disability groups, resulting in accusations of a two-​tiered system of legislation (Mason-​Bish, 2015), which creates what the Law Commission term a ‘hierarchy of victims’ (2013: 84). Hate crimes motivated by prejudice or hostility based on race (including ethnicity and nationality) or religion constitute an aggravated offence under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (amended by the Anti-​Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to include religion), though this is limited to only 11 offence types. Additionally, there are public order offences related to stirring up hatred against specific groups, under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. These include the introduction of charges for incitement to hatred in cases where threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or materials are used in relation to racial hatred, and by threatening words only in relation to religious hated and hatred based on sexual orientation. Finally, there are provisions within the Sentencing Act 2020 (replacing the Criminal Justice Act 2003) that demand the court take account of offenders’ motivation of hostility (or demonstration of hostility) against specific protected groups. Although this latter charge applies to all strands of hate crime, it is predominantly used for charges in relation to disablist or transgender/​gender identity cases, as this is the only legislative framework available for those two groups. The Law Commission’s recent review of hate crime legislation, published in December 2021, recommends the introduction of a single hate crime law that would bring all of the current legislatives together into a single and 130

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

comparable act regardless of identity characteristics. At the time of writing, we await the government’s introduction of this. Specific legislation enacted to address racism within (predominantly men’s) football has been used alongside the hate crime laws. However, although equalities legislation applies within sport, as within other aspects of society, their use has been limited. For example, there is the Football Spectators Act 1989, which introduced football banning orders, and the Football (Offences) Act 1991, which prohibits racist chanting, throwing missiles and pitch invasions; the latter criminalized racist abuse from fans and has gone some way to reduce the routine expression of racism through chants and abuse. Offences by fans at football club grounds that are racially or religiously aggravated can be prosecuted using the aggravated sentences offered by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or, where a specific aggravated offence does not apply, using sentencing uplifts from the Sentencing Act 2020, Section 66. However, Garland and Rowe (2014) contend that the law continues to be under-​enforced in the UK. Moreover, from a feminist perspective, the existing legislative framework surrounding racism within football tends to centre fans’ behaviour at men’s games. For example, the main legislation –​the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the Football (Offences) Act 1991 –​appear to have been designed for, and applied to, the men’s professional game. What is notable in recent literature related to hate crimes has been a growing movement within feminist criminology for a recognition of the role of misogyny within hate crime legislation (Chakraborti and Garland, 2014; Mason-​Bish, 2015; Duggan, 2021; Zempi and Smith, 2021). Although violence against women has an established place within existing policy, these academics contend that such violence is driven by a hatred or hostility towards women. Indeed, Carney (2001) suggests that rape is a ‘paradigmatic hate crime’, given it is an act of hate that happens to women because they are women. Duggan (2021) suggests the failure to recognize gender as a hate crime characteristic is driven by existing androcentric structures within legislation and policy. As with hate crimes, violence against women affects both the individual and the wider community, resulting in women’s fear of violence directly affecting their behaviours and the level of risk they are willing to put themselves in. Additionally, current hate crime legislation exists within ‘siloed’ structures (Mason-​Bish, 2015), whereby the five protected characteristics are enacted in a consecutive process and often treated independently of each other. Healy (2019) highlights the contribution that intersectionality theory can offer to hate crime research. Intersectionality is ‘a way of understanding and analyzing the complexity in the world, in people, and in human experiences’ (Hill Collins and Bilge, 2016: 2) by reflecting on the multitude of different identity characteristics that construct people’s 131

Hate Crime in Football

lives, such as race, class and disability. Drawing on her research with disabled women, Healy illustrates how applying intersectionality as an analytical framework to victims’ experiences of hate crimes contributes to a greater understanding of the extent and impact of hate crimes where multiple, compounded identities are recognized. She argues that hate crime legislation and policy has tended to consider hate crimes through a single identity, or single strand, which does not consider the increased risk certain individuals and groups may be exposed to. This results in a lack of integration and appreciation between strands and a neglect of gender and socioeconomic perspectives when it comes to victim experiences. Healy argues that the current strand-​based approach to hate crimes has consequently oversimplified victim groups and individual victims’ experiences and does not recognize the increased risk for some groups where two or more identity characteristics combine. Likewise, Duggan (2021) uses a case, reported by the BBC (2019), of two lesbian women who were violently attacked by a group of young boys in London to make a similar argument. She proposes that it was the women’s gender and their sexual identity combined that led to their assault, and ultimately the women’s insubordination to the boys’ demands to ‘kiss’ for their entertainment, which resulted in their being subjected to male violence. Yet there is no current protection for misogyny within hate crime legislation, and so the charges that can be brought are in relation to homophobic hatred rather than any acknowledgement of the compounding effect of gender and sexual orientation combined. The Law Commission, in its 2021 review, declined to recommend the addition of gender (to include misogyny and misandry) to hate crime legislation, a perspective that was subsequently reinforced by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who refused to consider misogyny as a hate crime (BBC, 2021).

Misogyny as a hate crime In the revised edition of her book Misogynies, Smith (1996) writes of how, in the first edition of the book in 1989, she had to explain, constantly, the word ‘misogyny’. She writes that it is ‘the term for a range of hostile attitudes which expressed themselves in everything from casual jibes to the systematic exclusion of women from whole areas of public life’ (Smith, 1996: vii) and that it ‘was a phenomenon, which began with a joke and ended in murder’ (Smith, 1996: viii). A new edition was published in 2013, and the work continues to hold relevance because, despite the passing of time, ‘the same themes come up again and again … namely that a woman who oversteps certain narrowly drawn boundaries is asking for whatever she gets’ (Smith, 1996: 206). By drawing on multiple examples, Smith evidences the point that ‘misogyny is not the province of a few isolated individuals … but one of 132

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

the concealed well-​springs of our culture’ (Smith, 1996: 207). As Williams (2014: 87) concludes, Misogynies evidences that ‘men (some/​most) have an intense dislike and disrespect for women’ as well as loathing, abhorrence and hatred of women. By adopting Smith’s work to frame the scales of misogyny in sport and weaving in the feminist work of Bates (2015) on everyday sexism –​which started as an online open access forum to capture examples of everyday sexism experienced by women and girls –​and Ahmed’s (2010) work on feminist killjoys –​which is a project that seeks to make everyday feminist intervention safe and positive –​Caudwell (2017) exposes a number of anti-​women and/​ or women-​hating incidents in sporting contexts. However, the concept of misogyny, developed by Smith (1989) and applied by Caudwell (2017), fails to acknowledge the Whiteness of the analyses. For example, neither author discusses race and the intersections of racism and sexism. Bailey (2014) effectively challenges the Whiteness of the concept of misogyny with her concept of misogynoir and its application to the treatment of Black women. Misogynoir spotlights the specific types of hatred (violence) directed at Black women that operate to dehumanize them and their bodies. The conceptual development of misogynoir (Bailey and Trudy, 2018) has been applied to sport to demonstrate the ‘anti-​Black structural racism and sexism’ that ‘malign women who dare to be excellent in the White, male world of sport, and specifically the world of professional tennis’ (Razack and Joseph, 2021: 299). Burdsey mentions misogynoir in his critical analysis of ‘gendered racism and institutional white supremacy in English football’ (2021: 81). He offers a detailed analysis of how (White) England manager Mark Sampson’s ‘denigration of [Eniola] Aluko’s blackness combined with her depiction as a “foreign” body’ is an example of misogynoir (Burdsey, 2021: 83). He goes on to show how misogynoir upholds the dominance of White masculinity (management) and White femininity (players) of the England women’s football squad. Mark Sampson mocked Aluko’s family –​who were travelling from Nigeria to watch her play at Wembley Stadium in November 2014 –​by referring to them as carriers of Ebola, a contagious and deadly disease (Taylor, 2017). His ‘joke’ is a poignant example of not only misogynoir but also how colonial tropes can be reinvented in contemporary contexts to reinforce racist tropes. In this case, Aluko is perceived as ‘foreign’ and her Blackness is underscored as being subhuman, or quasi-​animal, with the reference to carrying and spreading diseases to White people and places. The joke is not funny; it signifies a racial history that reminds Black players like Aluko that their bodies –​despite the footballing prowess in Aluko’s case –​are contaminated. Aluko cannot be White (read: clean or pure). Her woman-​ ness is sullied reproducing misogynoir in and through women’s football that unequivocally codes White femininity as exemplary (see Ratna and Samie, 133

Hate Crime in Football

2017). Blackness, in this context, secures the co-​constitution of racism and sexism. Additionally, the blatant discrimination has the hateful and harmful subtext of being ‘too Black’ to be either human and/​or a woman. Misogynoir is a concept encapsulating racism and sexism which can be applied to women’s football in the UK. Within the term, racism and sexism are presented as already intersectional, and this raises debate for feminist criminologists and hate crime legislation. For example, if misogyny becomes a recognized hate crime, is there danger that it will reflect Whiteness and ignore race? As such, pursuing an intersectional approach –​based on racism and sexism –​to hate crime remains paramount. Or, is there scope within legal frameworks for a working definition of the concept of misogynoir? Before closing the debate, it is worth a final focus on the current (in)effectiveness of calling out racism and sexism in women’s football in the UK.

The problem of performance Following Bury’s (2015) account of nonperforming inclusion in football and acknowledging Butler’s (1997) notion of performativity, it is useful to turn to Byrne’s (2011) work that explores the complexities and contradictions of lives lived at the intersections of race and gender. It means understanding identities as shifting, polymorphous, multiple and, additionally, discursively produced in and through one another. In the context of women’s football, as discussed earlier, this involves seeing how the racialized identities of players are shaped in and through dominant discourses about sex and gender. For example, the British Asian women and girls included in Ratna’s (2007) PhD study are understood to be different as they are not read as White. As others have noted (see, for example, Adepong, 2016), managing ‘race’ when racism is denied across time and space is ignorant. Rinsola Babajide, when playing for Liverpool (from 2018 to 2022), described the racism and sexism she experienced as ‘draining and tiring’ (quoted in Sky Sports, 2021), thus speaking to the affectual impacts of managing such complex discursive repertoires. It certainly must have been challenging to deal with the constant bombardment of racist and sexist trolling she received as a Black woman in the game. Merseyside police did investigate the social media activity aimed at Babajide as a (race) hate crime after she shared screenshots of the tweets aimed at her. This is one example: ‘football is only for men you ni**a’ (see Lionesses, 2021). As a protest against the racist and sexist trolling of Babajide, Liverpool Football Club took part in a four-​day boycott of social media (30 April–​3 May 2021), urging social media owners to take greater responsibility for policing online (race) hate. The twitter feed of the England ‘Lionesses’ also showed the team’s support by remonstrating ‘Enough is enough’ (Lionesses, 2021), a popular

134

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

slogan that gained traction through the online campaigns #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName. While these responses are obviously welcome, it speaks to the performativity of antiracism: individuals show their commitment to antiracism by what they express (Ahmed, 2004) –​for example, ‘Enough is enough’. However, giving lip service to antiracism can also be nonperformative, because it does not transform the racism that it challenges –​nothing changes. Ahmed, in developing her work on diversity in institutional life, refers to the nonperformativity of ‘institutional speech acts that do not bring into effect what they name’ (2021: 30). We propose that the racism and sexism directed at Babajide is constructed as a problem ‘over there’ (on social media) rather than ‘in here’ (within the organizing structures of the game). As such, focusing on social media removes The FA from the issue; it means that deeper questions about the history and governing structures of the game do not need to be considered. If, for instance, Babajide had revealed incidences of racism and sexism from within her professional club, on the field of play and/​or in offline settings –​as Aluko did –​we wonder if it would have been as easy to vilify those at the core of football governance as it was to call out random, and often anonymous, people on the peripheries. While we do not dispute the hurt caused to Babajide and her family, speaking back to the centre of Whiteness, here in ‘our’ midst, and not elsewhere, is arduous (Ahmed, 2004). This is not to suggest The FA condone online abuse against women fans of the men’s game and/​or against women players, but rather that they are less likely to accept culpability (Ratna, 2017). In other words, they are not willing to forgo their own discursive and material investments in the White-​and male-​dominated nature of the game, which would undermine the institutional privilege and power of the many White men who work at The FA. In the current context, influenced by the Black Lives Matter movement, antiracist sentiments in football are vociferously upheld (as in the example from earlier: ‘Enough is enough’) and imagined as divorced from the Whiteness of the women’s game. But, racism and sexism persist. For example, Eniola Aluko felt that the racism she experienced escalated during the time Mark Sampson was manager (from January 2014). She reports being increasingly victimized: her footballing abilities were questioned; she was picked on at training sessions; her teamwork was viewed as lacking and deemed ‘lazy’ (see Hattenstone, 2019). To be dubbed ‘lazy’ is a racialized slur to denigrate Black people with the suggestion that they are lacking in social worth and the qualities that supposedly distinguished White colonial rulers from their subordinates: Black people. In contemporary times, the historical salience of being called ‘lazy’ is not lost on Aluko (Hattenstone, 2019) or other Black footballers who have been similarly demonized (Carrington, 2011). 135

Hate Crime in Football

During The FA’s internal investigations of the racism directed at Aluko, which led to a Department for Culture, Media and Sport select committee hearing, Aluko was increasingly alienated and eventually sidelined altogether from the England international set-​up. Despite being the top-​scoring player on the team at the time, she was ‘retired’ from the national squad; she played her last game for England in May 2016. Lianne Sanderson and Anita Asante, Black women players who gave evidence on behalf of Aluko, did not play for England again either (Taylor, 2017). Arguably, the Whiteness of the women’s team was consolidated by the removal/​non-​selection of Sanderson, Asante and Aluko. The Whiteness of the team was evident at Euro 2022, as noted by a number of writers (Asante, 2022; Caudwell, 2022; Trehan, 2022). Burdsey (2021) acknowledges Aluko as the most significant player in contemporary football in the UK (in the women’s game and the men’s game) to challenge the racism embedded within the structures, cultures, practices and intuitions that govern the game. We know from Rinsola Babajide’s experience that it takes energy and resolve at an individual level to challenge racism and sexism. Eniola Aluko, reflecting on the controversy that ended her career, commented that ‘if you are not upsetting people, you are not saying anything’ (in conversation with Afua Hirsh, in Al Jazeera, 2020). She went on to argue that the volume of ‘race’ talk, whether it be claims to social justice brought about by antiracist campaigns or mediated and popular commentaries, is made up of ‘soundbites’ which rarely lead to ‘real’ structural and cultural change. If we can learn something from the contrasting contexts of racism and sexism faced by Babajide and Aluko, it is that to complain about rogue individuals ‘out there’ is more acceptable (as a race hate crime) than exposing the misogynoir that manifests ‘in here’, within the structures and cultures that govern the game. To follow the career of Aluko is a reminder that making any disclosures about discrimination, even if in response to a supposedly private and confidential enquiry, requires becoming an ‘institutional mechanic’ (Ahmed, 2021: 27) to fix the policies, practices and systems that structure football, and the judiciary, to make them fit for the purpose of upholding social justice. In her book Complaint, Ahmed (2021) shows how complaints made by women of colour are ‘heard as making “a tiresome complaint” ’ (2021: 2); these are devalued, trivialized and often rejected. Moreover, ‘[r]‌acism is often enacted by the dismissal of racism as complaint’ (Ahmed, 2021: 3). Thus, equality procedures, policies and practices (enacted by predominantly White men in the institutional spaces of sport and criminal justice) can have a racist effect: careers are ended. Misogynoir, therefore, is not just about what individuals ‘say’ or ‘do’ towards women of colour, but how policy and legislation, which are supposedly meant to stop hate and hate crimes, fail to bring equitable outcomes or justice. 136

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

Conclusion In this chapter, we provide evidence that racism existed and continues to exist in football in the UK. Initially, women’s experiences of racism were not documented in sport sociology, but there is a growing research literature on gender, sexism and racism, which we hope will continue. Emerging from this feminist work is the value of the concept of intersectionality to an understanding of women’s and girls’ experiences of the game. We show how intersectionality is important to a critical approach to developing hate crime legislation, especially in recognizing the distinct experiences of women, which are currently omitted. We argue that the lack of engagement with misogyny as a hate crime is failing women, because gender and sexism are integral to experiences of hate crimes, such as those based on disability, sexual orientation and race and ethnicity. We offer a discussion of misogyny as a way forward, but we demonstrated its potential to ignore Whiteness. As such, we advocate for misogynoir as a concept that makes visible the compounded imbrications of racism and sexism. Throughout these discussions, we aim to move from how sport sociology documents discrimination, and antidiscrimination, to how criminology spotlights the term ‘hate’ as a focus to shape law and the criminal justice system. It is by working across feminist studies of law, hate crimes and sport that we become aware of how much power exists in these predominantly male and White institutional spaces and how this power impacts women footballers in the UK. By focusing on two individual players, we contrast seemingly accepted-​as-​ racist hate crimes on social media with the obscure and obtuse responses to racism within the governance of the game. In both cases, it is apparent that it is often individual women players who are left to report racism and sexism. Their declarations are not always heard. Not listening to and not hearing women of colour footballers perpetuates racism and sexism; it is a form of misogynoir in and of itself. We conclude that how we currently mobilize and enact antidiscrimination campaigns and hate crime legislation in football is nonperformative. This means that women of colour can be denied the right to play prejudice-​free football. Moreover, institutional misjustices are often cemented rather than prevented. We anticipate how future changes in hate crime legislation right this wrong by making unlawful both misogyny and misogynoir in football. Note 1

Racial terminologies such as ‘Black’ and ‘White’ are constructed and need to be used carefully. We specifically use ‘of colour’ here to emphasize the plurality of identifications that may be self-​selected by a range of racial and ethnic minorities, recognizing also that sociopolitical context matters. Thus, beyond simplistic connotations relating to skin colour, we recognize people of colour may use hybrid markers of identity to capture and express different (and changing) racial, ethnic and national identity positions –​Black British, 137

Hate Crime in Football

Black Caribbean, Nigerian, British Asian, British Muslim Pakistani, Gujarati Indian and so on. Thus, we also use the nomenclature adopted in cited publications.

References Adepong, A. (2016) ‘“We’re, like, a cute rugby team”: how Whiteness and heterosexuality shape women’s sense of belonging in rugby’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52(2): 209–​222. Ahmed, S. (2001) ‘The organisation of hate’, Law and Critique, 12(3): 345–​365. Ahmed, S. (2004) ‘Declarations of Whiteness: the non-​performativity of anti-​racism’, Borderlands, 3(2), Available from: www.bord​erla​ndse​jour​nal. adela​ide.edu.au/​vol3n​o2_​2​004/​ahm​ed_​ declarations.htm Ahmed, S. (2010) The Promise of Happiness, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ahmed, S. (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ahmed, S. (2021) Complaint, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Al Jazeera (2020) ‘Dispelling the post-​racism myth –​Eniola Aluko and Afua Hirsch’, Studio B: Unscripted, [online] 20 March, Available from: www. aljazee​ ra.com/p​ rogr​ am/s​ tud​ io-b​ -u ​ nsc​ ript​ ed/​2020/​3/​20/​stu​dio-​b-​uns​crip​ ted-​with-​eni​ola-​aluko-​and-​afua-​hir​sch Asante, A. (2022) ‘Lack of diversity in England Women squad will stop many girls from dreaming’, The Guardian, [online]18 July, Available from: www. theg​uard​ian.com/​footb​all/​2022/​jul/​18/​engl​and-​women-​squad-​euro-​ 2022-​whiten​ess-​divers​ity Back, L., Crabbe, T. and Solomos, J. (1998) ‘Beyond the racist/​hooligan couplet: race, social theory and football culture’, British Journal of Sociology, 50(3): 419–​442. Bailey, M. (2014) ‘More on the origins of misogynoir’, Moyazb, [online] 27 April, Available from: http://​moy​azb.tumb​ lr.com/p​ ost/8​ 4048​ 1133​ 69/​ more-​on-​the-​ori​g in-​of-​mis​ogyn​oir Bailey, M. and Trudy (2018) ‘On misogynoir: citation, erasure, and plagiarism’, Feminist Media Studies, 18(4): 762–​768. Bates, L. (2015) Everyday Sexism, London: Simon and Schuster. BBC (2019) ‘Homophobic night bus attack: four teens charged’, [online] 25 July, Available from www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​uk-​engl​and-​lon​don-​ 49119​947 BBC (2021) ‘Boris Johnson does not support making misogyny a hate crime’, [online] 5 October, Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​uk-​ polit​ics-​58800​328 Bennett, H. and Jönsson, A. (2017) ‘Klick it Out: tackling online discrimination in football’, in D. Kilvington and J. Price (eds) Sport and Discrimination, London: Routledge, pp 203–​214.

138

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

Bennett, M. and King, C. (2021) ‘Taking the knee, mental health, and racism in sport’, The Lancet, 8(10): 861–​862. Burdsey, D. (2012) Race, Ethnicity and Football: Persisting Debates and Emergent Issues, London: Routledge. Burdsey, D. (2021) Racism and English Football: For Club and Country, London: Routledge. Bury, J. (2015) ‘Non-​performing inclusion: a critique of the English Football Association’s action plan on homophobia in football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(2): 211–​226. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: a politics of the performative. New York: Routledge. Byrne, B. (2011) ‘Post-​race? Nation, inheritance, and the contradictory performativity of race in Barack Obama’s “A more perfect Union” speech’, Thirdspace: A Journal of Feminist Theory and Culture, 10(1), Available from: https://​journ​als.lib.sfu.ca/​index.php/​thi​rdsp​ace/​arti​cle/​view/​byrne/​3350 Carney, K. (2001) ‘Rape: the paradigmatic hate crime’, St John’s Law Review, 75(2): 315–​356. Carrington, B. (2011) ‘“What I said was racist –​ but I’m not a racist”: anti-​racism and the White sports/​media complex’, in J. Long and K. Spracklen (eds) Sport and Challenges to Racism: Global Culture and Sport, London: Palgrave, pp 83–​99. Carrington, B. and McDonald, I. (eds) (2002) ‘Race’, Sport, and British Society, London: Routledge. Caudwell, J. (1999) ‘Women’s football in the United Kingdom: theorising gender and unpacking the butch lesbian image’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23(4): 390–​402. Caudwell, J. (2002) ‘Women’s experiences of sexuality within football contexts: a particular and located footballing epistemology’, Football Studies, 5(1): 24–​45. Caudwell, J. (2003) ‘Sporting gender: women’s footballing bodies as sites/​ sights for the [re]articulation of sex, gender and desire’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 20(4): 371–​386. Caudwell, J. (2017) ‘Everyday sexisms: exploring the scales of misogyny in sport’, in D. Kilvington and J. Price (eds) Sport and Discrimination, London: Routledge, pp 61–​76. Caudwell, J. (2018) ‘Why this football tournament should be called the men’s World Cup’, The Conversation, [online] 25 June, Available from: https://​ thec​ o nve​ r sat​ i on.com/​ w hy-​ t his-​ f ootb​ a ll- ​ t ou ​ r nam ​ e nt- ​ s ho ​ u ld- ​ b e- ​ c al​ led-​the-​mens-​world-​cup-​98348 Caudwell, J. (2022) ‘Women’s Euro 2022, football must do more to tackle racism and sexism’, The Conversation, [online] 11 August, Available from: https://​thec​onve​rsat​ion.com/​for-​wom​ens-​euro-​2022-​to-​have-​a-​mea​ ning​ful-​leg​acy-​footb​all-​must-​do-​more-​to-​tac​kle-​rac​ism-​and-​sex​ism-​188​084 139

Hate Crime in Football

Chakraborti, N. (ed) (2010) Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions, Cullompton: Willan Publishers. Chakraborti, N. and Garland, J. (eds) (2014) Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for Connecting Policy and Research, Bristol: Policy Press. Cleland, J. (2014) ‘Racism, football fans, and online message boards: how social media has added a new dimension to racist discourse in English football’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38(5): 415–​431. College of Policing (nd) ‘Responding to hate’ [online], Available from: www. coll​ege.pol​ice.uk/​app/​major-​invest​igat​ion-​and-​pub​lic-​pro​tect​ion/​hate-​ crime/​res​pond​ing-​hate Deutsche Welle (2022) ‘Euro 2022: sexism in women’s football still rife’, [online] 22 July, Available from: www.dw.com/​en/​euro-​2022-​sex​ism-​in-​ wom​ens-​footb​all-​still-​r ife/​a-​62565​688 Duggan, M. (2021) ‘A socio-​legal analysis of gender-​based victimization, misogyny and the hate crime paradigm in England and Wales’, Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 85: 101–​128. Evans, A.B., Agergaard, S., Campbell, P.I., Hylton, K. and Lenneis, V. (2021) ‘Sport, race and ethnicity in the wake of Black Lives Matter: introduction to the special issue’, European Journal for Sport and Society, 18(3): 187–​191. Garland, J. and Rowe, M. (2001) Racism and Anti-​Racism in Football, London: Palgrave. Garland, J. and Rowe, M. (2014) ‘The hollow victory of anti-​racism in English football’, in M. Hopkins and J. Treadwell (eds) Football Hooliganism, Fan Behaviour and Crime Contemporary Issues, London: Palgrave, pp 92–​105. Garza, A. (2016) ‘A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement’, in J. Hobson (ed) Are All the Women Still White? Rethinking Race, Expanding Feminism, New York: State University of New York Press, pp 23–​28. Hall, N. (2013) Hate Crime (2nd edn), Abingdon: Routledge, pp 24–​28. Hattenstone, S. (2019) ‘Eni Aluko: “we all have moments in life when our morals are called into question”’, The Guardian, [online] 24 August, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​footba​ ll/2​ 019/a​ ug/2​ 4/l​ ot-o ​ f-e​ ngl​ and-​team-​still-​hav​ent-​apo​logi​sed-​eni-​aluko-​after-​whi​stle​blow​ing Healy, J. (2019) ‘Thinking outside the box: intersectionality as a hate crime research framework’, in Papers from the British Criminology Conference, Vol 19, London: British Society of Criminology, pp 60–​83, Available from: www. brit​socc​r im.org/​pbcc2​019/​ Healy, J. (2021) ‘An exposition of sexual violence as a method of disablist hate crime’, in I. Zempi and J. Smith (eds) Misogyny as Hate Crime, London: Routledge, pp 178–​194. Hill Collins, P. and Bilge, S. (2016) Intersectionality, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hylton, K. (2010) ‘How a turn to critical race theory can contribute to our understanding of “race”, racism and anti-​racism in sport’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45(3): 335–​354. 140

Women Footballers in the United Kingdom

Iganski, P. (2001) ‘Hate crimes hurt more’, American Behavioral Scientist, 45(4): 626–​638. Jarvie, G. (ed) (2003) Sport, Racism and Ethnicity, London: Falmer Press. Kyeremeh, S. (2019) ‘Whitening Italian sport: the construction of “Italianess” in national sporting fields’, International Review of the Sociology of Sport, 55(8): 1136–​1151. Law Commission (2013) Hate Crime: The Case for Extending the Existing Offences. Summary For Non-​Specialists, Consultation Paper No 213, London: Law Commission. Law Commission (2021) Hate Crime Laws: Final Report, Law Com No 402, London: Law Commission. Lionesses (2021) ‘“Enough is enough.” “Time for change.” We are running out of ways to say this is NOT acceptable. And yet’ [Twitter], 8 April, Available from: https://​twit​ter.com/​Liones​ses/​sta​tus/​1380​2162​3486​ 4734​208 Lorde, A. (2007) Sister Outsider, Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press. Magrath, R. and Stott, P. (2018) ‘“Impossible to implement?”: The effectiveness of anti-​homophobia policy in English professional football’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(1): 19–​38. Mason, G. (2005) ‘Hate crime and the image of the stranger’. British Journal of Criminology, 45(6): 837–​859. Mason-​Bish, H. (2013) ‘Conceptual issues in the construction of disability hate crime’, in A. Roulstone and H. Mason-​Bish (eds) Disability, Hate Crime and Violence, London: Routledge, pp 11–​24. Mason-​Bish, H. (2015) ‘Beyond the silo: rethinking hate crime and intersectionality’, in N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi and J. Grieve (eds) The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 24–​33. Mathers, M. (2021) ‘Everything Boris Johnson and Priti Patel said about taking the knee’, Independent, [online] 13 July, Available from: www.inde​ pend​ent.co.uk/​news/​uk/​polit​ics/​boris-​john​son-​priti-​patel-​tak​ing-​knee-​ b1883​329.html Ratna, A. (2007) ‘A fair game? British-​Asian female’s experiences of racism in women’s football’, in J. Magee, J. Caudwell, K. Liston and S. Scraton (eds) Women, Football and Europe, London: Meyer and Meyer, pp 69–​88. Ratna, A. (2010) ‘“Taking the power back!” The politics of British-​Asian female football players’, Young, 18(2): 117–​132. Ratna, A. (2011) ‘“Who wants to make aloo gobi when you can bend it like Beckham?” British Asian females and their racialised experiences of gender and identity in women’s football’, Soccer & Society, 12(3): 382–​401. Ratna, A. (2013) ‘Intersectional plays of identity: the experiences of British Asian female footballers’, Sociological Research Online, 18(1): 13. Available from: www.socre​sonl​ine.org.uk/​18/​1/​13.html, 10.5153/​sro.2824 141

Hate Crime in Football

Ratna, A. (2017) ‘No racism here then? Wo/​men’s football in the UK and the case of Eniola Aluko’, Media Diversified, [online] 26 October, Available from: https://​media​dive​rsif​i ed.org/​2017/​10/​26/​no-​rac​ism-​here-​then-​ wom​ens-​footb​all-​in-​the-​uk-​and-​the-​case-​of-​ani​ola-​aluko/​ Ratna, A. and Samie, S.F. (2017) Race, Gender and Sport: The Politics of Ethnic ‘Other’ Girls and Women, London: Routledge. Razack, S. and Joseph, J. (2021) ‘Misogynoir in women’s sport media: race, nation, and diaspora in the representation of Naomi Osaka’, Media, Culture & Society, 43(2): 291–​308. Saeed, A. and Kilvington, D. (2011) ‘British-​Asians and racism within contemporary English football’, Soccer & Society, 12(5): 602–​612. Scraton, S., Caudwell, J. and Holland, S. (2005) ‘“Bend it like Patel”: centring “race”, ethnicity and gender in feminist analysis of women’s football in England’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 40(1): 71–​88. Sky Sports (2021) ‘Rinsola Babajide: Liverpool Women winger left unsurprised by “draining and tiring” social media abuse’, [online] 4 May, Available from: www.skyspor​ ts.com/f​ ootba​ ll/n ​ ews/2​ 8508/1​ 22942​ 54/r​ ins​ ola-​babaj​ide-​liverpo ​ ol-w ​ omen-w ​ ing​ er-l​ eft-u ​ nsu​r pri​sed-​by-​drain​ing-​and-​ tir​ing-​soc​ial-​media-​abuse Smith, J. (1989) Misogynies (1st edn), London: Faber and Faber. Smith, J. (1996) Misogynies (rev edn), London: Faber and Faber. Smith, J. (2013) Misogynies (new edn), London: Vintage. Taylor, D. (2017) ‘Eni Aluko: “the minute you are brave enough to talk about race you are in a difficult situation”’, The Guardian, [online] 21 August, Available from: www.theg​uard​ian.com/​footba​ ll/2​ 017/a​ ug/2​ 1/e​ ni-a​ luko-​ interv​iew-​race-​diffic​ult-​situat​ion Thangaraj, S., Ratna, A., Burdsey, D. and Rand, E. (2018) ‘Leisure and the racing of national populism’, Leisure Studies, 37(6): 648–​661. TODAY (2020) ‘Kimberlé Crenshaw shares importance of the Say Her Name movement’, [online] 23 June, Available from: www.today.com/​video/​ kimbe​rle-​crens​haw-​sha​res-​imp​orta​nce-​of-​the-​say-​her-​name-​movem​ent-​ 8580​7685​887 Trehan, D. (2022) ‘Women’s Euros 2022: all-​White England line-​up reignites debate on lack of diversity in elite girls’ and women’s football’, [online] 11 July, Available from: www.skyspo​rts.com/​footb​all/​news/​11095/​12647​ 577/w ​ ome​ ns-e​ uros-2​ 022-a​ ll-w ​ hite-e​ ngla​ nd-​line-​up-​reigni​tes-​deb​ate-​on-​ lack-​of-​divers​ity-​in-​elite-​g irls-​and-​wom​ens-​footb​all UK Government (2022) ‘Future of Women’s Football Review’ [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/​guida​nce/​fut​ure-​of-​wom​ens-​footb​all-​rev​ iew-​terms-​of-​refere​nce Williams, H. (2014) ‘Misogynies’, Journal of the International Network of Sexual Ethics and Politics, 2(2): 86–​91. Zempi, I. and Smith, J. (2021) Misogyny as Hate Crime, London: Routledge. 142

9

Trans Exclusion in Football Ben Colliver

Introduction Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. –​Nelson Mandela Transgender communities have gained increasing media, political and social attention and visibility internationally in recent years due to a range of political and social factors. In England and Wales, one of the most significant contemporary factors was the government public consultation launched in respect of reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which generated substantial online discussions. In those discussions, transgender people are regularly interrogated and delegitimized (Colliver et al, 2019; Colliver and Coyle, 2020). While there is a growing body of literature that explores violence against trans people (Jamel, 2018; Colliver, 2021), less attention has been given to discrimination against trans people experienced within sport. Sport is an important area for discussion, as professional sports are predominantly sex segregated. This is maintained through the perpetuation of two primary assumptions: first, human sex is dichotomous –​humans can be discretely categorized as either male or female; and, second, one of these sexes has biological advantages over the other and this affects performance in sport (Heggie, 2014). Sport became a central feature of discussion around the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act (2004), and conversation centred on issues such as perceived unfairness and issues of safety and risk. It is important to note that while trans inclusion within football is the focus in this chapter, public dialogue has primarily been concerned with trans women’s participation in sport more broadly. This dialogue has focused on two central ideas. The first 143

Hate Crime in Football

is that trans women hold an immutable biological advantage over cisgender women that creates an unfair playing field. Resultantly, it is only when trans women’s participation is average, or unremarkable, that they are accepted into participation (Semerjian, 2019). Second, concerns have been raised that cisgender men may falsely claim to be trans in order to compete with cisgender women and girls (Carroll, 2014). These concerns are problematic for a number of reasons and result in policy development that leads to the exclusion of trans people as well as cisgender people who may fall outside of social expectations of the ‘sexed’ body. However, discussions around trans inclusion within sport transcends issues of perceived biological differences, focusing also on trans people’s access to particular physical spaces, which have traditionally been segregated on perceived biological sex. While I have written extensively around trans people’s access to sex-​segregated spaces, primarily toilets, less attention has been paid to sporting facilities (Colliver and Coyle, 2020; Colliver, 2021). Although there is no universally agreed definition of ‘transgender’, the work of Hines is utilized in this chapter. Hines defines transgender as: a range of gender experiences, subjectivities and presentations that fall across, between or beyond stable categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. ‘Transgender’ includes gender identities that have, more traditionally, been described as ‘transsexual’, and a diversity of genders that call into question an assumed relationship between gender identity and presentation and the ‘sexed’ body. (2010: 1) This definition is used as it recognizes gender identities, presentations and expressions that fall outside of the western gender binary and are more inclusive of nonbinary people. The term ‘cisgender’ is also used in this chapter to identify people whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth (Stryker, 2008). This term has proven incredibly divisive on social media, with claims it is pejorative; however, I use this term as a significant amount of research and publications allow for cisgender identities to be normalized through the non-​identification of such identities. This results in transgender identities being marked out as exceptional and extraordinary and therefore in need of interrogation while, simultaneously, reinforcing cisnormativity (Johnson, 2015). Hate crime is increasing annually (Home Office, 2021). While there is a wealth of research examining hate crime more broadly, attention has primarily focused on hate crime related to race, religion and sexuality, with less attention paid to transphobic hate crime (Bowling, 1999; Mason, 2005; Awan and Zempi, 2017; James and Smith, 2017). Despite this, the Home Office (2021) reports that in the year ending March 2021 police reports of transphobic hate crime had increased by 3 per cent from the previous year, 144

Trans Exclusion in Football

with a total of 2,799 hate crimes recorded. It is important to note that this figure represents incidents which have been reported to the police and is, therefore, likely to be an under-​representation of transphobic hate crime that has occurred, as research has shown hate crime to be under-​reported (Chakraborti et al, 2014). Levels of online abuse increase as a result of particular ‘trigger events’, and in online contexts, these often involve the sharing of news stories about trans people participating in sport, such as Emily Bridges, a cyclist, and Blair Hamilton, a footballer. The discussion around trans exclusion in football follows a number of conversations and decisions made at national and international levels regarding other sports, including swimming and rugby. In June 2022, World Aquatics voted to enact a new policy regarding trans participation in swimming, which states that trans women must not have experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 21 or before the age of 12 (Kemp, 2022). Similar steps have also been taken by England’s Rugby Football Union and Rugby League (Reuters, 2022). This is a problematic approach that effectively bans trans people from participating in sport at an elite level, given that access to puberty blockers and to trans-​affirmative healthcare is incredibly difficult (Wright et al, 2018). In this chapter, rather than focusing on interpersonal incidents of transphobia within football, I offer a critical discussion regarding institutional barriers that may result in the exclusion of trans people from football at various professional levels. It is important to note that the discussion relates to football teams that are affiliated with The Football Association (The FA). The policies and guidelines discussed may not be applicable to amateur, non-​ affiliated clubs and leagues. I begin by outlining some of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that are most commonly drawn on to understand discrimination faced by transgender people. In doing so, I draw on the work of Browne (2004) and Doan (2010) to outline how genderism may be experienced in relation to institutional policies within football. In the second part of the chapter, I offer an analysis of current policies that regulate participation in football in England and Wales. As such, I argue that although The FA claims that it is committed to promoting ‘football for everyone’ (see The FA, 2014), it reinforces the western sex binary and is complicit in the medicalization of trans bodies that results in exclusion. In the third and final part of the chapter, I discuss the potential unintended consequences of trans exclusion from football and the social and cultural climate this contributes to that positions trans people as legitimate targets for hate crime.

Trans participation in football Trans people’s participation in sport has received significant global media and political attention since 2020 as a result of various events, such as Blair 145

Hate Crime in Football

Hamilton being called to play for England Universities Sport women’s squad (Roberts, 2022). The events have all occurred within a social and political context in which then Prime Minister Boris Johnson publicly stated that transgender women should not compete in women’s sports (Llewellyn, 2022) and the Sports Councils Equality Group claimed that ‘the inclusion of transgender people, fairness and safety cannot coexist in a single competitive model’ (2021: 15). In this statement, trans inclusion and fairness and safety are constructed as mutually incompatible concepts. However, grassroots clubs have taken action to contradict this claim. In March 2022, Dulwich Hamlet women’s team competed against TRUK United Football Club, which for this match was made up of transgender women only (Smith, 2022). Despite social and political claims of fairness and safety, Dulwich Hamlet women’s team defeated TRUK United by seven goals to zero. The research on trans people’s experiences of participation in sport has tended to focus on trans people’s participation in sport generally (see, for example, Jones et al, 2016), and there is a gap in terms of their participation in football in countries across the world. Research from the United States has shown that under sex-​segregation models, trans people’s participation in sport, now and in the future, is contested (Lucas-​Carr and Krane, 2012). Research has also shown that transgender people are less likely to engage in physical exercise and in sport activities (National LGB&T Partnership, 2016). This is also likely the case for participation in football specifically, which enforces a rigid sex-​segregated structure. Research from Sweden demonstrates that trans bodies ‘disrupt’ the current structure (Linghede et al, 2022). The consequences of exclusion from football are high given that participation in sport not only has considerable health benefits but also plays a role in social inclusion and participation more broadly (Collins, 2014; Hargie et al, 2015). The National LGB&T Partnership (2016) reports concerns regarding levels of physical activity among the LGBTQ+​ community. They report research indicating that 55 per cent of gay, bisexual and transgender men were not active enough to maintain good health, compared to 33 per cent of men in the general population. Similarly, 56 per cent of lesbian, bisexual and transgender women were not active enough to maintain good health, compared to 45 per cent of women in the general population. Research has also shown that transgender people largely have negative experiences accessing and participating in competitive sports (Jones et al, 2016). Feeling excluded from sports may transcend the issue of participation in sport and extend to issues around appropriate facilities and sport culture, with research showing that sex-​segregated spaces are often spaces of heightened risk for trans people (Faktor, 2011; Colliver, 2021). Therefore, even if policy and practice regarding participation in football is inclusive, wider cultural and spatial issues might result in the exclusion of 146

Trans Exclusion in Football

trans people due to anxiety around accessing and navigating the physical spaces associated with the sport. While many sporting bodies, including The FA, offer guidance around trans inclusion, this is primarily through a medical model that is concerned with gender reassignment surgery and hormone levels. Following this model, access and participation become possible for trans people who conform to a normative, medicalized trans identity. However, this also needs to be understood in the wider social context that trans people live in. Access to gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy can be increasingly difficult, with waits for initial appointments at gender identity clinics being up to five years (Parsons, 2021). Therefore, it is important to consider the impact of socioeconomic status on potential participation in football, as trans people who are able to afford to privately undergo gender reassignment surgery and/​or hormone therapy may find it easier to access football. On the other hand, those relying on the National Health Service (NHS) may be excluded from participating in football as a consequence of an overstretched NHS and a lack of appropriate government funding and resourcing of gender identity clinics. Therefore, it is also key to consider the role of class in discussions around trans inclusivity and sport, especially given that economic poverty is one of the largest contributors to non-​participation in sport (Widdop et al, 2017). Given that professional sport, including football, enforces a rigid, sex-​ segregated structure, it is important to explore how trans people may challenge cisnormative assumptions. The existence of trans people challenges popular assumptions about the relationship between sex and gender and may, therefore, be considered as attempting to ‘contest the “natural” connections between sexed embodiments and sexed lives’ (Browne, 2004: 333). Exclusion, discrimination and abuse may result from an apparent incongruence between an individual’s gender identity and expression and how others interpret their gender presentations. This phenomenon, which has been described as ‘genderism’, explains the ‘hostile readings of gender ambiguous bodies’ (Browne, 2004: 332). Genderism can be conceptualized as a social ideology which ‘reinforces the negative evaluation of gender non-​conformity or an incongruence between sex and gender’ (Hill and Willoughby, 2005: 534). We see genderist ideology manifest within football through the enforcement of rigid sex-​segregated policies and practice which contribute to the ‘othering’ of trans participants. Indeed, it has been argued that a ‘strict adherence to a system based upon a static and binary understanding of sex has presented considerable barriers to the participation of transgender athletes, who have traditionally been faced with policies of overt exclusion by sport organisations’ (Love, 2014: 376). Doan claims that trans people may encounter a ‘special kind of tyranny –​ the tyranny of gender –​that arises when people dare to challenge the 147

Hate Crime in Football

hegemonic expectations for appropriately gendered behavior in western society’ (2010: 635). In this sense, interpersonal violence, like institutional exclusion, may be an attempt to enforce cisnormative and hegemonic expectations of binary gender identities and presentations. The tyranny of gender may therefore be more forcefully experienced within spaces and activities that are segregated according to perceived biological sex and which allow wider systems to interpret and police our gendered identities and to apply and impose cisnormative expectations. The enforcement of a sex-​ binary model also renders nonbinary participation in sport ‘invisible’ and leaves little room for participation and engagement in sport at professional level in a way that is consistent with an individual’s embodied experience of gender. The current sex-​binary model in professional football in England and Wales, and internationally, reproduces social hierarchies in which transphobia becomes legitimized. National and international bodies such as The FA and FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) enforce these sex-​segregated structures that may result in the exclusion of trans people. Therefore, it is important to consider the wider social implications of professional football policy that may impact social life outside of football. I now turn to examine the specific policy and practice regulations that govern participation in football. While The FA provide guidance around trans inclusion within football at professional level, grassroots and community-​based teams which are not affiliated with a governing body have more freedom when it comes to how their teams are composed. This allows for greater diversity and inclusion at the grassroots level, as discussed later in the chapter.

Equality legislation, football policy and exclusion There are two key pieces of legislation in England and Wales that concern trans people’s legal recognition and access to sex-​segregated spaces and activities. The Gender Recognition Act (2004) enables people diagnosed with gender dysphoria to legally change their gender. The Act requires the individual to obtain a ‘gender recognition certificate’, which is dependent on the outcome of a ‘gender recognition panel’ consisting of legal and medical experts; the panel must be satisfied that a range of criteria for issuing a certificate has been met. In 2018, the government announced a public consultation which would feed into potential reform of the Act. The proposed reform was intended to demedicalize and streamline the administrative processes involved and enable trans people to gain legal recognition without having met all of the criteria initially specified (Government Equalities Office, 2018). Other countries, including Denmark and Ireland, have already implemented legislation recognizing that gender identity is a self-​declared category. Despite the public consultation being in 148

Trans Exclusion in Football

favour of the proposed changes, legislation relating to self-​declaration and demedicalization of the process was not introduced. The Equality Act 2010 sought to bring together a range of pre-​existing discrimination laws and afforded ‘protected characteristic’ status to ‘gender reassignment’, making discrimination based on this characteristic in relation to employment and provision of goods unlawful. Section 7 of the Equality Act defines gender reassignment: ‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.’ Football clubs, leagues and governing bodies are bound by this legislation. An individual does not need to have a gender recognition certificate in order to be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. However, the Act also allows exclusion of trans people from ‘single-​sex’ spaces and activities if this is evidenced to be proportionate to achieving a ‘legitimate aim’. In relation to football, Section 195 of the Equality Act defines a ‘gender-​affected activity’ as ‘a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity’. Thus, the exclusion of trans people from gender-​affected activities may be based on concerns for ‘fair competition’ or ‘the safety of competitors’. It is here that we see the impact of legislation on the social rhetoric which is routinely invoked to justify the exclusion of trans people from participating in sport. We therefore see the state engaging in institutionalized exclusion which trickles down to impact the lives of trans people. It is within this legislative framework that The FA developed its ‘trans inclusion’ policy. While The FA (2014) claim that gender identity should not impact an individual’s participation in football, I will demonstrate that the enactment of such a policy excludes transgender people both directly and indirectly. The FA’s Policy on Trans People in Football (2014) sets out the regulations and processes that are enacted when determining if a trans person can competitively participate in football in a team that aligns with their gender identity. In order to participate in an appropriate team, the individual must meet a number of hormone-​based requirements. This approach has already been criticized by those involved in grassroots and amateur football (Le Vay, 2021). In making an application to The FA, applicants must submit to blood testing to verify whether their blood testosterone levels are within the expected range for cisgender men and women and they must annually verify ongoing hormone treatment. This can be seen as an ongoing process, rather than a static process. Buzuvis (2016) argues that while sporting bodies may be attempting to create inclusive and fair policies, the policies often 149

Hate Crime in Football

unfairly impact trans athletes. This has been conceptualized as ‘physiological equivalency’, which reinforces the ‘cisnormative gender binary’ (Gleaves and Lehbrach, 2016: 314) and is ‘based on a faulty understanding of fairness’ (Semerjian, 2019: 157). Additionally, the requirement for hormone testing contributes to the medicalization of trans bodies. The medicalization of the body leads to the construction of gender in biomedical terms, which has the ‘effect of discursively producing it as a “natural,” ahistorical phenomenon’ (Eckhert, 2016: 239). MacKenzie (1994) claims that medical intervention maintains the normative ideals that masculine-​acting people belong in male bodies and feminine-​acting people belong in female bodies. Medicalization of trans bodies also privileges those deemed to be ‘trans enough’ and creates a culture of pressure for trans people to conform to normative expectations and alter their bodies in ways which may not be possible, or desired. Tobin argues that ‘large numbers of trans people live without such surgery due to medical conditions, financial constraints, fear of complications, religious beliefs, or simply by person choice’ (2007: 434). As such, those who do not undergo medical procedures are constructed as illegitimate and a ‘threat’ to the cisnormative order. Gender reassignment surgery also facilitates the ‘re-​inscription of sex on to “unruly” bodies’ (Hird, 2000: 349). There are significant social ramifications for the implementation of medicalized policies, as these policies feed into corrective discourses and construct the need for trans bodies to be managed, controlled and ‘treated’. However, even if a trans person agrees to blood testing, The FA’s policy stipulates that they may still decide to refuse their application in the interests of the applicant’s safety and other players’ safety, and in the interest of fair competition. Moreover, if the hormone requirements are not met, The FA may still decide that an individual may play in their affirmed gender if the organization is satisfied that there is no gender-​related advantage or disadvantage. This essentially renders the hormone requirements redundant, given that compliance, or noncompliance, with hormone regulation does not necessarily result in a trans person being included. Ultimately, this adds to the administrative processes and invasive regulation of trans bodies that trans people may already experience in other areas of life. Semerjian argues that many policies aiming to increase inclusion of trans people in sport are often ‘limited by their attempts to fit trans athletes into the binary sex divisions’ (2019: 156). Given that there is no guarantee that a trans person will be permitted to play as a representative of their affirmed gender, the requirement for hormone testing is likely to create a significant barrier to trans people’s participation in football. At a more extreme level, this may also be considered a form of symbolic violence perpetrated at an institutional level. Symbolic violence, as conceptualized by Bourdieu (2000, 2002), describes the processes and mechanisms through which symbolic behaviours, 150

Trans Exclusion in Football

interactions and policies maintain and encourage structural inequalities in people’s everyday lives. While policing trans people’s participation in football under claims of safety and fairness, The FA also acknowledges significant differences in terms of strength, speed, weight, height and ability among cisgender players, which they claim should be ‘celebrated’. However, the differences that exist within cisgender men and within cisgender women are not used to police and regulate inclusion and participation of cisgender people in sport. It is here that we see the ways trans and cisgender people are held to different standards and expectations relating to performance, strength, speed and appearance, with biological differences within cisgender men and within cisgender women naturalized, contributing to the ‘othering’ of trans people and the construction of trans bodies as outside the scope of ‘natural’ variation. While The FA (2014) acknowledge that some trans players may outperform their cisgender counterparts, they claim that this should not be considered an unfair advantage simply because the person in question is trans, and that those who outperform others should not have their gender identity questioned. These are claims that should be celebrated; however, The FA’s policy also provides direction for those who would like to ‘question’ whether a player is permitted to play on their team based on the appearance of that person’s gender. Based on reports to the FA by players questioning the person’s transgender status, the person may be asked to undergo testing of hormone levels. Allowing participants to raise concerns based on a player’s appearance contributes to the maintenance of western gendered expectations, and, therefore, people who do not conform to these expectations may experience the ‘tyranny of gender’ through being reported to The FA (Doan, 2010). This affects not only trans players, but also cisgender players who do not conform to expected presentations of gender and may also be subject to interrogation, discrimination and violence (Colliver, 2021). Raising concerns based on a player’s appearance is contradictory to later guidance issued by The FA (2016) that acknowledges you cannot always determine an individual’s gender based on their appearance or voice. However, it is important to note here that this is simply guidance and does not supersede the official policy set out in 2014. Therefore, the current FA policies directly impact the way trans people navigate, participate and access football in England and Wales. At international level, in 2021 FIFA announced it would be reviewing its gender verification regulations to align them with their human rights responsibilities (Staniforth, 2022).

Impact of trans exclusion To understand structural discrimination within football, it is useful to acknowledge that the sport can be understood as a microcosm of wider 151

Hate Crime in Football

society. As such, the ways trans people are treated within football may influence the wider society’s response to trans people. Trans exclusion from football reinforces many conversations around trans people’s access to and participation in various aspects of social life which have been framed as transgender rights versus women’s rights (see Colliver, 2021). This framing constructs the two categories as mutually exclusive, and trans people as the ‘other’ that contributes to the justification of exclusion and violence. When making claims about the authenticity of trans people’s identities, gender reassignment surgery (or having not gone through this process) is often drawn on to claim that trans people are inauthentic in their gendered claims (Colliver et al, 2019). In contributing to trans people being considered ‘other’, a social, cultural and political climate is reinforced which positions trans people as legitimate targets for violence. Violence against trans people is a global issue, with various studies outlining the frequency, impact and types of violence experienced (Fletcher, 2013; Chakraborti et al, 2014; Colliver, 2021). Perceiving someone, or a community of people, as ‘other’ is central in understanding discrimination, violence and hate crime perpetrated against marginalized groups. Perry argues that ‘marking both the Self and the Other in such a way’ that emphasizes difference provides a justification for ostracizing and victimizing groups deemed ‘different’ (2001: 10). The ‘difference’ Perry speaks of relates to the socially constructed hierarchies of identity that are perpetuated through various social avenues, including sport. Hate crime against trans people can, therefore, be understood as a heightened form of discrimination against trans people for their ‘difference’ and their ‘otherness’. Allport (1954) claims that majority groups always perceive themselves as dominant, and anyone they consider ‘different’ is constructed as subordinate. The subordinate group are judged unfavourably against the perceived normality of the dominant group. The ‘difference’ presented by the ‘other’ may cause insecurity within the ‘in-​group’ about their dominant place in society. This can also be applied to football directly, in that cisgender participants may experience insecurity and anxiety about their own opportunities when they perceive someone as ‘different’ and that difference is associated with advantage. The dominant group must therefore ensure that the ‘other’ remains subordinate and marginalized in order to maintain ‘proper’ relational power dynamics, which, Perry argues, ‘leave minority members vulnerable to systemic violence’ (2001: 2). This power dynamic is preserved through the social policing of the marginalized group. In wider society this may be through violence and intimidation, and in football this may occur through interpersonal discrimination and structural discrimination that serves to exclude trans people. Jauk suggests that ‘violence against trans people is often triggered by gender non-​conformity and violence is a form of gender policing’ 152

Trans Exclusion in Football

(2013: 808). It can also be argued that it is not just interpersonal violence which functions as a form of gender policing, since structural and symbolic violence can achieve the same goal of reinforcing cisnormative expectations of gender. Interpersonal violence and structural exclusion, therefore, are not only personal but also hold symbolic power and can be considered a form of societal messaging, which reaffirms trans peoples ‘otherness’ and legitimizes the continued oppression they experience (Burgess et al, 2013). The sex-​segregation model that is rigidly enforced in football in countries across the world reflects the levels of discomfort associated with perceiving gender as a spectrum (Hill, 2003). By deviating from this binary model, trans people challenge the boundaries of deeply engrained assumptions about gender –​assumptions that both football and society have relied on to organize themselves throughout history. Hall argues that ‘hierarchal structure of power in society is based upon notions of “difference” with the “mythical norm” at the top and those who are “different” assigned subordinate positions’ (2005: 78). Therefore, social and structural hierarchies and processes contribute to transphobia and trans exclusion becoming acceptable. Given this, it is important that football associations consider their commitment to social responsibility, inclusivity and equality. While outcomes may be unintended, it is important to note that decisions made regarding trans inclusion and exclusion within football have wider societal impacts and contribute to the broader social climate in which trans people navigate their lives on a daily basis. Rather than reinforcing a hostile climate for trans people through their exclusion, football has the power to contribute to social change through positive representation of trans people. Given the local, national and international reach of football, associations have many opportunities to challenge harmful stereotypes regarding trans people. This is of key importance at a time when trans people, and LGBTQ+​people more broadly, are experiencing social exclusion across the world. As the quote at the beginning of this chapter suggests, sport has the power to make social change, to improve social inclusion and to challenge the exclusion of marginalized groups.

Conclusion In this chapter, I discussed the ways that trans people access and participate in football in England and Wales. While the policy focus of this chapter was on England and Wales, the policies discussed are also adopted internationally, and therefore the chapter has international significance. I began the chapter by outlining trans people’s participation in sport broadly and providing a conceptual framework in which trans people’s exclusion from sport can be 153

Hate Crime in Football

understood. It has been argued that the current policies governing trans people’s participation and inclusion within football create significant barriers to their participation in FA-​affiliated football. The current policies contribute to the medicalization of trans bodies, which may be considered a means of regulating ‘unruly’ bodies. Adopting a medical model also reinforces the pathologization of trans people, which is commonly used as a justification for transphobia (Colliver, 2021). Therefore, policies which medicalize trans bodies may constitute symbolic violence at an institutional level that contributes to the exclusion of trans people from football. I also addressed the way football policy may perpetuate the ‘otherness’ of trans people and, in so doing, contribute to a hostile environment in which trans people become legitimate targets for violence. It is, therefore, recommended that The FA review and reform current policy relating to trans inclusion in football to reflect societal development in the ways trans people are understood. The FA’s current approach of hormone testing appears to be superfluous, as they still have authority to exclude or include trans people, regardless of conformity to the organization’s hormone requirements, so I recommend that this approach should be disregarded. Any update to policy around trans inclusion in football also needs to be reflective and appreciative of broader trans communities, who may live outside, between or beyond the western gender binary. Note 1

The Tanner stages outline the stages of puberty. Tanner stage 2 represents the beginnings of physical changes including genital growth and hair growth.

References Allport, G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-​Wesley. Awan, I. and Zempi, I. (2017) ‘“I will blow your face OFF”—​virtual and physical world anti-​Muslim hate crime’, British Journal of Criminology, 57(2): 362–​380. Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (2002) Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bowling, B. (1999) Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Browne, K. (2004) ‘Genderism and the bathroom problem: (re)materialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies’, Gender, Place and Culture, 11(3): 331–​346. Burgess, A., Regehr, C. and Roberts, A. (2013) Victimology: Theories and Applications (2nd edn), Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Buzuvis, E. (2016) ‘“As who they really are”: Expanding opportunities for transgender athletes to participate in youth and scholastic sports’, Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 34, 341–384. 154

Trans Exclusion in Football

Carroll, H. (2014) ‘Joining the team: the inclusion of transgender students in United States school-​based athletics’, in J. Hargreaves and E. Anderson (eds) Routledge Handbook of Sport, Gender and Sexuality, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 367–​375. Chakraborti, N., Garland, J. and Hardy, S. (2014) The Leicester Hate Crime Project: Findings and Conclusions, Leicester: University of Leicester. Collins, M. (2014) Sport and Social Exclusion (2nd edn), New York: Routledge. Colliver, B. (2021) Reimagining Hate Crime: Transphobia, Visibility and Victimisation, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Colliver, B. and Coyle, A. (2020) ‘Risk of sexual violence against women and girls in the construction of gender-​neutral toilets: a discourse analysis of comments on YouTube videos’, Journal of Gender-​Based Violence, 4(3): 359–​376. Colliver, B., Coyle, A. and Silvestri, M. (2019) ‘The “online othering” of transgender people in relation to gender neutral toilets’, in K. Lumsden and E. Harmer (eds) Online Othering: Exploring Digital Violence on the Web, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 215–​237. Doan, P. (2010) ‘The tyranny of gendered spaces: reflections from beyond the gender dichotomy’, Gender, Place and Culture, 17(5): 635–​654. Eckhert, E. (2016) ‘A case for the demedicalization of queer bodies’, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 89(2): 239–​246. The FA (The Football Association) (2014) Policy on Trans People in Football [online], Available at: www.thefa.com/f​ ootba​ ll-​rules-​gov​erna​nce/​polic​ies/​ equal​ity/​lgbt-​footb​all [Accessed 7 June 2022]. The FA (2016) A Guide to Including Trans People in Football [online], Available at: www.thefa.com/​news/​2016/​mar/​22/​guida​nce-​trans-​peo​ ple-​in-​footb​all [Accessed 7 June 2022]. Faktor, A. (2011) ‘Access and exclusion: public toilets as sites of insecurity for gender and sexual minorities in North America’, Journal of Human Security, 7(3): 10–​22. FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) (2021) Fifth Report by the FIFA Human Rights Advisory Board [online], Available at: https://​ dig ​ital​hub.fifa.com/​m/​4769e​b55b​4e22​ba5/​origi​nal/​vfore​ieiz​1fh0​6ld4​ a36-​pdf.pdf [Accessed 22 September 2022]. Fletcher, T. (2013) ‘Trans sex workers: negotiating sex, gender, and non-​normative desire’, in S. van de Meulen and E.M. Durisin (eds) Selling Sex: Experience, Advocacy, and Research on Sex Work in Canada, Vancouver: UBC Press, pp 65–​73. Gleaves, J. and Lehbrach, T. (2016) ‘Beyond fairness: the ethics of inclusion for transgender and intersex athletes’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 43(2), 1–16. Government Equalities Office (2018) Reform of the Gender Recognition Act –​ Government Consultation, London: Government Equalities Office. 155

Hate Crime in Football

Hall, N. (2005) Hate Crime, Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Hargie, O., Somerville, I. and Mitchell, D. (2015) Social Exclusion and Sport in Northern Ireland, Newtownabbey: Ulster University. Heggie, V. (2014) ‘Subjective sex: science, medicine and sex tests in sports’, in J. Hargreaves and E. Anderson (eds) Routledge Handbook of Sport, Gender and Sexuality, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 339–​347. Hill, D. (2003) ‘Genderism, transphobia, and genderbashing: a framework for interpreting anti-​transgender violence’, in B. Wallace and R. Carter (eds) Understanding and Dealing with Violence: A Multicultural Approach, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp 113–​136. Hill, D.B. and Willoughby, B.L.B. (2005) ‘The development and validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale’, Sex Roles, 53(7): 531–​544. Hines, S. (2010) ‘Introduction’, in S. Hines and T. Sanger (eds) Transgender Identities: Towards a Social Analysis of Gender Diversity, New York: Routledge, pp 1–​22. Hird, M. (2000) ‘Gender’s nature’, Feminist Theory, 1(3): 347–​364. Home Office (2021) Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2020–​2 021, London: Home Office. Jamel, J. (2018) Transphobic Hate Crime, London: Palgrave Macmillan. James, Z. and Smith, D. (2017) ‘Roma inclusion post Brexit: a challenge to existing rhetoric?’, Safer Communities, 16(4): 186–​195. Jauk, D. (2013) ‘Gender violence revisited: lessons from violent victimization of transgender identified individuals’, Sexualities, 16(7): 807–​825. Johnson, A. (2015) ‘Beyond inclusion: thinking toward a transfeminist methodology’, in V. Demos and M.T. Segal (eds) At the Center: Feminism, Social Science and Knowledge, Bingley: Emerald, pp 21–​42. Jones, B., Arcelus, J., Bouman, W.P. and Haycraft, E. (2016) ‘Sport and transgender people: a systematic review of the literature relating to sport participation and competitive sport policies’, Sex Roles, 47(4): 701–​716. Kemp, E. (2022) ‘Transgender swimming ban: Cate Campbell backs Fina restrictions’, The Guardian, [online] 20 June, Available at: www.theg​ uard​ian.com/​sport /​2022/​jun/​20/​transgender-​swimming-​ban-​cate-​ campbell-​backs-​fina-​restrictions-​in-​elite-​womens-c​ ompetition [Accessed 3 August 2022]. Le Vay, J. (2021) ‘Amateur football club forced out of FA leagues unless trans players take hormone tests’, Manchester Evening News, [online] 6 July, Available at: www.manche​ster​even​ingn​ews.co.uk/​news/​grea​ter-​man​ ches​ter-​news/​amat​eur-​footb​all-​horm​one-​trans-​f a-​20953​035 [Accessed 7 June 2022]. Linghede, E., Purdy, L. and Barker-​Ruchti, N. (2022) ‘Glitching trans* athletes: possibilities for research and practice in sports coaching’, Sports Coaching Review, 11(1): 64–​86.

156

Trans Exclusion in Football

Llewellyn, L. (2022) ‘Prime Minister Boris Johnson says transgender women shouldn’t compete in women’s sport’, Mirror, [online] 6 April, Available at: www.mir​ror.co.uk/​sport/​other-​spo​rts/​boris-j​ ohns​ on-t​ rans​ gend​ er-a​ thle​ tes-​26649​878 [Accessed 7 June 2022]. Love, A. (2014) ‘Transgender exclusion and inclusion in sport’, in J. Hargreaves and E. Anderson (eds) Routledge Handbook of Sport, Gender and Sexuality, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 376–​383. Lucas-​Carr, C. and Krane, V. (2012) ‘Troubling sport or troubled by sport’, Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 6(1), 21–​44. MacKenzie, G. (1994) Transgender Nation, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press. Mason, G. (2005) ‘A picture of hate crime: racial and homophobic harassment in the United Kingdom’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17(1): 79–​95. National LGB&T Partnership (2016) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans People and Physical Activity: What You Need to Know, London: The National LGB&T Partnership. Parsons, V. (2021) ‘NHS gender clinic apologises to trans patients for shameful five-​year waiting time’, PinkNews, [online] 20 April, Available at: www.pinkn​ews.co.uk/​2021/​04/​20/​nhs-​gend​ er-c​ lin ​ ic-t​ he-l​ aure​ ls-w ​ ait​ ing-​list-​time/​ [Accessed 17 March 2022]. Perry, B. (2001) In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes, London: Routledge. Reuters (2022) ‘England’s Rugby Union and Rugby League ban transgender players from women’s game’, [online] 29 July. Available at: www.reut​ers. com/​lifest​yle/​spo​r ts/​rfu-​bans-​tran​sgen​der-​women-​partic​ipat​ing-​wom​ ens-​game-​2022-​07-​29/​ [Accessed 3 August 2022]. Roberts, O. (2022) ‘Transgender footballer defended by teammates after England Universities call-​up’, Give Me Sport, [online] 14 April, Available at: www.give​mesp​ort.com/​87995​506-​tran​sgen​der-​foo​tbal​ler-​defen​ded-​ by-​teamma​tes-​after-​engl​and-​unive​rsit​ies-​call-​up [Accessed 7 June 2022]. Semerjian, T. (2019) ‘Making space: transgender athletes’, in V. Krane (ed) Sex, Gender and Sexuality in Sport: Queer Inquiries, London: Routledge, pp 145–​162. Smith, E. (2022) ‘History in the making as all-​transgender team TRUK United face Dulwich Hamlet women in first for English football’, Goal, [online] 30 March, Available at: www.goal.com/​en/​news/​tran​sgen​der-​ truk-​uni​ted-​dulw​ich-​ham​let-​women/​bltc​dd6d​7d4e​cbb1​547 [Accessed 7 June 2022]. Sports Councils Equality Group (2021) The UK Sports Council’s Guidance for Transgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport [online], Available at: https://​ equa​lity​insp​ort.org/​docs/​300​921/​Guida​nce%20for%20Tran​sgen​der%20In​ clus​ion%20in%20D​omes​tic%20Sp​ort%202​021.pdf [Accessed 7 June 2022].

157

Hate Crime in Football

Staniforth, M. (2022) ‘Fifa reviewing gender eligibility regulations for football’, The Independent, 21 June, Available at: https://www.independent. co.uk/sport/football/fifa-transgender-gender-eligibility-rules-b2105832. html [Accessed 26 July 2023]. Stryker, S. (2008) Transgender History, Berkley, CA: Seal Press. Tobin, H. (2007) ‘Against the surgical requirement for chance of legal sex’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 38(2): 394–​435. Widdop, P., King, N., Parnell, D., Cutts, D. and Millward, P. (2017) ‘Austerity, policy and sport participation in England’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 10(1): 7–​24. Wright, T., Candy, B. and King, M. (2018) ‘Conversion therapies and access to transition-​related healthcare in transgender people: a narrative systematic review’, BMJ Open, 8(12): 1–​12.

158

10

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football: What (If Anything) Works? Liz Crolley and Jon Garland

Introduction The online racist abuse of Black England players Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho after they missed penalties in the decisive shoot-​out at the end of the 2020 UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championship (Euro 2020) final against Italy (held in July 2021 due to the COVID-​19 pandemic) brought the issue of hate crime in football to the fore. Described as ’unforgiveable’ and ‘just not what we stand for’ by England manager Gareth Southgate (quoted in Morse, 2021), this was part of a surge of abusive online behaviour directed at England players at the time, which prompted the setting up of a specialist hate crime investigation team as part of the United Kingdom Football Policing Unit (Jackson, 2021). Overall, as it is within society more broadly, the most prominent type of hate crime in football is racist, with these incidents making up 74 per cent of hate crimes recorded by police at football matches during 2021/​22 (283 out of a total of 384; Home Office, 2022a). Hate incidents relating to sexual orientation (106) made up 28 per cent of the total recorded for that season (Home Office, 2022a). While antiracism in football has been the focus of active campaigns for many years, and other contributions to this book detail some of the progress that has been made in turning once-​normalized racist attitudes into stigmatized minority ones, it is only recently that serious attempts have been made to eradicate homophobia from football and to make football a more inclusive environment for LGBT+​fans. This chapter focuses on those LGBT+​campaigns and aims to identify what progress has

159

Hate Crime in Football

been made in tackling homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in men’s professional football in England. In the last decade, LGBT+​campaigns have developed a momentum of their own. Early antidiscrimination campaigns focused on race and, to a lesser extent, gender and disability. The reasons why football institutions failed to embrace LGBT+​rights have been analysed by Brackenridge et al (2007), who concluded that a lack of financial incentive (that is, ticket sales) meant that this group were not acknowledged by sports professionals, who tended to prioritize a fan base they believed could be monetized more easily. Researchers who have focused on antidiscrimination programmes in sport have concluded that the needs of LGBT+​fans are not being met (Marivoet, 2014; De Foor et al, 2018; Jeanes et al, 2019; Denison et al, 2021) and observed how the issue of LGBT+​diversity is largely absent from sport management literature around inclusion. Following the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report titled Racism in Sport (House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2012), which found that 25 per cent of fans thought homophobia in sport was a problem compared to 10 per cent who thought racism was, it took five years for the department to publish the report of the inquiry into homophobia in sport (House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2017). Football’s main antidiscrimination campaigning group, Kick It Out, was established in 1993 with the aim of fighting against racism (under the name Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football). It expanded its remit in 1997 to campaign against all forms of discrimination (Kick It Out, 2022b), though until recently racism has remained the focus of most of its initiatives. Even within current equality, diversity and inclusion policies, its actions relating to sexual orientation and diversity are relatively low key. Campaigns for the right of LGBT+​people to an inclusive football environment tend to get fewer endorsements by players and clubs than antiracism campaigns, though the hosting of the 2022 FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) World Cup in Qatar, a country that punishes same-​sex relationships, forced this issue up the agenda of football authorities and media. Conversely, Cashmore and Cleland (2012) found that 93 per cent of fans stated there is no place for homophobia in football. Counterintuitively, though, some gay-​friendly fans still participate in homosexually themed chanting in groups (Cashmore and Cleland, 2011; Magrath, 2017a), and this continued ‘homophobia paradox’ forms the rationale for organizations’ continued activism to eliminate LGBTphobia from football. While we have statistics on the race and ethnicity of footballers and football fans, we know little about their diversity in terms of sexual identification or orientation. In the last 40 years, the traditional White male image of footballers has been changing to include much greater participation of ethnic 160

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

minority players and women, and this visibly challenges the dominance and homogeneity of the White male in English football. Yet the participation of gay footballers remains invisible in the male professional game. While lesbian, gay and bisexual athletes are represented in many other sports (according to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2017, some 44 sportspeople in the Great Britain Olympic team in 2016 were known to be lesbian, gay and bisexual), this does not extend to male professional football. The women’s game is much more diverse in this respect, with numerous key players identifying as lesbian or bisexual. Cleland et al (2022) note the lack of homonegativity in the attitudes of male football fans towards sexuality in women’s football, attributing this to the fact that it does not challenge the heteromasculine position of males and that it reaffirms existing stereotypes about non-​heterosexual females participating in football. Anderson (2014) developed a number of homophobia hypotheses, which suggest that the absence of openly gay footballers in the male professional game might be because high levels of homophobia prevent footballers from ‘coming out’. Indeed, Greg Clarke, Chair of the Football Association (The FA) at the time of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into racism, stated that he was convinced it would be unlikely for a (male) player to come out as gay because of the vile abuse he would face (House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2017: 5). This belief that English football cannot cope with gay footballers is a recurring theme in the media and among players. This assumption thus shapes policy within the game (McCormack, 2011). In the absence of the (male) gay role model on the pitch, fans look elsewhere for reassurances that the environment is inclusive. This lack of visible or audible voices representing gay and bisexual and trans players is perhaps one of the reasons for the slow development of activism against homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in professional men’s football. Antiracism campaigns began seriously when Black players began to come through in significant numbers in men’s professional football in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This never happened for gay or bisexual footballers in the men’s game. The well-​documented accounts of the experiences of Justin Fashanu –​England’s first openly gay footballer, who tragically took his own life in 1998 –​illustrate a devastating lack of support and shocking levels of homophobia within football, and it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the sport was not ready for LGBT+​activism. Fear of fans’ reactions, but also fear of losing corporate sponsorship, prevented footballers from letting their sexuality be known publicly. Despite this lack of visibility, the movement to promote LGBT+​inclusivity emerged from football’s fan base. Since the first official LGBT+​fan group, the Gay Gooners, was established at Arsenal in February 2013, closely followed by the Proud Canaries 161

Hate Crime in Football

at Norwich City in October that same year, over 50 groups have been established and most are now affiliated to the Pride in Football network of LGBT+​fan groups (see Pride in Football, nd). It is this activism on the part of fans that forms the main focus of this chapter. The research for this chapter involved interviews with a number of LGBT+​activists involved with football at club and/​or national level, the aim being to establish what progress, if any, has been made in terms of tackling LGBTphobia and hate crime in football. Challenging the assumption that football meekly accepts LGBTphobia, this chapter examines the work of many who are committed to addressing homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crime or incidents in football. It identifies the key features of campaigning and the main actors involved, and it evaluates the relative success in tackling issues of concern identified by LGBT+​fans.

Data on LGBTphobic hate crime Over the last decade, there has been a widely reported rise in hate crime reported to the police in the United Kingdom (UK; Home Office, 2022b), though as a caveat to the interpretation of these data trends, it is noted that the rise may reflect an improvement in crime reporting rather than a rise in actual incidents. During 2021/​22, 19.5 per cent of reported hate crimes were either sexual orientation hate crimes or transgender hate crimes (a total of 30,507). There were also ‘spikes’ in racially and religiously motivated hate crimes, linked to specific incidents, such as the European Union membership referendum in 2016, terrorist attacks in 2017 and the start of the COVID-​19 pandemic in 2020. The Euro 2020 final was another such event. The Crime Survey for England and Wales is also used as a source of data to monitor hate crime, though the data have to be aggregated over a three-​ year period (as the annual hate crime data are so small), making short-​term trend analysis problematic (Allen and Zayed, 2022). Nevertheless, the 2017 National LGBT Survey found that 40 per cent of LGBT+​people surveyed had experienced a negative incident in the last 12 months (Government Equalities Office, 2018). Some 92 per cent did not report the most serious incident they had experienced; the explanation for this was a belief that ‘nothing would happen or change’ (48 per cent) or that ‘it happens all the time’ (54 per cent) (Government Equalities Office, 2018). Lack of visible arrests led to frustration among the LGBT+​community and to a feeling that there was no point in reporting incidents (Government Equalities Office, 2018: 86). This backdrop is significant when we consider the football environment and some of the frustrations experienced in that context. Both the Crime Survey for England and Wales and databases of crimes reported to the police (Home Office, 2022b) are useful sources, but there 162

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

are many crimes with a hate crime component that are subsumed into other categories of crime, especially when the crimes are intersectional (for example, victims might be Black, LGBT+​and Muslim). So, for the purposes of this chapter, while the data are a starting point, we rely heavily on LGBT+​people’s perceptions of homophobia, biphobia or transphobia in football. Attention is frequently drawn to the prevalence of hate crime within football. So common is the perception that hate crimes are prevalent among football fans that the sport has been singled out for attention and the UK government has introduced new legal provisions that allow for banning orders to be executed specifically for football-​related online hate crime/​abuse (CPS, 2022a). However, academic research suggests that there has been a sharp decline in homophobia in football since the 1960s and 1970s (Cashmore and Cleland, 2011, 2012; Magrath, 2017a, 2017b). Nevertheless, the crime statistics are a useful tool to identify the extent of the issue, as reported officially. Kick It Out (2022a) received 380 reports of hate crime incidents in the professional game in the 2021/​22 season, of which 29 per cent were related to sexual orientation (108 cases) or gender reassignment (2 cases).1 The data on football-​related arrests and banning orders in England and Wales show that hate crime incidents were reported at 13 per cent of the 3,019 domestic regulated matches in the 2021/​22 season (that is, at 382 matches; Home Office, 2022a). Of these, 106 incidents were related to sexual orientation. Online hate crimes related to football were included for the first time in the report covering 2021/​22, as ‘experimental statistics’ (Home Office, 2022a). Online football-​related hate crimes are those that have been referred to the United Kingdom Football Policing Unit, either by individuals or by organizations such as Kick It Out or The FA, and investigated and recorded as hate crime.2 The data are not segregated to inform us of what proportion relates to LGBTphobia. We do know, though, that not all abuse results in the recording of a hate crime incident, so the number of hate incidents is much higher than the number of reported hate crimes. ‘Hate incidents’ reported in the National LGBT Survey were predominantly abusive chanting at sports grounds, commonly in football stadia (Government Equalities Office, 2018: 41). What is clear is that verbal abuse forms the most common source of distress (Macgrath, 2017a). In 2015, however, some 22 per cent of football fans were of the opinion that homophobic language was ‘just banter’ (Stonewall, 2015). Given the data, showing decreased homophobia in football (Cleland et al, 2018) but increased self-​reporting by a gay-​friendly fan base, it might be slightly surprising that football has its own legislation while this is not the case for other areas of society –​evidence of greater levels of hate crime (or indeed antisocial behaviour) in football than elsewhere is hard to find.3 163

Hate Crime in Football

However, it is clear that LGBTphobia is present in football, particularly in chanting, and this chapter sets out to evaluate what progress is being made to address this.

Policies on antidiscrimination and LGBT+​fans This chapter brings together actions and reports of some of the key actors in combating LGBTphobia in football. An institutional analysis of policy provided the context to a series of semi-​structured interviews carried out with members of LGBT+​fan groups. Leading representatives from the Gay Gooners, the Proud Lilywhites, the Proud Canaries, the Kop Outs and Three Lions Pride were interviewed, and other fans who identify as LGBT+​were also consulted. The representatives from LGBT+​fan groups were asked about: the aims or objectives of their group and what success looks like for them; what progress, if any, they believe has been made in recent years on reducing homophobia; what obstacles remain to tackling homophobia; and their views on the antidiscrimination policies and actions of football’s governing bodies. The policies of football’s main governing bodies on equality, diversity and inclusion focus heavily on racism rather than LGBTphobia, as do the supporting documentation and case studies presented via their websites and reports. From our assessment, FIFA’s own web page on diversity and inclusion (FIFA, 2022a) has little or no mention of LGBT+​representation or diversity and lacks clear commitment and policy to tackle homophobia in football.4 In any case, FIFA’s decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar undermines any claim they may have made to the creation of a welcoming environment for LGBT+​communities. UEFA, though, do have policies and action plans to combat homophobia in football. Its long-​standing Respect programme and the Euro 2020 Equal Game campaign represent attempts to encourage inclusivity. However, it has struggled to put its campaign ideas into practice. Indeed, neither of football’s main international governing bodies inspired much confidence in the LGBT+​fan groups interviewed as part of this research. Of more direct relevance are the main actors involved in English football: The FA, the Premier League and the English Football League (EFL). In the report on homophobia by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2017), The FA was heavily criticized for its lack of coherent strategy and apparent inaction on homophobia in football. The introduction of FIFA’s Football Leadership Diversity Code in 2020 was a missed opportunity to focus on equality, diversity and inclusion for LGBT+​people. In 2021, The FA launched its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2020–​2024 (The FA, 2021), which, while laudable, does not centre on LBGT+​matters, but deals primarily with racial and gender equality. 164

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

The Premier League’s (2021b) updated Equality Diversity and Inclusion Standard outlines the Premier League’s commitment to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and tackling discrimination. It introduces a framework for Premier League clubs to set and achieve targets, and promotes progress through different levels of achievement via a mandatory process (Premier League, 2021a). The Premier League supports Stonewall’s high-​ profile Rainbow Laces campaign, which provides educational materials and a toolkit for schools and grassroot clubs to help them get involved in the campaign. In August 2022, the EFL launched its new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy, Together (EFL, 2022), which gives clubs a framework to work in over a five-​year period. Its five strategy ‘pillars’ –​to ‘Support, Educate, Communicate, Embed and Listen’ (EFL, 2022: 8) –​are designed with targets for outcomes. Unlike the national and international governing bodies, the EFL focuses specifically on LGBT+​communities and commits to listening to fan groups. It held its first LGBT+​fans’ forum in December 2021 and works with partners such as Pride in Football and Football v Homophobia. This ensures input at policy level by grassroots LGBT+​ participants in the game. The EFL’s equality, diversity and inclusion strategy takes steps in the right direction. It commits to engagement with relevant equality, diversity and inclusion fan groups and places strategic value on the role of partnerships and collaborations to identify the best way to make progress. The policies of these football organizations and governing bodies vary in their effectiveness and commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion for LGBT+​fans. The fans themselves provide the most important insight into LGBTphobia in football and how it is changing. Analysis of their aims, progress, success stories and obstacles provides useful insights for moving forward.

The aims of LGBT+​fan group activism The stated aims of LGBT+​fan groups fall under five key themes: campaigning to promote inclusivity; campaigning to increase visibility of LGBT+​issues (consciousness raising); increasing education around LGBT+​ issues; influencing policy regarding equality, diversity and inclusion in football; and socializing with other LGBT+​fans. These are dealt with in turn.

Inclusivity Overwhelmingly, the members of club campaign groups who were interviewed stated that the overall aim of their groups was to make football a more inclusive environment, in which LGBT+​fans felt comfortable. The 165

Hate Crime in Football

stated aim in some groups was campaigning, and some LGBT+​fan groups were established in order to encourage inclusion. As one interviewee put it: “Our aim is to make LGBT people feel more comfortable in the football environment” and “to raise awareness of LGBT issues” (Paouros, Proud Lilywhites). Another interviewee explained that football is lagging behind other social settings when it comes to the inclusion of LGBT+​people: “We were hearing homophobic language we would challenge in the street, and assumed it was part and parcel of football … campaigning became necessary” (Cunningham, Proud Canaries).

Visibility Closely connected to encouraging inclusivity is increasing visibility. Several members of LGBT+​fan groups explained that this was particularly important because of the lack of visibility on the pitch. It became clear in interviews that the symbolism of the rainbow (flags or laces) is a strong one, and that its presence sends a strong message to LGBT+​fans that they are welcome and should feel part of the fan base. While not all LGBT+​ fans wanted to gather under a rainbow flag, it was acknowledged as being important for visibility.

Education The aims of LGBT+​fan groups often include the education of others in order to change attitudes. Cunningham told an anecdote about the moment Proud Canaries was established at Norwich City. When the group was presented on the pitch at half-​time during a match against Tottenham Hotspur in February 2014, the potential success of pursuing a strategy based on education became clear. As the founder members carried a rainbow flag onto the pitch at Carrow Road alongside Amal Fashanu, niece of Justin Fashanu, to the applause of the Norwich City fans, one fan shouted homophobic abuse. This fan was vilified by social media and action was taken by the club. The offender met with the club’s Chief Executive Officer at the time, David McNally, and received education rather than being excluded. All the members of fan groups in this research expressed a belief that people can be educated and should be given the opportunity for redemption. (In fact, their patient tolerance of ignorance was quite humbling.) They saw performative speech acts as key to leading genuine change: clubs might say they are ‘inclusive’ and then offer fans heteronormative descriptors that serve to reinforce the gender binary in their registration systems. Participants were united in the view that education and training holds the key to changing behaviours, and that this should only be backed up by penalties, punishment and criminalization as a last resort. 166

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

Influencing policy For some LGBT+​fan groups, campaigning is at the level of consciousness-​ raising and education, but for others, it encompasses heavier involvement in influencing policy. It is important to them to have fan views integrated into decision-​making and policies involving LGBT+​fans (White, Gay Gooners/​ Three Lions Pride). Their aim is to be more involved in the bodies who make decisions.

Socializing An important aim for some LGBT+​fan groups is to provide a supportive social network in which people can be true to themselves and still support their team. The fear of having to “park part of ourselves at the turnstile” (Cunningham, Proud Canaries) led some to form or join a fan group “to be together” (Paouros, Proud Lilywhites). The purpose is social rather than purely campaigning. Indeed according to White (Gay Gooners/​Three Lions Pride): “While we’ll never get there [achieve equality and inclusiveness], the goal of us just being a social group would be a success.” He went on to talk about the vision of “not having to challenge, to report, but … just enjoy football”. Some activists said their ultimate goal was not to be needed: “We want to put ourselves out of business” (Paouros); “Our end goal is not needing to exist” (White).

Progress to date, according to campaigners There appears to have been a shift in the aims of LGBT+​fan groups. While the original goals remain, more recently, they are adjusting to an increasing focus on influencing policy and demanding allies’ visible and tangible commitment to supporting LGBT+​matters. Nevertheless, participants spoke of significant progress made over the last decade in terms of achieving all their main aims: visibility, inclusivity, awareness, involvement of LGBT+​ fan groups in policy making, and socializing.

Visibility While the men’s game still lacks a visible presence on the pitch of gay, bisexual or transgender footballers, the annual Rainbow Laces campaign means that the rainbow symbol is visible at least one month each year, and it is ever-​present in some grounds on banners and flags. This visibility plays an important role in the consciousness-​raising stage of campaigning. The endorsement (or ‘commitment’) to improve the experience of LGBT+​fans and players by those most visible, the professional footballers, 167

Hate Crime in Football

in the men’s game has been seen very positively by the interviewees in this research. Players such as Conor Coady, Jordan Henderson and Jamie Vardy were named by the interviewees as individuals who are actively promoting LGBT+​inclusion, as were Leeds players Luke Ayling and Noel Whelan, along with Jermaine Beckford, for attending Leeds Pride in August 2022. This represents a partial achievement of the aims of the LGBT+​ campaigners.

Inclusivity as a result of education All fans participating in this study reported an increased feeling of inclusivity in football over the last decade. This is progress against their stated aims. They all agreed that football had moved on from its antiquated attitudes, that they no longer felt as excluded and that there were fewer moments when they felt excluded. It was in education that the interviewees felt their groups were making most progress. Also, as a result of education, they had fostered allies within the wider fan base: Most of the impact we have had has been with other fans. It is great to have rules, but fans are more influential. Being a member of a fans’ community is essential for challenging what can or can’t be sung, being welcomed to the fan community, feeling accepted as fans with a fan voice. (Cunningham, Proud Canaries) According to Amann (Kop Outs), the key to success in changing attitudes is to “hold conversations, education, engagement and communication”. Amann said that making the message specific, or even unique, to each situation is crucial. He explained that football fans are no more homogenous than the people in the communities where they are located. He noted that in the case of Liverpool Football Club, fans are located all across the world, yet something ties them together and unites them. Amann talked about how to tap into what unites a particular set of fans and use that lever to become understood. He mentioned supporting the Hillsborough campaigns: “We don’t know which, if any, of the 97 victims or survivors are LGBT+​, but Liverpool fans know how cruel language can be and how they can feel excluded or marginalized via language.” By using this analogy to talk about the isolation, exclusion and injustice felt by LGBT+​fans, Amann was able to provide a poignant comparison that other Liverpool fans can relate to and empathize with. At Norwich City, the narrative might be different. They have the strongest legacy of all English clubs in Justin Fashanu, a former Norwich City star.5 This legacy is one that resonates with Norwich City fans (Cunningham, Proud Canaries). 168

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

LGBT+​ allies The growth of LGBT+​allies leads to a stronger feeling of inclusivity. All leaders of LGBT+​fan groups in the study emphasized the importance of allies. As White (Gay Gooners/​Three Lions Pride) said: “LGBT people need our allies to step forward. … It’s easy as activists to talk to an echo chamber but harder to get outside the chamber.” LGBT+​fan groups feel they have made progress in engaging with other fans. While groups have spent a lot of their energy calling out abuse themselves and trying to find and educate allies, they find their allies (among the fan base) are now condemning the abuse alongside them. As well as the support from professional footballers, the LGBT+​communities have firm allies in the fan base at all the clubs represented, and this appears to be hugely appreciated (though arguably should be the minimum we might expect). Fans now self-​police online. As an example, when Jake Daniels came out in May 2022, many clubs posted their support via their social media channels. An analysis of the early reactions to these posts on Twitter confirmed the earlier research of Cleland et al (2018), which found almost universal rejection of homophobia.6 When ally groups work alongside LGBT+​campaign groups, the messaging is strengthened. Not only is the message disseminated more broadly, among wider networks, but the buy-​in and endorsement from leaders of other fan groups (such as supporters’ trusts) extends the message’s reach and magnifies it. Interviewees pointed to the reporting and self-​censorship that football fans increasingly practise on social media. This progress means that in campaigning, attention has moved from consciousness-​raising among LGBT+​ fans to encouraging them to demonstrate commitment to inclusivity. Pride in Football’s Call It Out campaign targeted allies. It requested not just tolerance and awareness but active ‘calling out’ of LGBTphobia. A resultant rise in reporting of incidents has distorted data on LGBT+​hate crimes, as more awareness has led to a welcome intolerance of homophobic comments and chanting, and hence an increase in reporting. Even so, progress is suggested in the changing roles taken on by LGBT+​fan groups.

Policy All our respondents from club-​based campaigning groups were satisfied that progress had been made in improving policy in football over the last decade. However, this came from a low starting point. As Cunningham (Proud Canaries) said: “Football wasn’t keeping up with the rest of society. Homophobia was being soaked up in football. Now it is more in touch.” The same interviewee commended LGBT+​groups for how far they have reached in terms of policy: “We have asked for support from The FA, the 169

Hate Crime in Football

Premier League and EFL, and they all now have policies in place, some quite detailed.” This progress is welcomed. LGBT+​fan groups now have regular conversations with football authorities (governing bodies as well as clubs) and they feel that a level of respect for their work has been built up over the last decade. This means that they have sometimes provided input and worked together with authorities on policies and campaigns. At club level, it is not unusual for club administrators to liaise with LGBT+​fan groups and report back. For example, White (Gay Gooners/​Three Lions Pride) confirmed that Arsenal Football Club regularly seek the views of Gay Gooners on relevant issues. National bodies now include LGBT+​representatives on their boards or as advisors or trustees. For example, Paouros (Proud Lilywhites) is a member of The FA’s Inclusion Advisory Board and was also involved in work to classify one homophobic chant as a hate crime. Progress has also been evidenced in outcomes such as the conviction of a Tottenham Hotspur fan in May 2022 for chanting a well-​known homophobic slur (CPS, 2022b).

Socializing and networking Establishing LGBT+​fan groups as a support network for socializing is a long-​ established success of these groups. Many football clubs now have LBGT+​ fan groups who socialize and get together to share experiences. The group members not only travel to games and socialize within the groups, but also connect with fans of other teams and share advice or good practice across the clubs. While LGBT+​fans in this study might not want to define their fandom by their sexual orientation or identification, they all felt positively about the supportive LGBT+​fan network. Amann (Kop Outs) said that while allies are important for strengthening LGBT+​fan groups’ messaging, it is equally important that the fan groups break out of the LGBT+​silo and become allies for others. In the case of Liverpool, for instance, Amann said that online activities supporting groups such as Fans Supporting Foodbanks are important, as is the support Kop Outs provides to other activities around the city. He also acknowledged that LGBT+​people are more likely to be homeless or victims of domestic violence, so he makes sure Kop Outs supports such campaigns and reaches out to such networks. There are many pathways to progress and the case study discussed next shows that a community approach by fan activists and clubs can be effective.

Case Study: Liverpool Football Club and homophobic chants Amann (Kop Outs) described how progress can be made in some of the LGBT+​fan group objectives, referring to proactive moves to eradicate one 170

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

specific homophobic chant, using intensive education, as well as raising awareness of the need for inclusivity in the football environment, which subsequently led to the involvement of LGBT+​fans in policy making. Early in the 2021/​22 season, the issue of homophobic chanting was highlighted by Kop Outs after Norwich hosted Liverpool in a Premier League match on 14 August 2021. At the match, some Liverpool fans could be heard chanting at a Norwich player who was on loan from Chelsea. In participant interviews, ‘casual’ homophobic language was one of the features of football most often quoted as being a source of exclusion for LGBT+​ fans. Even where language may not involve deliberate homophobic intent towards an individual, the hurt caused by discriminatory language can be tremendously distressing. McCormack (2011) highlights the need for shared linguistic norms in his model of homosexually themed language, and changing language (homophobic chants) lay at the heart of the narrative in educating Liverpool fans. Kop Outs called out these chants. Amann explained the meaning of the chant for fans who might not understand fully its implications. His open and personal approach helped straight fans understand what it is like to be LGBT+​at a football match. Amann asked fans to think about how they felt listening to anti-​Scouse chants or to chants about Hillsborough, and he explained that the chant in question is similarly offensive for the LGBT+​fans. He used a narrative that Liverpool fans could connect with. There were all sorts of interpretations of the chant itself, and to demonstrate this, Amann drew a parallel that could be understood by Liverpool fans: the ‘always the victims’ chant directed at Liverpool fans is one that makes a direct reference to Hillsborough, but other fans try to reclaim it as something else. Amann explained: “We know what it is about and other fans try to reclaim it. It’s the same with the Chelsea chant. It is rooted in homophobia, whatever its roots or history.” His argument provided a poignant message for Liverpool fans. He asked for inclusivity: “We don’t chant racist nonsense, so this homophobic nonsense needs to be put in the bin as well.” He pointed out that homophobia is incompatible with the club’s anthem ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’. He educated, explained the homophobia and the feelings of hurt it caused, and appealed to fellow fans to call it out when they heard it. Fan groups agree that education requires allies. In the aforementioned case, the Kop Outs enjoyed strong allyship in communicating the message about the chant in question. Jürgen Klopp, the Liverpool manager, was interviewed by Amann and Klopp told the fans how hurtful that homophobic chant is. This interview was posted on LFCTV and on Liverpool Football Club social media; highlights were reported on mainstream news media, including all main TV and radio outlets, and posted across social media. The message was reinforced for Liverpool fans via the match day programme –​again via a message from Klopp –​and by the supporters trust Spirit of Shankly and on Liverpool Football Club podcast The Anfield Wrap. 171

Hate Crime in Football

These actions had a positive impact. Liverpool played Chelsea shortly after the incident, at home, on 28 August 2021. While it would be inaccurate to say the chant was eliminated (on the contrary, there were reports of the chant in pockets within all stands around the ground), it is true to say that unlike previous occasions, the chanting was much quieter and more sporadic, and most instances were booed and short-​lived.7 Amann recounts that the relative success of this case lay in the fact that the club gave a forum to the LGBT+​fan group and allies within the fan base supported them. It didn’t feel like politics or an order from the ‘thought police’, but rather a human reaction to support inclusivity, which most fans understood and bought into. This case not only shows that progress can be made but also emphasizes the importance of allyship and of tapping into what connects fans at local level. Education takes place via connections with other fans, and in this case, knowledge of the experiences of Liverpool fans helped the narrative touch a nerve for those fans. It was not just education; it was targeted to a specific fan group by fellow fans who had a shared understanding.

The main obstacles for campaign groups There is broad agreement among members of fan groups that while the football authorities in England are doing a lot of work in the space of antidiscrimination, it remains a challenge to engage them fully with an agenda that the LGBT+​fan groups can endorse completely. As Cunningham (Proud Canaries) said: “We have done our bit. Now it’s time for leagues, The FA and clubs to step up. There is no consistency of approach.” LGBT+​fan groups call for consistency across many areas: in stadia signage, communications, messaging within grounds and at training within clubs and academies. At some grounds, statements relating to club antidiscrimination policies are announced over the tannoy prior to each match, while at others this does not happen. At some grounds, there is a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to dealing with homophobic abuse, while in others there is no evidence of any action taking place after reported incidents. This lack of consistency is a source of frustration and anxiety for some in LGBT+​groups. The most scathing comments, however, made by LGBT+ fans were reserved for the international football bodies, UEFA and FIFA, whose attitudes and practices were described as “out-​dated thinking”, “entitlement” and “exceptionalism”. FIFA’s choice to host the World Cup finals in Qatar was received by LGBT+​groups as a clear message that homophobia was not a priority for FIFA. UEFA’s failure to allow the Allianz Arena in Germany to be lit in rainbow colours during Euro 2020 was received in a similar way. These are not the only examples of ‘rainbow-​washing’ mentioned by interviewees. The Premier League have been condemned, by Amnesty International among others, for facilitating the ‘sports-​washing’ of the 172

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

repressive LGBTphobic Saudi Arabian regime when they allowed the takeover of Newcastle United in October 2021 by the Saudi sovereign Public Investment Fund, chaired by Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al-​Saud. This followed the acquisition in 2008 of Manchester City by the corporate arm of the Abu Dhabi government, another regime known for its homophobia. There are fears that the takeover of Newcastle United will mean a step back for LGBT+​inclusion and for the movement more broadly. However, the LBGT+​fan group representatives pointed out that their groups do not act homogeneously, and these issues, particularly club takeovers, tend to lead to controversy. In one case, United with Pride, Newcastle United’s LGBT+​ fan group, left Pride in Football, the network of LGBT+​fan groups in the UK, as they could not find a shared position following Newcastle’s takeover. The actions by governing bodies mentioned here contradict the messages they send by supporting Rainbow Laces and other campaigns promoting diversity, leading to scepticism that key organizations are merely providing lip service to campaigns. Some LGBT+​fans remain unconvinced that senior leaders within football are taking antidiscrimination policies seriously. According to White (Gay Gooners/​Three Lions Pride), the “hard-​to-​find” outcomes, unreliable data and inconsistent approach to dealing with LBGT+​ hate crime is a further source of frustration for football fans, and this was also found in the National LGBT Survey (Government Equalities Office, 2018). Again, it sends a message that LGBT+​issues are not prioritized. There are concerns that some clubs are not serious about involving the LGBT+​community in their campaigns. Paouros (Proud Lilywhites) explained that during the first Rainbow Laces campaign in 2013, run by Stonewall in partnership with sponsors Paddy Power, boxes of rainbow laces were dropped off at football clubs with the message that everyone should wear them –​otherwise they would be branded homophobic. This first campaign was criticized by some, including Football v Homophobia, for its use of language that served to reinforce stereotypes rather than break down barriers. Rainbow Laces has since evolved and draws on much more widespread support, but the original campaign, while ground-​ breaking at the time, would have benefited from wider consultation with LGBT+​ fans. In March 2022, Norwich City took forward an initiative to produce an official club video for LGBT+​history month. Proud Canaries were featured but did not support the video as a group. The language used in the video reinforced stereotypes about LGBT+​people and caused huge distress for many LGBT+​fans. No representatives from the senior men’s team endorsed the video, which seemed to be a coded message for how difficult it is to support LGBT+​rights as a player. The Proud Canaries at Norwich City always felt that they enjoyed support from the club, but the need to keep pushing for progress and avoid complacency became clear. This dichotomy 173

Hate Crime in Football

in terms of how LGBT+​campaigns are visualized and operationalized was described by one interviewee as “top-​down” versus “bottom-​up” (White, Gay Gooners/​Three Lions Pride), whereby the football authorities choose to run campaigns (with good intentions) but fail to engage with their grassroots fans. LGBT+​fan groups see making sure their ‘voices are in the room’ as essential to continued progress for the inclusion of LGBT+​representation in football. The lack of openly gay male footballers has been mentioned as one of the challenges of tackling LGBTphobia. Cashmore and Cleland (2014) suggest that agents, managers and clubs are ‘inhibiting factors’, reluctant to do more because they fear reputational damage in being known as ‘the club that has an openly gay player’ (2014: 45). They are concerned about sponsor reactions, and agents fear a decrease in the value of their assets. However, the interviewees in the research reported in this chapter were ambivalent about the role of openly gay footballers. One (anonymous) respondent observed: “We see racial diversity in football, but racism in football seemingly remains rife. If we extend the race analogy to sexual orientation, would an openly gay footballer really make all that [much] difference?” For Amann (Kop Outs) too, progress was sometimes tinged with disappointment, as the campaigns against racism were perceived as having moved on further and as having more success. Other participants alluded to the relative success of racism campaigns in terms of visibility and endorsements by former players. Of course, with football having so few gay former professional footballers, this is not a resource that activists can draw on as allies. Overall, there was a shared sense among interviewees that discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity or orientation was not viewed in the same way as racism. One obstacle alluded to by two interviewees is the fact that some fans and players claim they cannot support LGBT+​rights ‘for religious reasons’ and then make public these views –​at times, in overtly homophobic ways. Failure by some players (such as Senegal’s Idrissa Gueye or former Egyptian footballer Mohamed Aboutreika) to endorse LGBT+​rights is rarely condemned by football authorities in a way that the participants feel would have happened if they refused to support antiracism campaigns. The failure of authorities to support LGBT+​human rights when challenged is a constant source of disappointment. Finally, while all groups acknowledge that football is moving in the right direction of travel for the inclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual fans, there remain fears that transgender fans still feel excluded from this arena. Indeed, when asked what success looked like for Kop Outs, Amann answered: “When trans fans can walk in and out and feel as welcome as any other fan. They have a visceral fear of a baying mob.” It is felt that we are a long way from achieving that aim, and conversations around LGBTphobia tend to ignore the deeper societal prejudices suffered by transgender fans. 174

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

Conclusion The low incidence of LGBTphobia and hate crime in men’s professional football challenges the view that football is resistant to change or that it remains a bastion of homophobia. Campaigns to promote inclusivity in football claim strong signs of progress. The fan groups themselves are heavily involved in this process, and all reported a less hostile environment than existed 20 years ago. While the role of legislation and the work of football authorities in trying to reduce hate crime in football are crucial to making significant progress, the fan groups suggested that steps to create a more inclusive environment within stadia can be made via a coordinated approach with campaigners working with football clubs –​especially authoritative figures within clubs –​and with supporter associations. The participants in this research broadly agreed as to what makes a campaign successful. These factors can be summarized as: involvement of LGBT+​fan campaigning groups in national/​local activism and policy making; education of fans, especially by tapping into their localized narratives, and developing a shared understanding of language norms (see Magrath, 2017a, 2017b), which is central to a sense of inclusivity; involving allies within clubs and their fan bases; and having the ‘stick’ of punitive measures that are followed up consistently by football authorities and eventually via by legal action. LGBT+​fan groups reported strong support from governing bodies in England, but had a number of concerns: the inconsistencies of clubs when dealing with reported offences; the lack of any reliable reporting system, data or outcomes; the need to tailor messages to suit local needs, and in order to do this, to draw on local fan groups to tweak the communication and implementation of national policies to maximize their effectiveness in the local context; the need to embed meaningful dialogue with LGBT+​fan groups in all policy making; and the lack of commitment from the governing bodies at the highest levels. Some participants saw the lack of openly gay professional male footballers as an obstacle, but others were less convinced of the potential impact. While some commentators might pin their hopes for attitude change on professional footballers coming out, most of the LGBT+​ representatives in this study responded to public announcements as being a very positive step that might allow the conversation to be framed differently, but which are unlikely to be life-​changing for LGBT+​football fans. These conclusions re-​confirm some of the outcomes of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on homophobia in sport (House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2017). This report suggested that the way forward includes lesbian, gay and bisexual visibility, safe spaces, role models, corporate sponsorship, campaigns (including ‘straight allies’), training and education. It also said that The FA should take the lead as 175

Hate Crime in Football

national governing body and work from grassroots through to elite, staff, spectators and officials. Progress has been made in most of these areas. The work developed by the Human Dignity Trust (2022) provides an excellent framework for implementation of a coordinated, multi-​partner approach to tackling LGBTphobia that can be applied to football. This approach looks at the relationship between strategies, action plans, policies and guidance as well as the legal and regulatory frameworks in which football operates nationally. The trust’s recommended approach –​integrating the work of policy makers, community activists and researchers (Human Dignity Trust, 2022: 10) –​is one that the results of the current research support fully. There have been incidents of hate crime in football documented in the mainstream media, but it is hard to imagine that attitudes prevalent in football still lag behind the rest of society. In actual fact, these high-​profile incidents can inflate bubbles of activity by allies (as we saw in the lead-​in to the FIFA World Cup in Qatar in 2022), and we might struggle to find a space in which more has been done to address a societal problem, whether it be racism, poverty and food banks, mental health, education, online abuse or domestic violence. Football often leads in addressing issues of morality and social justice. Football has the power to bring about changes in attitudes. In the context of hate crime against LGBT+​fans, football provides a strong case that it is doing more than most other sports to change attitudes towards the LGBT+​community. There are, of course, many aspects of the LGBT+​campaigns in football beyond those covered in this chapter, some of which have made (and continue to make) a tremendously significant contribution to achieving the aims put forward by the LGBT+​fan groups in this research. For example, football clubs or teams such as Stonewall Football Club, organizations such as SportsMedia LGBT+​, or fan groups such as the Football Supporters’ Association, work hard to raise awareness of LGBT+​matters in sport. There are many organizations who would be worthy of mention and are actively campaigning to increase inclusivity in sport. We are also aware that constant reference to LGBT+​is not always helpful, and that the LGBT+​ fan base is far from homogeneous, with the ‘L’ being more accepted in the women’s game, the ‘B’ being almost invisible and silent from discussions and the ‘T’ often receiving less positive affirmation or acceptance. Most of the participants interviewed reported the very different challenges faced by transgender fans. This research aimed to focus on homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in football. In practice, it is very difficult to find cases relating to biphobia and transphobia, and so the chapter covers data which, while claiming to encompass all three, actually focus almost exclusively on homophobia. Homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are all complex and separate issues and should not be conflated into one indistinguishable category; yet that is what happens –​and we are guilty of doing the same. 176

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

Among LGBT+​campaigning groups, there is no longer an overall sense of agreement that football is lagging behind other areas of society. Consensus lies in the idea that football can be used as a positive force for social and cultural transformation. Football can be used to challenge stereotypes and has reach over a wide population. As one interviewee said: “Get it right in football and you can really make a difference” (Paouros, Proud Lilywhites). Of course, there is a long way to go before football becomes the truly inclusive environment for which campaigners yearn, but the current approach of providing community and local activists and campaigners with a voice, an overarching (national) regulatory framework and hate crime legislation, supported by education and training appropriate to the context, is one that enjoys the support of the most important stakeholders, the LGBT+​fans. Notes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The data provided by Kick It Out refer to reported incidents and do not claim to provide a reliable number for actual incidents. Also, there are issues with the data as, for example, multiple reports might refer to the same incident. This process was established in January 2022, and between then and the end of the season, some 52 incidents were recorded. Before January that season, incidents were investigated by local police forces and some 22 cases were reported, making a total of 74 cases relating to online football-​related hate crime in the 2021/​22 season. Online hate crime connected to football is defined as any electronic communication that appears to breach the law on protected characteristics that is directed towards a player, club, football authority, match official or football personality, where there is a clear link to football, or where the text used is more generic and aimed at a more general group within these criteria (CPS, 2022a). Indeed, although the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in their report into racism in cricket, said that ‘[i]‌t is evident to us that there is a deep-​seated issue of racism in cricket’ (2022: 4), cricket does not have its own set of legislation to deal with hate crime in the sport. Ironically, as a footnote in the FIFA Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-​ Discrimination, they state that ‘for the sake of simplicity, this FIFA Good Practice Guide only uses the masculine form, but is aimed at every person, regardless of gender’ (2022b: 3). This demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance to fundamental principles of diversity enshrined in linguistic determinism. Fashanu only played for three years at Norwich City but is always associated with the club (perhaps because he scored one of the most iconic goals ever seen, for Norwich City against Liverpool in 1980). This study involved a content analysis of the first 500 responses to the official announcement on Twitter that Jake Daniels was gay. The vast majority of comments (over 85 per cent) were positive, but for those that contained homophobic comments or images (7 per cent of the responses –​1 per cent were from UK-​based accounts), allies stepped in and rejected any claims that those posting negatively were fans of the club. One perhaps surprising outcome of the increased publicity this incident received was the realization that many fans did not understand the homophobic connotations of the chant. Indeed, for many, the emphasis of the chant was the age inherent within the term ‘boys’ and not the gender referenced. There were a lot of reports of discussions about the chant taking place in pubs and on coaches to away games. This reinforces the need for education. 177

Hate Crime in Football

References Allen, G. and Zayed, Y. (2022) Hate Crime Statistics, House of Commons Library, No 8357, Available from: https://​researc​ hbri​ efin ​ gs.files.parl​ iame​ nt. uk/​docume​nts/​CBP-​8537/​CBP-​8537.pdf [Accessed 7 November 2022]. Anderson, E. (2014) 21st Century Jocks: Sporting Men and Contemporary Heterosexuality, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Brackenridge, C., Rivers, I., Gough, B. and Llewellyn, K. (2007) ‘Driving down participation: homophobic bullying as a deterrent to doing sport’, in C. Carmichael Aitchison (ed) Sport and Gender Identities: Masculinities, Femininities and Sexualities, New York: Routledge, pp 122–​139. Bury, J. (2015) ‘Non-​performing inclusion: a critique of the English Football Association’s action plan on homophobia in football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(2): 211–​226. Cashmore, E. and Cleland, J. (2011) ‘Glasswing butterflies: gay professional football players and their culture’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(4): 420–​436. Cashmore, E. and Cleland, J. (2012) ‘Fans, homophobia and masculinities in association football’, British Journal of Sociology, 63(2): 370–​387. Cashmore, E. and Cleland, J. (2014) Football’s Dark Side: Corruption, Homophobia, Violence and Racism in the Beautiful Game, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cleland, J., Magrath, R., and Kian, E. (2018) ‘The internet as a site of decreasing cultural homophobia in association football: An online response by fans to the coming out of Thomas Hitzlsperger’, Men and Masculinities, 21(1): 91–111. Cleland, J., Cashmore, E., Dixon, K. and MacDonald, C. (2022) ‘Fan reflections on sexuality in women’s football in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(5): 458–​476. CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2022a) ‘Football related offences and banning orders’ [online], Available from: www.cps.gov.uk/​legal-​guida​ nce/​footb​all-​rela​ted-​offen​ces-​and-​footb​all-​bann​ing-​ord​ers [Accessed 6 August 2022]. CPS (2022b) ‘Spurs fan pleads guilty to homophobic slurs against Chelsea fans’, [online] 27 May, Available from: www.cps.gov.uk/​lon​don-​south/​ news/​spurs-​f an-​ple​ads-​gui​lty-​hom​opho​bic-​slurs-​agai​nst-​chel​sea-​f ans [Accessed 16 July 2022]. De Foor, M., Stepleman, L. and Mann, P. (2018) ‘Improving wellness for LGB colleagiate student-​athletes through sports medicine: a narrative review’, Sports Medicine Open, 4: Art 48. doi.org/​10.1186/​s40798-​018-​0163-​y Denison, E., Bevan, N. and Jeanes, R. (2021) ‘Reviewing evidence of LGBTQ+​discrimination and exclusion in sport’, Sport Management Review, 24(3): 389–​409. EFL (English Football League) (2022) Together: EDI Strategy 2022–​2027 [online], Available from: www.efl.com/​news/​2022/​aug​ust/​toget​her-​efl-​launc​ hes-​equal​ity-​divers​ity-​-​incl​usiv​ity-​strat​egy/​ [Accessed 12 October 2022]. 178

Tackling Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Football

The FA (The Football Association) (2021) The FA’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, 2021–​2024: A Game for All [online], Available from: www. thefa.com/​news/2​ 021/o ​ ct/0​ 8/a​ -g​ ame-f​ or-a​ ll-​fa-​equal​ity-​divers​ity-​inclus​ ion-​strat​egy-​2021-​2024-​20210​810 [Accessed 12 October 2022]. The FA (2022) Football Leadership Diversity Code Results 2021/​22 [online], Available from: www.thefa.com/​news/​2022/​oct/​28/​footb​all-​lea​ders​ hip-​divers​ity-​code-​rep​ort-​2021-​22-​20221​028 [Accessed 3 November 2022]. FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) (2022a) FIFA Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-​Discrimination [online], Available from: https://​dig ​ital​hub.fifa.com/​m/​6363f​7dc6​16ff​877/​origi​nal/​wg4ub​ 76pe​zwcn​xsao​j98-​pdf.pdf [Accessed 4 September 2022]. FIFA (2022b) ‘Jobs & Careers | Diversity & Inclusion’ [online], Available from: www.fifa.com/​about-​fifa/​care​ers/​diversi​ ty-a​ nd-i​ nclusi​ on [Accessed 28 August 2022]. Government Equalities Office (2018) National LGBT Survey Report [online], Available from: https://​ass​ets.pub​lish​ing.servi​ ce.gov.uk/g​ ove​ rnme​ nt/u ​ plo​ ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​atta​chme​nt_​d​ata/​file/​721​704/​LGBT-​sur​vey-​resea​ rch-​rep​ort.pdf [Accessed 28 May 2022]. Home Office (2022a) ‘Football-​related arrests and banning orders, England and Wales: 2021 to 2022 season’, [online] 22 September, Available from: www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​sta​tist​ics/​footb​all-​rela​ted-​arre​sts-​and-​ bann​ing-​ord​ers-​engl​and-​and-​wales-​2021-​to-​2022-​sea​son/​footb​all-​rela​ ted-​arre​sts-​and-​bann​ing-​ord​ers-​engl​and-​and-w ​ ales-2​ 021-t​ o-2​ 022-s​ eas​ on [Accessed 29 September 2022]. Home Office (2022b) ‘Hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022’ [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​sta​tist​ics/​hate-​crime-​ engl​and-​and-​wales-​2021-​to-​2022/​hate-​crime-​engl​and-​and-​wales-​2021-​ to-​2022 [Accessed 9 November 22]. House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2012) Racism in Sport: Second Report of Session 2012–​13, HC 89, Available from: https://​ publi​cati​ons.par​liam​ent.uk/​pa/​cm201​213/​cmsel​ect/​cmcum​eds/​89/​89.pdf [Accessed 4 July 2022]. House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2017) Homophobia in Sport Inquiry –​Final Report, UK Parliament, Seventh Report of Session 2016–​17, HC 113, Available from: https://​publi​cati​ons.par​ liam​ent.uk/​pa/​cm201​617/​cmsel​ect/​cmcum​eds/​113/​113.pdf [Accessed 4 July 2022]. House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2022) Racism in Cricket: Seventh Report of Session 2021–​22, HC 1001, Available from: https://​com​mitt​ees.par​liam​ent.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​8470/​docume​nts/​ 86256/​defa​ult/​ [Accessed 4 November 2022].

179

Hate Crime in Football

Human Dignity Trust (2022) Establishing a Framework for the Implementation of Legislation to Address Anti-​LGBT Hate Crime [online], Available from: www. humand​igni​tytr​ust.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​resour​ces/​Estab​lish​ing-​a-​ Framew​ork-​for-​the-​Imp​leme​ntat​ion-​of-​Legi​slat​ion-​to-​Addr​ess-​Anti-​ LGBT-​Hate-​Crime.pdf [Accessed 6 July 2022]. Jackson, J. (2021) ‘England’s Bukayo Saka urges social media platforms to act after racial abuse’, The Guardian, [online] 15 July, Available from: www.theg​ uard​ian.com/​footb​all/​2021/​jul/​15/​engla​nds-​buk​ayo-​saka-​urges-​soc​ial-​ media-​platfo​r ms-​to-​act-​after-​rac​ial-​abuse [Accessed 15 December 2022]. Jeanes, R., Denison, E., Lambert, K. and O’Connor, J. (2019) LGBTI+​ Inclusion within Victoria Sport: A Market Analysis, Monash: Monash University Publishing. Kick It Out (2022a) ‘Reporting statistics’ [online], Available from: www. kickit​out.org/​report​ing-​sta​tist​ics [Accessed 28 October 2022]. Kick It Out (2022b) ‘Who we are’ [online], Available from: www.kickit​out. org/​about-​us [Accessed 4 May 2022]. Magrath, R. (2017a) Inclusive Masculinities in Contemporary Football, London: Routledge. Magrath, R. (2017b) ‘To try and gain an advantage for my team: homophobic and homosexually themed chanting among English football fans’, Sociology, 52(4): 709–​726. Marivoet, S. (2014) ‘Challenge of sport towards social inclusion and awareness-​raising against any discrimination’, Physical Culture and Sport: Studies and Research, 63(1): 3–​11. McCormack, M. (2011) ‘Mapping the terrain of homosexually-​themed language’, Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5): 664–​679. Morse, B. (2021) ‘Racist abuse directed at England players after Euro 2020 final defeat is described as “unforgivable” by manager Gareth Southgate’, CNN, [online] 12 July, Available from: https://e​ diti​ on.cnn.com/2​ 021/0​ 7/​ 12/f​ ootba​ ll/e​ ngla​ nd-r​ aci​ st-a​ buse-b​ uka​ yo-s​ aka-j​ adon-s​ anc​ ho-m ​ arc​ us-r​ ashf​ ord-​euro-​2020-​final-​spt-​intl/​index.html [Accessed 15 December, 2022]. Premier League (2021a) Premier League Handbook 2021–​2022, Premier League. Premier League (2021b) ‘The Premier League Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Standard’ [online], Available from: www.premie​rlea​gue.com/​ equal​ity-​divers​ity-​and-​inclus​ion-​stand​ard [Accessed 24 August 2022]. Pride in Football (nd) ‘Member groups’ [online], Available from: https://p​ rid​ einf​ootb​all.co.uk/​index.php/​mem​ber-​gro​ups/​ [Accessed 23 October 2022]. Stonewall (2015) Unhealthy Attitudes [online], Available from: www.stonew​ all.org.uk/n ​ ews/​unheal​thy-a​ ttitu​des-​one-​10-​witn​ess-​col​leag​ues-​expr​ess-​ bel​ief-​gay-​cure [Accessed 7 June 2022].

180

11

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football Nick Hawkins

Introduction The Football League was founded on 17 April 1888, and fans have been attending professional football in England and Wales in their thousands ever since. Football is a game that ignites passion and loyalty that borders on tribalism, and language and behaviour on the terraces has always walked the line between robust and raucous on the one hand and criminal on the other. Nowhere is this more problematic than in the area of chanting and shouting by fans towards other fans, officials and players. What is now referred to as ‘hate crime’ is not a new issue in the 21st century. Grayson (1999) cites the example of a Swansea fan being jailed for calling a visiting player a ‘black n****r’. It is no coincidence that some of the key officials in the Professional Footballers Association are Black former players who were subjected to vile abuse during their careers in the late 20th century. Beloff observes that football is the only professional sport where engaging in chanting of a racialist nature has been made a specific criminal offence and the only sport to have a ‘special crime’ to eliminate racism. His comment that ‘[a]‌buse from the terraces still deforms the national game even at a time when half the national team is black’ (Beloff, 2004: 63) is both accurate and still relevant, and a sad indictment on a minority of those attending football matches. In the words of Simon Barnes: ‘You can go to a football match and accuse Arsene Wenger of being a paedophile. You can call Sol Campbell a homosexual, you can sing about your delight in the Munich air crash or the Hillsborough disaster, and that’s all tickety-​boo’ (quoted in Beloff, 2012: 1). Unfortunately, some football fans believe it to be their right to be racist, homophobic, sexist, antisemitic or Islamophobic even if some would acknowledge that such behaviour outside a football stadium would carry the risk of criminal prosecution. The development of 181

Hate Crime in Football

social media has led to ‘keyboard warriors’ sending hate-​filled messages to those involved in football. Fortunately, as will be seen, Parliament has acted to legislate against this.

What is hate crime and how does it impact on football? As mentioned in the introduction, the chapter looks at the legislation in place to tackle hate crime generally and also specifically in the footballing context.

Definitions and legislation Central to any analysis of hate crime in football is understanding what is meant by hate crime. This problem has challenged lawyers, criminologists and Parliamentary Counsel for decades, and the debate still continues. Hall (2013) concludes that it is almost impossible to settle on a definition that is acceptable to all. The racist murder of Stephen Lawrence led to the Macpherson inquiry, which proposed the now widely adopted definition: ‘A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’ (Macpherson, 1999: 45.17, italics in original). The same formulation could be used for any other type of hate crime, which in football includes sectarianism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, sexist chanting and abuse. Returning to racism, legislation criminalizing racist acts includes the Public Order Act 1986 and the Football (Offences) Act 1991 as amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999. Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 creates an offence of ‘use of words or behaviour or display of written material’ if, Section 18(1) (a) ‘he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or’ (b) ‘having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby’. It appears that the lawmakers intended the offence to be considered subjectively in subsection (a) but also objectively in subsection (b), presumably to prevent a defence of lack of intent. The wording of Section 3 of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 is problematic, with indecent or racialist chanting becoming an offence. Both the definition of ‘chanting’ and the meaning of the words ‘indecent’ and ‘racialist’ have caused problems. Parpworth (1993), while supporting the legislation, spotted the problem in the original definition of chanting, which required ‘acting in concert with one or more others’. This was amended in 1999 to make a chant by an individual capable of being an offence ‘whether alone or in concert with one or more others’. The Sol Campbell case (Daily Mail, 2009) showed the difficulties in drafting an appropriate charge, with defence advocates referring to the formulation of words used (in a chant that contained references to 182

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

HIV –​human immunodeficiency virus –​and lynching) as an important part of their mitigation. Returning to a survey of the legislation, it is important to draw the distinction between hate crime as specific acts (as in the Football (Offences) Act 1991 Section 3), making existing specific offences subject to enhanced sentencing (as in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998), and requiring courts to consider types of hate crime as an aggravating feature (as in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 Section 153). The new racially aggravated offences created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 sections 29–​32 –​racially aggravated assaults, criminal damage, public order offences and harassment –​made these offences either-​way offences (triable on indictment in the Crown Court) and increased the maximum penalties. This caused a problem with acts charged as racially aggravated offences where the non-​racially aggravated simple offence (for example, assault) could only be tried in a magistrates’ court, and left prosecutors the dilemma of whether to charge in the alternative or whether to hold firm to their assessment that the offence was racially motivated. And, as with all such offences, the definition section was a ‘hostage to fortune’, with the offender needing to demonstrate hostility based on the victim’s membership of a racial group, and the offence needing to be motivated wholly or partly by that hostility. Fortunately, the courts have applied a wide meaning to the term ‘racial group’, with the House of Lords in R v Rogers [2007] UKHL 8 finding that the term ‘bloody foreigners’ was sufficient. The concept of hate crime is constantly evolving. After the terrorist acts of 9/​11 and the backlash against Muslims, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was amended in 2001 to include religiously aggravated offences. The difficulties caused by defining Jews as a ‘race’ and Muslims as a religious group were addressed with the amendment in 2008 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the creating of offences of stirring up hatred on religious grounds. Sticking with the growth of specific offences, sexual orientation was added to the Public Order Act in 2008. Parliament did not limit itself to adding new specific offences, but, through the Criminal Justice Act 2003, set out the correct approach to take to sentencing racial or religiously aggravated offences, and added homophobia and disability bias to the list of aggravating features for sentencing. In 2012, sexual orientation (replacing homophobia) and transgender identity were added to the list of factors that could aggravate sentence. While this legislative activity is welcomed, the criminal sentencing framework does not consider all of the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010, with no protection on the grounds of age, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, or sex. Neither does it cover other minority groups who have been victimized because of their differences; for example, alternative lifestyles. It is likely that hate crime legislation will continue to evolve, one recent example being 183

Hate Crime in Football

the Sentencing Act 2020 Section 66, which deals with convictions on or after 1 December 2020. This section gives the court the power to increase the sentence of any offence that is aggravated by hostility on the grounds of sexual orientation or transgender identity.

Footballing context Although racism is by far the biggest problem, football has experienced homophobia, misogyny, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Hate crime in football can be seen as a part of the ‘English disease’ of football hooliganism, although some incidents can be seen in isolation for what they are, which is hate crime. One might argue that hate crime in football was simply about fans chanting in support of their team and against their opponents, with some chants having racist or homophobic language. However, the problem is much wider, and such chanting occurs to and from games, impacting on members of the public on trains, at transport hubs, at motorway service stations and in the vicinity of grounds. One might argue that chanting is aimed only at players. This does not stand scrutiny as fans will target other fans (sometimes even of their own team). Brighton fans are subjected to homophobic abuse while Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) fans are subjected to antisemitism. David and Ivor Baddiel, who are both Jewish and Chelsea fans, made a film in 2011 highlighting the issue, which has stood the test of time (The Y-​Word, 2011). This film compares the apparent acceptance of the ‘Y word’ in contrast with the ‘N word’ or ‘P word’ and argues that use of the ‘Y word’ had no place in football. Abuse on social media has briefly been mentioned. Football clubs and some players engage with their fans through social media, but some fans appear to believe that this gives them licence to respond in any way they see fit. Others just unilaterally use social media to post abusive messages. This was particularly prevalent in July 2021 after the final of the UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European Football Championship (Euro 2020), when three Black players missed penalties as England lost (see BBC, 2021a). Abuse was not limited to players but was also aimed at football pundits, some of whom were Black former players. Fortunately, there have been successful prosecutions.

The role of the police, prosecutors and courts in dealing with hate crime There are three main agencies involved in the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of offences of hate crime in football. The police have a key role in football. Not only do they police games and fans travelling to games and congregating in city centres, but they also investigate crime. There are 43 Home Office police forces with geographical jurisdiction in England and 184

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

Wales, and the British Transport Police have a national remit to police the railways and tube network, where many offences take place. Each police force will have one or more football liaison/​intelligence officer, and there is also a national United Kingdom Football Policing Unit (UKFPU), funded by the Home Office. The College of Policing (2022) issues guidance on ‘authorised professional practice’ and the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has a national football lead. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the prosecuting authority for England and Wales. It is responsible for prosecuting crime committed in England and Wales, including hate crime in football. There is a national lead for football at deputy chief crown prosecutor level, and each geographic area has at least one football specialist prosecutor. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service administers all criminal courts. While respecting judicial independence on both listing and sentencing, the courts are responsible for ensuring that all cases are heard within a reasonable time. While each organization is independent of the other, and indeed they are funded by different ministries, each has to work closely with the others to ensure the efficient running of the criminal justice system.

The history of hate crime in football and the response of prosecutors Prior to 2000 Professional football commenced in the late 19th century with the Football League, founded in 1888, and the first recorded Black professional player, Arthur Wharton, signed for Darlington in 1889. Wharton was not given equal treatment throughout his career, yet he served with distinction in the First World War. In the 1930s, Dixie Dean, a footballer of mixed-​heritage and England’s top goal scorer at the time, suffered racist abuse from the terraces. Ironically, this happened at a time when Britain was criticizing Hitler’s racist treatment of Jesse Owens, an African American athlete who won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics. Similarly, in the 1970s, the decade the Race Relations Act 1976 was passed, outlawing discrimination, many Black players were subjected to racist chanting. The throwing of bananas at Black players was commonplace, as were ‘monkey’ chants. There is less evidence of homophobic, sexist or Islamophobic chanting, although it is likely to have happened. Antisemitism has been prevalent in England for decades, notably in London in the 1930s, and antisemitic abuse, such as the hissing noises made towards Spurs fans, is not a 21st-​century phenomena. Sectarianism is predominantly a problem in Scotland but crept into English football as a response to the activities of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) from 1969 onwards. The chant ‘no surrender to the IRA’ has been used by so-​called fans at England games, and chants referring to the 185

Hate Crime in Football

19th-​century potato famines in Ireland were common among fans of Scottish clubs with a Protestant tradition. It was the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 that led indirectly to the first antiracist legislation in the football environment. Although primarily concerned with the circumstances surrounding the tragic deaths of 96 Liverpool fans at the start of a Football Association (FA) Cup semifinal, the review also looked at fan behaviour. Lord Justice Taylor led the inquiry which reported in 1990. In the chapter dealing with offences in the ground, he stated that ‘shouting or chanting gross obscenities or racialist abuse ought not to be permitted. If one starts, other join in, and to the majority of reasonable supporters, as well as those abused, the sound of such chants from numbers in unison is offensive and provocative’ (Taylor Report 2019, para 289 ii). Reviewing the Taylor Report over 30 years later, it is notable that Lord Justice Taylor refers not just to those abused, but also to reasonable supporters. While legislation and enforcement clearly have a place in tackling hate crime, arguably peer pressure from reasonable supporters making clear that hate crime has no place in football could become equally effective. Lord Justice Taylor made specific recommendations to create three new offences, one being described as ‘chanting obscene or racialist abuse’. These offences were enacted in the Football (Offences) Act 1991, with the title of Section 3, ‘Indecent or racialist chanting’, reflecting Lord Justice Taylor’s recommendation. Although politicians had already shown an interest in football, the election of the New Labour government in 1997 provided real impetus to the issue of hate crime specifically and football disorder generally. The then Minister for Sport, Tony Banks, set up a Football Task Force to look into racism, which reported to him in 1999. After setting out both the legal and moral cases for tackling racism in football, the Football Task Force made a number of significant recommendations, including that the government should amend the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to make racist abuse by individual spectators at football matches a criminal offence. The final key development of the 20th century was the passing of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999. Section 9 amended the offence of racialist and indecent chanting so that an individual could be guilty of the offence. However, of greater significance was the introduction of domestic football banning orders (FBOs). With some subsequent amendments, this legislation gave the courts the powers they needed to remove offenders convicted of football-​related offences from football.

2000 to 2020 The Home Office collect football-​specific data based on reports from the 43 Home Office police forces and British Transport Police. Data prior to 2000, before the introduction of FBOs, is of less value and relevance (as there was less emphasis on prosecution, with ejection from stadia being a 186

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

police weapon of choice), although there were between 10 and 34 arrests in each season from 1993/​94 to 1999/​2000. However, data from 2000/01 onward are more informative (being from the time FBOs were introduced) and coincide with a real political focus on combatting football violence and disorder following numerous arrests and deportations of English fans at Euro 2000 in Belgium. Caution needs to be taken, however, for a number of reasons. First, Section 3 encompasses chanting that might not be considered a hate crime. Second, an increase in arrests does not necessarily indicate an increase in offending behaviour. The number of arrests can be influenced by the numbers of police at a match, the focus a particular police force or indeed match commander gives to racist chanting, the willingness of stewards and/​or fans to report incidents and, ultimately, the response of prosecutors and courts to arrests (as the police will not put resources into incidents not likely to result in a prosecution or conviction). What the data show is that arrests for Section 3 offences ranged from 82 in 2001/​02 to just 14 in 2018/​19, accounting for between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of all football-​related arrests. From 2000/01 to 2005/06, numbers of Section 3 arrests were higher, and this could correspond to the efforts police and prosecutors were making to secure FBOs, both to remove offenders from football and to deter others. The subsequent drop can be explained in part by prosecutors choosing to charge offences that carried higher penalties than Section 3. From 2006/​07 to 2014/​15, numbers of arrests remained consistent at around two and a half thousand each season, but in the last few seasons the number of arrests dropped significantly. This too needs to be seen in context. While welcome and possibly a reflection of better fan behaviour, the drop is also likely to be a result of falling police budgets and police numbers as well as an increase in police-​free games in professional football. Another reason to avoid overreliance on these statistics is that some arrests for the Public Order Act 1986 offences and drunkenness may have been based on evidence which could also justify arrest for other offences. Similarly, the Home Office statistics do not show if any of the Public Order Act offences were charged as racially or religiously aggravated. What can be concluded from the Home Office statistics is that racialist and indecent chanting remains a problem within football stadia, and it is reasonable to believe that there is under-​reporting of hate crime within football stadia, as this is the case with hate crime generally. An alternative way of assessing the scale of the problem is to look at cases involving hate crime in stadia. Normally a good starting point would be legal databases, to identify the leading cases; however, the only reported case on the Public Order Act 1986 Section 3 is Director of Public Prosecutions v Stoke on Trent Magistrates’ Court [2004] 1 Cr App R 4, and that was decided on a narrow point. This case will be examined subsequently, but it was essentially 187

Hate Crime in Football

about whether the ‘P***’ word was covered by the legislation. In the absence of reported cases, it is necessary to examine media reports of cases that have been heard in the lower courts. In doing so, what becomes clear is that most forms of hate crime that come before the courts generally also do so in the footballing environment. It is also clear that cases continue to come before the courts despite the publicity such cases have attracted in the past and despite the imposition of FBOs on convicted offenders. This begs the question as to whether the deterrent effects of conviction and FBOs will, alone, reduce incidences of hate crime. Sadly, the answer would appear to be not, which may in part be due to the difficulty of educating some fans that their behaviour is, in fact, unacceptable. This is in contrast to the success of FBOs in reducing other offences of violence and disorder, as evidence by the Home Office statistics referenced earlier. Some recent examples make the point. Although outside the stadia, the FBOs imposed on Chelsea fans for racist chanting on the Paris Métro in 2015, before assaulting a French passenger, are interesting in noting the attitude of the fans who chanted ‘we’re racist and that’s the way we like it’ (Naughton, 2015). The cause of this chanting might have been bravado, excess alcohol or ingrained attitudes coming to the fore, but whatever the cause, it is worrying that such incidents take place in the 21st century. Islamophobia has increased since the events of 9/​11. The Muslim Egyptian striker Mido (Ahmed Hossam Hussein Abdelhamid Wasfy) was the victim of abuse for many seasons. In November 2005, West Ham fans chanted ‘shoe, shoe, shoe bomber’ in a reference to a previous terrorist attempt by an English-​born terrorist. In 2007, having moved clubs from Spurs to Middlesborough, he was subjected to chants of ‘Mido, he’s got a bomb you know’. At the same time, there were also chants of ‘Mido is a paedo’ (Solhekol, 2008). This in itself would probably fall within the offence of ‘indecent chanting’, but prosecutors safely chose a charge of ‘racist chanting’, no doubt considering this easy to prove, although arguably the language used against Mido was based on his religion and not his race. Homophobic chanting and gesturing have also resulted in convictions on and off the pitch. Examples of this nature, some of which are considered in the next section, provide ample evidence of the continuing existence of hate crime in football stadia. While the number of arrests and prosecutions may vary from season to season, the fact that it is easy to find examples in the 2019/​20 season dealing with racism and homophobia unequivocally makes the point that there is still a problem to be tackled.

Legislation Pre COVID-​19 The criminal courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to try offences committed within their geographical boundaries. Offences committed 188

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

inside football stadia fall into several categories, of which the three most relevant are assaults, public order offences, and football-​specific offences. While stadia are predominantly private places, with spectators normally paying for admittance, it has never been argued academically or in court that assaults inside stadia are outside the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. As far as public order offences are concerned, the wording of the legislation makes clear that offences can be committed in a private place, with sections 4 (Fear or provocation of violence), 4A (Intentional harassment, alarm or distress) and 5 (Harassment, alarm or distress) all having the same formulation: ‘an offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place’. Parliament clearly intended the criminal courts to be able to deal with football-​specific matters with the Football (Offences) Act 1991 creating three new offences. The Act set out jurisdiction in Section 1, dealing with the types of matches covered, which are known as ‘designated football matches’, and the time frame. Designated football matches are made such by statutory order issued by the Home Secretary, with the order currently in force dating from 2004. This covers the top six levels of football (subsumed under the Premier League, the Football League and the National Football League) in England and Cymru Premier (the Welsh Premier League). The Football Spectators Act 1989 extends jurisdiction to impose FBOs by allowing for not just banning orders made on conviction, but also FBOs made on complaint without the need for a conviction. Equally noteworthy is the provision allowing for evidence of participation in violence and disorder outside the United Kingdom. This helps ban offenders from stadia in England and Wales for behaviour overseas. An example of this comes from the World Cup in Russia in 2018. Two middle-​aged England fans were given three-​year banning orders over ‘disgraceful’ singing at the World Cup. They appeared in Leeds Magistrates’ Court after the publication of a video showing supporters apparently singing antisemitic songs (BBC, 2018).

The operation of the legislation The two key pieces of legislation are the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Football Spectators Act 1989 (as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000). The combined effect of this legislation is to create a specific offence of ‘Indecent or racialist chanting’ and to give courts the power to impose FBOs (which ban attendance at any regulated football match in England and Wales) on those convicted of ‘relevant’ offences (which includes all hate crime in stadia). This has given prosecutors the legal tools to prosecute effectively and courts a robust preventative order in addition to any criminal sanction. While by no means eradicating the problem of football violence and disorder 189

Hate Crime in Football

(including hate crime), the legislation is seen as a major contributory factor to the reduction of incidents in and around football stadia. To understand the approach of prosecutors, it is first necessary to examine the operation of FBOs, and four key points emerge. First, an FBO made on conviction is a preventative order. Second, FBOs are for lengthy periods: six to ten years if accompanying a prison sentence and three to five years otherwise. Third, FBOs include a requirement for surrender of passports ‘in connection with regulated football matches outside the United Kingdom’. This includes the surrender of passports for the duration of a World Cup tournament and for European games involving the team supported by the person subject to the FBO. Fourth, breach of an FBO or conditions attached to it (including surrender of passport) is a specific criminal offence, punishable with up to six months’ imprisonment (and this provision has been used during World Cups and European games, notably when a banned Manchester United fan travelled to Moscow on his brother’s passport; BBC, 2008). Although in legal terms, an FBO is a preventative order and not a punishment, applications for FBOs are routinely resisted by defence advocates, with the point regularly being made (usually unsuccessfully) that the effect of an FBO is punitive. There is surprisingly little case law on FBOs, and to date the leading case is Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2002] QB 459. This case was an appeal against the imposition of an FBO on complaint, and specifically on the grounds that the requirement to surrender a passport was a breach of the rights of a European Union citizen to travel to another member state. Dealing with the narrow point on travel, the court held that ‘a member state might be justified … in preventing a citizen from leaving its shores’ and found that the terms of Section 14B were ‘amply justified’. The court in Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire also took the opportunity to look at FBOs more generally, holding that an FBO was not a ‘penalty’ within the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1 Part 1 Article 7. Giving judgement, Lord Justice Laws reviewed the domestic legislation, describing the case as ‘about the statutory measures enacted by Parliament … to confront the shame and menace of football hooliganism’. Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire has not been overruled and remains the only High Court case dealing with FBOs. This case gave police and prosecutors confidence to apply for FBOs and gave clear guidance to lower courts on the proper approach to FBOs. Turning to hate crime, there is only one reported case on Section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991: Director of Public Prosecutions v Stoke Magistrates’ Court. In what can only be described as a bizarre ruling, a district judge found Sean Ratcliffe not guilty of an offence of racial chanting at a Port Vale match, despite him admitting chanting ‘you’re just a town full of P***s’ at visiting Oldham supporters. Among the district judge’s reasons 190

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

were that ‘the word “P***” was no more insulting or racialist than the use of the words “Pom”, “Brit”, “Yank”, “Aussie” or “Kiwi” ’, and further that ‘the word “P***” is not insulting, whereas “Frog” or “Kraut” could be termed insulting’. Unsurprisingly, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated and the case was heard by a Queen’s Bench Court of Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Goldring (later to become the senior presiding judge and then coroner of the Hillsborough inquests). Lord Justice Auld pointed out the errors of the district judge’s finding, making clear that the word ‘P***’ had racist connotations, stating that ‘it is also, unfortunately, all too familiar an expression to the courts, used, as it so often is, as a prelude to violence’. His final paragraph is unequivocal: ‘In my view Ratcliffe’s admitted behaviour fell squarely within the definition in the Act of chanting of a racialist nature … and within the mischief at which the statutory provision was aimed.’ The district judge was accordingly directed to convict Ratcliffe of the offence. Like Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire, Director of Public Prosecutions v Stoke on Trent Magistrates’ Court has not been overruled, nor extensively cited, and offences under Section 3 will turn on their specific facts. However, Lord Justice Auld’s ruling did not attract universal support among academic and legal writers. Block (2003) questions whether the charges should ever have been brought and suggests that this amounts to double standards when no action is taken against high-​profile Muslims who have publicly advocated violence. His second point can be answered by observing that a decision not to prosecute one case does not make a decision to prosecute another a bad one. It is submitted that his first point is naive, and one which somebody who had not witnessed hostility on the terraces, or experienced racism, could not legitimately make. If cases such as this were never to be prosecuted, then there would be no point in the Section 3 offence being on the statute book. Turner (2003) takes a similar approach to Block (2003), questioning whether the word ‘P***’ is worse that ‘b***ard’ or ‘w**ker’. I suspect people of Pakistani heritage would have no difficulty answering that question, and Turner’s (2003) remark that ‘it is rather unlikely … that chanted at a football match as part of a vocal joust between rival sets of supporters such terms wound deeply’ suggests that he has never discussed the topic with Pakistani supporters nor asked them why so few British Asians attend professional football matches.

Prosecution policies and guidance The CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) launched a Football Prosecution Policy in August 2005. The Independent newspaper reported that police and prosecutors wanted to distinguish between the majority of law-​abiding fans and the minority of fans who caused problems and without whom the game would be better off (Allen, 2005). 191

Hate Crime in Football

This policy was backed up by prosecution guidance issued by the CPS and College of Policing (2022) guidance which is endorsed by the NPCC. Underpinning all prosecution decisions is the Code for Crown Prosecutors (CPS, 2018), which requires prosecutors to first consider an evidential test and then, and only then, consider if it is in the public interest to prosecute. The different hate crime guidance documents all have a statement saying that if the case passes the evidential test and it is a case of hate, ‘it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest’. The CPS/​ACPO prosecution policy was updated in 2009 and for a third time in 2013, when homophobic chanting was specifically mentioned for the first time. The wording in the 2016 NPCC/​CPS policy is almost identical to the 2013 version, stating: ‘As well as tackling violence, disorder and criminal damage we will deal robustly with offences of racist and homophobic and discriminatory chanting and abuse and other types of hate crime.’ The third version of the CPS/​ACPO policy was endorsed by both Kick It Out and Stonewall, as well as The FA and the Professional Footballers’ Association, and all organizations supported a media launch of the policy in August 2013. The policy was generally well received, with public support for a ‘crackdown’ on hate crime through social media coming from Norwich City Football Club. An interesting Welsh perspective on racism and homophobia in football was reported by Wales Online, with the chair of Cardiff City Supporters’ Trust describing homophobia as ‘one of the last taboos in football’ while calling for the retention of a sense of humour for other anti-​Welsh chanting (Law, 2013). In contrast, a Swansea fan called for anti-​Welsh songs to be prosecuted while claiming that homophobic chants were not a problem at the Liberty Stadium. While this could just be seen as a tale of two cities, an alternative view is that fans see some types of hate crime as acceptable and other forms as unacceptable. Stonewall and Kick It Out worked with the CPS on developing the policy and provided spokespersons to speak to the media on the day of its launch. Gay and many straight fans alike welcomed the emphasis on tackling homophobia. The Gay Football Supporters’ Network campaigns officer was ‘pleased to hear that the CPS is taking homophobic chanting seriously’ (McCormick, 2013) and was encouraged that the Brighton and Hove supporters report was being acted on. Similar support came from Brighton and Hove Albion supporters club.

The situation post-​COVID-​19: does hate crime remain a problem in football? Spectators had very limited access to live football during the 2020/​21 season, and restrictions were in place during 2021/​22 too. Therefore, Home Office statistics are of limited benefit in this period, and it will not be until the 2022/​23 figures are published that there can be accurate comparative data. 192

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

Nonetheless, the Home Office published statistics for 2021/​22, which make for grim reading. • There were 2,198 football-​related arrests –​an increase of 59 per cent from the 2018/​19 season (the last pre COVID) and the highest number of arrests since the UKFPU started collating data in the 2015/​16 season. • The most common football-​related arrest offence types were public disorder (36 per cent) and violent disorder (20 per cent) –​these arrests may include offences that could be described as hate crime. • Incidents of disorder were reported at just over half (53 per cent) of all games across the Premier League, the English Football League and the National Football League –​an increase of 60 per cent from the 2018/​ 19 season. • A total of 384 hate crime cases were reported (but not all would lead to an arrest or prosecution). • There were 19 arrests for racialist and indecent chanting. It is not difficult to find examples of racism (CPS [Crown Prosecution Service], 2022a), homophobia (Wingate, 2022), antisemitism (Akhtar, 2022) and Islamophobia (Arab America, 2022) online, and anecdotal examples are regularly commented on. It is clear that hate crime remains a real problem in football and may be growing. Three recent developments give some hope for the future. The first is the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Chapter 5 of the Act deals with FBOs and tightens up and extends the legislation in a number of ways. Notable among these are: • the extension of regulated football matches to include the The FA’s Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship; • In respect of offences committed on or after … 29 June 2022, Section 190 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 amends Schedule 1 such that a declaration of relevance will also be available for certain offences which relate to a football organisation or a person whom the defendant knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation, as well as which relate to regulated football matches or to one or more particular regulated football matches. ‘Football organisation’ is defined as an organization (in the UK or elsewhere) relating to football which is a prescribed organisation or is an organisation of a prescribed description. The offences covered by section 190 are: o offences under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (relating to hatred on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation) not otherwise covered by Schedule 1; o offences under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated public order offences); 193

Hate Crime in Football

o offences under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (sending a letter, electronic communication or article with intent to cause distress or anxiety) or section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (improper use of public telecommunications network) not otherwise covered by Schedule 1, where the court has stated that the offence is aggravated by hostility of any of the types mentioned in section 66(1) of the Sentencing Code. (CPS, 2022b) • The persons covered by this section include: o ‘a player, manager, coach, physiotherapist or other member of the matchday pitchside staff of a relevant team, or were such at any time in the 6 months before the date of the offence’; o a referee, assistant referee, video assistant referee, assistant video referee, reserve official, fourth official, or other match official, who officiates a regulated football match involving a relevant team, or were such at any time in the 6 months before the offence; o an officer of a club which is a regulated football organisation, or were such at any time in the 6 months before the offence; or o journalist or other broadcast staff covering a regulated football match involving a relevant team or otherwise reporting or commentating on a relevant team or player of such team, or were such at any time in the 14 days before the offence. (CPS, 2022b) • a tightening up of the wording of the test for imposition of FBOs: section 192 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 amends this test such that where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, the court must impose a FBO unless it ‘considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so’ (CPS, 2022b). The second recent development is a new NPCC and CPS prosecution policy for football-​related offences, dated September 2022 (CPS, 2022c). Two paragraphs from the policy make clear that both organizations will continue to concentrate on hate crime and actively pursue FBOs. There is a presumption in favour of prosecution whenever there is sufficient evidence of football-related offending. Football Banning Orders (FBOs) are a key part of tackling football-related offending, and can have a powerful deterrent effect on those who may engage in such offending. Accordingly, prosecutors will apply for a FBO whenever available unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so. This is not limited to offences such as violence at matches, but 194

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

will also apply, for example, to ticket touts and those who engage in online discriminatory abuse of players and others professionally involved in football. The NPCC and the CPS work closely together to tackle footballrelated offending and the NPCC and the CPS will be alert to, and will work together to respond to, emerging challenges associated with football-related offending. The NPCC and the CPS will also continue to work with the Home Office and other government departments to combat football-related offending at home and abroad, as well as with colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The third is a complete revision of the CPS football prosecution guidance considering the new legislation. The guidance spells out how things will change: Most football-​related disorder takes place away from football grounds, often affecting local public houses and railway and bus stations. Organised disorder can involve rival groups of supporters meeting some distance from the ground. The fact that offending takes place away from the ground does not mean that the offending is not related to football matches or to a particular match, and does not mean that an order should not be sought. (CPS, 2022b) Both the legislation and the CPS/​NPCC policy have been widely reported. It is noteworthy that the person convicted for abusing Rio Ferdinand, the former footballer and pundit, on social media could and should have got an FBO (BBC, 2021b). From my personal experience of working with the CPS and NPCC’s national leads for well over ten years, I have little doubt that they will work extremely hard to take advantage of the new legislation. Time will tell if sentencers back up the police and prosecution when hate crime in football is proved in a criminal court.

Conclusion Hate crime has been a scourge of football in England and Wales since the rules of the game were codified in the late 19th century. The analysis in this chapter shows that the problem can be tackled with a degree of success by prosecutors, especially as they have good cooperation with the police at local and national levels. They have also been supported by the government with robust legislation that has not been successfully challenged in the higher courts. Legislation and prosecution, while successful and important, are only part of the solution. It is considered important for clubs and football authorities to play their part, and there are signs in the 2022/​23 season that 195

Hate Crime in Football

they are doing so, with the Premier League supporting one-​year club bans for fans involved in ‘hate crime’-​type behaviour. Peer pressure among fans was discussed in this chapter, and it may be that the football authorities need to impose robust sanctions on clubs who cannot control their fans. The challenge for the future is to continue to adapt to the changing behaviour of those who see football as an excuse to vent their prejudices. I am confident that this can be achieved. References Akhtar, S. (2022) ‘Ex-​soldier caught making Nazi salutes at Tottenham Hotspur fans’, My London, [online] 20 July, Available from: www.mylon​ don.news/​news/​uk-​world-​news/​ex-​sold​ier-​cau​ght-​mak​ing-​nazi-​24538​ 544 [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Allen, N. (2005) ‘World Cup ban threat in “zero tolerance” crackdown’, The Independent, [online] 12 August, Available from: www.indep​ ende​ nt.co.uk/​ sport/​footb​all/​news-​and-​comm​ent/​world-​cup-​ban-​thr​eat-​in-​zero-​tolera​ nce-​crackd​own-​305​435.html [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Arab America (2022) ‘Mohamed Salah facing racism and Islamophobia in football’, [online] 20 July, Available from: www.arab​amer ​ica.com/​ moha​med-​salah-​fac​ing-​rac​ism-​and-​islam​opho​bia-​in-​footb​all/​ [Accessed 26 October 2022]. BBC (2008) ‘Football ban breach fan is jailed’, [online] 10 July, Available from: http://​news.bbc.co.uk/​1/​hi/​engl​and/​man​ches​ter/​7500​602.stm [Accessed 26 October 2022]. BBC (2018) ‘World Cup 2018: England fans banned over “anti-​Semitic” video’, [online] 26 June, Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​uk-​engl​ and-​44613​128 [Accessed 26 October 2022]. BBC (2021a) ‘Racist abuse of England players Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho & Bukayo Saka “unforgivable”’, [online] 12 July, Available from: www.bbc. co.uk/​sport/​footb​all/​57800​431 [Accessed 26 October 2022]. BBC (2021b) ‘Rio Ferdinand: man sentenced over racist tweets to commentator during Euro 2020’, [online] 1 March, Available from: www. bbc.co.uk/​news/​uk-​engl​and-​beds-​bucks-​herts-​60573​692 [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Beloff, M. (2004) ‘Racism’, International Sports Law Review, 63(3). Beloff, M. (2012) International Sports Law Review, 1 (1). Block, B. (2003) ‘Sense and sensitivity,’ Justice of the Peace, 167(38): 709–​710. College of Policing (2022) ‘Authorised professional practice’ [online], Available from: www.coll​ege.pol​ice.uk/​app/​pub​lic-​order/​polic​ing-​footb​ all [Accessed 26 October 2022]. CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2018) ‘The Code for Crown Prosecutors’ 8th Edition, [online] 26 October, Available from: www.cps.gov.uk/​publ​ icat​ion/​code-​crown-​pros​ecut​ors [Accessed 26 October 2022]. 196

Prosecuting Hate Crime in Football

CPS (2022a) ‘Football fan sentenced for racist slur against West Ham steward’, [online] 30 March, Available from: www.cps.gov.uk/​lon​don-​north/​news/​ footb​all-​f an-​senten​ced-​rac​ist-​slur-​agai​nst-​west-​ham-​stew​ard [Accessed 26 October 2022]. CPS (2022b) ‘Football related offences and football banning orders’, [online] 29 June, Available from: www.cps.gov.uk/​legal-g​ uidan ​ ce/f​ ootba​ ll-r​ elat​ ed-​ offen​ces-​and-​footb​all-​bann​ing-​ord​ers [Accessed 22 May 2023]. CPS (2022c) ‘Football related offences: National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecution policy’, [online] 18 October, Available from: www.cps.gov.uk/​publ​icat​ion/​footb​all-​rela​ted-​offen​ces-​ natio​nal-​pol​ice-​chi​efs-​coun​cil-​and-​crown-​pros​ecut​ion-​serv​ice [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Daily Mail (2009) ‘Four Tottenham fans banned over indecent Campbell chants’ [online], Available from: www.dailym​ail.co.uk/​sport/​footb​all/​arti​ cle-​1123​823/​Four-​Totten​ham-​f ans-​ban​ned-​indec​ent-​Campb​ell-​cha​nts. html [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Giannasi, P. (2014) ‘Policing and hate crime’, in N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi and J.G.D. Grieve (eds) The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime, London: Routledge, pp 331–​342. Grayson, E. (1999) Sport and the Law (3rd edn), London: Butterworths. Hall, N. (2013) Hate Crime (2nd edn), London: Routledge. The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989, Inquiry by the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Taylor – Report submitted to Home Office 19 January 1990. Home Office (2017) ‘Football-​related arrests statistics, England and Wales, 1984 to 1985 season to 1999 to 2000 season’ [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​sta​tist​ics/​footb​all-​rela​ted-​arre​sts-​sta​tist​ ics-​engl​and-​and-​wales-​1984-​to-​1985-​thro​ugh-t​ o-1​ 999-t​ o-2​ 000 [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Home Office (2019) ‘Football-​related arrests and banning order statistics, England and Wales, 2018/​19 Season’ [online], Available from: https://​ass​ ets.pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​atta​ chme​nt_​d​ata/​file/​832​431/​footb​all-​rela​ted-​arre​sts-​bann​ing-​ord​ers-​1819-​ hosb2​219.pdf [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Home Office (2022) ‘Football-​related arrests and banning orders, England and Wales: 2021 to 2022 season’ [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/g​ ov​ ernm​ent/​sta​tist​ics/​footb​all-​rela​ted-​arre​sts-​and-​bann​ing-​ord​ers-​engl​and-​ and-​wales-​2021-t​ o-2​ 022-s​ eas​ on/f​ ootba​ ll-r​ ela​ted-​arre​sts-​and-​bann​ing-​ord​ ers-e​ ngla​ nd-a​ nd-w ​ ales-2​ 021-t​ o-2​ 022-s​ eas​ on [Accessed 27 October 2022]. Law, P. (2013) ‘Crackdown urged on anti-​Welsh chants at football matches’, Wales Online, [online] 24 August, Available from: www.wale​sonl​ine.co.uk/​ news/w ​ ales-n ​ ews/​crackd​own-​urged-​anti-​welsh-​cha​nts-​footb​all-​5779​662 [Accessed 26 October 2022].

197

Hate Crime in Football

Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Enquiry, Cm 4262, London: The Stationary Office. McCormick, J.P. (2013) ‘New police policy set out to tackle “frighteningly often” occurrences of homophobia at football matches’, Pink News, [online] 23 August, Available from: www.pinkn​ews.co.uk/​2013/​08/​23/​new-​pol​ ice-p​ oli​ cy-s​ et-o ​ ut-​to-​tac​kle-​fright​enin​gly-​often-​occu​r ren​ces-​of-​hom​opho​ bia-​at-​footb​all-​matc​hes [Accessed 26 October 2022]. Naughton, P. (2015) ‘Chelsea fans banned for five years over racist abuse’, The Times, 22 July. Parpworth, N. (1993) ‘Football and racism: a legislative solution?’, Solicitors’ Journal, 137(39): 1016–​1017. Solhekol, K. (2008) ‘Fans charged with racist abuse of Mido’, The Times, 5 December. Turner, A. (2003) ‘A touch too sensitive?’, Justice of the Peace, 167(29): 54. Wingate, S. (2022) ‘Football supporter fined for homophobic chanting towards Chelsea fans’, The Independent, [online] 27 May, Available from: www.inde​pend​ent.co.uk/​news/​uk/​crime/​crown-​pros​ecut​ion-​serv​ ice-​prem​ier-​lea​gue-​hate-​crime-​totten​ham-​hots​pur-​stamf​ord-​bri​dge-​ b2089​180.html [Accessed 26 October 2022]. The Y-​Word (2011) [film] written by D. Baddiel, and I. Baddiel, directed by R. Young, Available from www.yout​ube.com/w ​ atch?v=R ​ IvJC ​ 1_h ​ K ​ t8 [Accessed 26 October 2022].

198

Index References to tables appear in bold type. References to endnotes show both the page number and the note number (35n3).

A ableism  97–​98, 130 Aboutreika, Mohamed  174 Abu Dhabi  172 ACPO  See Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Action Against Discrimination  35 activism  22, 53, 54–​55, 160, 162, 165–​167, 170–​172 Adams, A.  109 administration  See football administration AFC Ajax (Netherlands)  35n3 Africa Cup of Nations (2022)  87 Agnew, R.  51 Ahmed, S.  113, 133, 135, 136 Ajibola, Aji  73 Akram, Wasim  64 Akse P19  48, 54 Allen, S.  53 allies  167, 168, 169, 170, 171–​172, 175, 176, 177n6 Allison, Sam  73 Allport, Gordon  45, 46, 152 Aluko, Eniola  125, 128–​129, 133, 135–​136 Alves, Dani  79 Amann (Kop Outs)  168, 170–​171, 172, 174 Anderson, E.  104, 106, 109, 111–​112, 160 Anderson, Viv  47–​48, 63, 126 The Anfield Wrap  171 anonymity  27, 80, 88, 93, 95, 97–​98, 110, 130 antidiscrimination  effectiveness of campaigns  128–​129, 137 LGBT+​ campaigns  69, 159–​160 policies  34 See also Kick It Out anti-​Jewish racism  21, 23, 24, 30 anti-​Judaism  21 anti-​LGBT+​-​phobia  111, 112 See also homophobia; LGBT+​

antilocution  44–​46, 55 antiracism  governing bodies on  68–​72 initiatives  6, 13–​14, 65–​67, 77, 90–​92, 93–​94, 95–​96 research on, lack of  8, 13 sexism within  128 See also racism antisemitism  about  20–​22, 35n1, 185 chanting  20, 23, 28, 32, 34 forms of  23–​24, 25 hissing noises  19–​20, 32, 35, 185 incidents of  19–​20, 23, 24, 27, 189 legislation  182 nature of in football  28–​31 online  29–​31, 32 research on  19, 86 See also Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) Football Club anti-​vax  96 anti-​Zionism  21, 22, 24 Aragonés, Luis  69 Arsenal Football Club  32, 66, 161, 164, 170 Asante, Anita  136 AS Roma (Italy)  77 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)  191–​192 Aston Villa  11, 30, 60, 65 Atkinson, Ron  44–​45 Auld, Lord Justice  191 Australia  22, 86, 108 Ayling, Luke  168 B Babajide, Rinsola  125, 134, 135, 136 Back, Les  on contingency  51 cyber racism  74 on Euro 2020  47, 48

199

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL

football culture, race/racism in  7, 13–​14, 28, 29 non-​playing positions, racism in  72 backstage (virtual)  88–​89, 97 See also social media Baddiel, David  12, 30, 184 Baddiel, Ivor  184 Bailey, M.  133 Banks, Tony  186 banning orders  See football banning orders (FBOs) Barker, K.  95–​96 Barnes, John  47–​48, 60–​61, 63 Barnes, Simon  181 Barnet Football Club  73 Batson, Brendan  45 Beckford, Jermaine  168 Beloff, M.  181 Bennett, H.  91 Biden, Joe  76 bin Salman Al-​Saud, Mohammed  173 biological sex  See sex biphobia  103, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116 bisexuals  110, 146, 161, 167, 174, 175 Black athletes  acceptance, ‘earning’ of  51 racism against  1–​2, 5–​6, 45–​46, 52–​53, 79–​80 solidarity with  49 taking the knee  53 treatment of  7, 10–​11, 107 See also racism Blackburn Rovers Football Club  65, 72 Black Lives Matter  feminism in football and  126–​127, 135 taking the knee for  11, 48, 53, 73–​74 US Soccer response to  75 Black managers  72–​73 Black Power civil rights movement  53 Black supporters  10–​11 Black women  127, 133–​134, 135–​136, 137 Blissett, Luther  47–​48 Block, B.  191 Boro Fusion  65 Bourdieu, P.  150–​151 Brackenridge, C.  160 Bradford City  65 Brexit  48, 74 Bridges, Emily  145 Brighton  184, 192 British Asian players  127–​128, 134 British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey  105, 108 British Transport Police  185, 186 bromances  111 Browne, K.  145 BSA  See British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey Burdsey, Daniel  9–​10, 48, 53, 129, 133, 136

Burnett, Tony  115 Bury, J.  113, 128, 134 Butler, J.  128, 134 Buzuvis, E.  149–​150 Byrne, B.  134 C Call It Out campaign  169 Cameron, David  33 Campaign Against Antisemitism  35 Canada  106, 108 Carney, Karen  87 Carrington, Ben  44, 48 carrot emojis  96 Carter, N.  104–​105 Cashmore, E.  110, 160, 174 Caudwell, Jayne  124, 133 Cavallo, Josh  104 chanting  about  182 antisemitic  20, 23, 28, 32, 34 as hate crime  181, 182–​183, 184, 185–​187, 193 LGBTphobic  110, 112, 116, 160, 163–​164, 169, 170–​172, 177n7, 188 racist  7, 10, 79, 84, 87, 131, 185, 188, 190–​191 Chelsea Football Club  7, 30–​31, 32, 73, 188 Chief Constable of Derbyshire, Gough v  190, 191 Children in Need (BBC)  64 cisgender  144, 151 Clarke, Greg  161 class-​based discrimination  53–​54, 132, 147 Cleland, J.  110, 160, 161, 169, 174 Clough, Brian  107 Club Atlético Atlanta (Argentina)  35n3 clubs  antiracism initiatives within  14, 15, 64–​65 fan base, relationships with  16 identities  8 multiculturalism within  10–​11 reputations of  7 responsibility of  97 See also football cultures; specific clubs (e.g., Chelsea Football Club) coaches  antisemitic incidents  19 diversity, lack of in  6, 72, 73, 75–​76 education of, need for  177n7 hate crimes by  69, 194 Coady, Conor  168 Code for Crown Prosecutors  192 collateral vandalism  51 College of Policing  1, 130, 185, 192 Collins, Damian  112 Collins, Jason  111 colonialism  20, 22, 52, 62, 63, 133, 135 Combat 18  26 Communications Act (2003)  194

200

INDEX

communities  See local communities Community Security Trust (CST)  23, 24, 24, 25, 30, 33, 35 Complaint (Ahmed)  136 Concacaf (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football)  71–​72 Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football  See Concacaf Connell, Raewyn  107, 111 context vandalism  51 contingency  51 Corbyn, Jeremy  22 Corriere dello Sport (Italy)  77–​78 courts, role in hate crimes  184, 188–​191 COVID-​19 pandemic  antisemitism during  24, 26–​27, 28 food voucher scheme  50 hate crime spike during  162 HBT discrimination during  114, 115 sporting events post-​pandemic  48, 192–​194 Covid Summer School Fund  50 CPS  See Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Crabbe, Tim  7, 13–​14, 72 Crenshaw, Kimberlé  127 cricket  antiracism discussions  15 and identities (local, national)  9 players  64 racism  66, 177n3 social media boycott  93 Crime and Disorder Act (1998)  130, 131, 183, 193–​194 Crime Survey for England and Wales  162–​163 Criminal Justice Act (2003)  130, 183 critical race theory  52–​54 Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)  31, 95–​96, 185, 191–​192, 193, 194–​195 Crystal Palace  66, 73 CST  See Community Security Trust (CST) Culture, Media and Sport Committee  115, 160, 161, 164, 175, 177n3 Cunneen, C.  52 Cunningham (Proud Canaries)  166, 167, 168, 169–​170, 172 Cunningham, Laurie  45 Curry, T.  106 cyber racism  74 See also racism; social media Cybersmile Foundation  94 Cymru Premier (Welsh Premier League)  189 D Daley, Tom  111 dangerous and dirty (DAD) jobs  104 Daniels, Jake  104, 169, 177n6 Dean, Dixie  185

de Boise, S.  111 decolonization  9 Deeney, Troy  87 de Miguel Molina, M.  49 Desailly, Marcel  44 De Siervo, L.  78 Dhalu, Sabby  54 Diamond, Neil  12 Director of Public Prosecutions v Stoke on Trent Magistrates’ Court  187–​188, 190, 191 disabilities  attitudes towards  16 hate crime/discrimination based on  1, 26, 71–​72, 109, 137, 160 intersectionality of  131–​132 legislation  125, 129, 130, 183 discrimination  class-​based  53–​54, 132, 147 faith-​based  26–​28, 27 HBT (homophobia, biphobia, transphobia)  103, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116, 144–​145 See also antidiscrimination; antisemitism; HBT (homophobia, biphobia, transphobia); racism disinhibition  88 diversity  increase in  10, 11, 12, 47, 73, 74, 160–​161 lack of  6, 75–​76, 160 See also Kick It Out; LGBT+​ Diversity Handbook (Concacaf)  71–​72 Doan, P.  145, 147–​148 Donnarumma, Gianluigi  83 Doyle, J.  48, 53 drift vandalism  51 Duggan, M.  131, 132 Dulwich Hamlet  146 E education  166, 171–​172, 177n7 EFL  See English Football League (EFL) England national team  11–​12, 74 See also Euro  2020 England Rugby Football Union  145 English Football League (EFL)  about  181, 185 on antisemitism  22, 35 on homophobia  164–​165, 170 Kick It Out funding  90 role in addressing racism/​ discrimination  97 social media boycott  93 Together  165 #Enough campaign  90, 93, 134–​135 Equality Act 2010  21, 149 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2020–​2024 (The FA)  164 equity  See LGBT+​ Euro 1988 (Germany)  63

201

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL

Euro 2000 (Belgium)  187 Euro 2016 (France)  87, 92 Euro  2020 anthem (England national team)  12 antiracist initiatives following  15, 30 Equal Game campaign  164 final game  1, 5–​6, 12, 47–​48, 63, 83 hate crimes after  48–​49, 64, 95 LGBTphobia  172 online (cyber) racism  1–​2, 5–​6, 12, 74, 83–​84, 87 taking the knee during  11, 73 European Football Championship See Euro 1988 (Germany); Euro 2000 (Belgium); Euro 2016 (France); Euro  2020 Evra, Patrice  10 exploratory vandalism  51 F The FA  See The Football Association (The FA) Facebook  See social media faith-​based discrimination  26–​28, 27 fan cultures  See football cultures fan groups  antiracism initiatives  13–​16 LGBT+​  161–​162, 164, 165–​167, 170, 173 racism within  7–​8, 11 fans  See fan groups; football cultures; supporters Fans For Diversity  66 Fans Supporting Foodbanks  170 Farage, Nigel  73 FARE  See Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) FareShare  50 Fashanu, Amal  166 Fashanu, Justin  106–​107, 161, 166, 168, 177n5 FBOs  See football banning orders (FBOs) Fédération Internationale de Football Association  See FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) feminism  125, 126, 127, 129–​132, 133–​134, 137 Ferdinand, Anton  10 Ferdinand, Rio  195 FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association)  discriminatory language  177n4 Football Leadership Diversity Code (2020)  164 on homophobia  164, 172 racism, addressing  68–​69, 79 social media boycott  93 trans participation  148, 151 FIFA Task Force Against Racism and Discrimination  68–​69

FIFA World Cup  Italy (1990)  63 Qatar (2022)  15, 61, 87, 160, 164, 172 Russia (2018)  69, 189 Fine, R.  20 FLA  See Football Lads Alliance (FLA) Floyd, George  75 food poverty campaign  49–​50, 53, 54, 55 food vouchers  50, 54 Football (Offences) Act (1991)  87, 112, 131, 182, 183, 186, 189, 190 Football (Offences and Disorder) Act (1999)  182, 186, 189 football administration  6, 15, 72–​73, 76, 194 Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE)  77–​78 The Football Association (The FA)  on antisemitism  22, 33, 34, 35 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2020–​2024  164 on homophobia  112–​113, 128, 169–​170 Kick It Out funding  90 role in addressing racism/discrimination  97 sexism  135 social media boycott  93 trans participation  145, 147–​148, 149–​151 women’s football, banning of  105 Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Antisemitism and Islamophobia (Mann)  34 football banning orders (FBOs)  about  190, 193–​194 for antisemitism  28–​29, 33, 189 effectiveness of  188, 189–​190, 194–​195 for English clubs (1980s)  59 introduction of  186–​187 for online hate crimes  95, 163 for racism  131 football cultures  antiracism strategies  13–​15 antisemitism  19–​20, 26–​27, 27, 28–​29 immigrants  60–​61 race/racism studies of  7–​8, 13–​14 racism  7, 8–​9, 10, 52 traditional  10, 26, 46 See also antisemitism; clubs; homophobia; racism football hooligan  See hooliganism Football Lads Alliance (FLA)  1, 35n2 Football Leadership Diversity Code (FIFA) (2020)  164 Football League  See English Football League (EFL) Football Moves People  74 Football Online Hate Working Group (Kick It Out)  30, 91, 97 Football Spectators Act (1989)  131, 189 Football Supporters’ Association  176 Football Task Force  186 Football v Homophobia  112, 113, 165, 173

202

INDEX

Formula  1, 93 Fowler, Robbie  62 France  108 Frank, Anne  26 frontstage (virtual)  88–​89, 97 See also social media Fugazzotto, Simone  78

Grayson, E.  181 Grenfell Tower  12 Gueye, Idrissa  174 Gullit, Ruud  73

G Gaetz, Matt  75 Gardiner, S.  112 Garland, Jon  131 Garza, A.  127 Gay Football Supporters’ Network  192 Gay Games  106 Gay Gooners  161, 164, 170 gay men  athletes, acceptance of  103–​104, 109 hostility towards  106–​107 physical activity levels  146 sports, participation in  161 gender  medicalization of  145, 147, 148–​149, 150, 154 as protected characteristic  21, 131, 149 sex and  147 transgender definition  144 tyranny of  147–​148 gender identities  about  144 and genderism  147, 148 legislation  130, 143, 148–​149, 183 self-​declaration of  148–​149 genderism  145, 147 gender reassignment  147, 149, 150, 152, 163 Gender Recognition Act (2004)  143, 148 Germany  24, 26, 28–​29, 47, 51, 106, 108, 172 Gerstenfeld, P.B.  1 Gill, Sunny  73 Gilroy, Paul  8 girls  antidiscrimination campaigns, ineffectiveness of  129 hate crimes against  125, 127, 133, 134 marginalization of  126, 128 Goffman, E.  88–​89 Goldring, Mr Justice  191 Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-​ Discrimination (FIFA)  177n4 Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-​ Discrimination (FIFA)  68 Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire  190, 191 governing bodies  See antiracism; Concacaf (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football); FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association); homophobia; UEFA (Union of European Football Associations)

H Hall, L.  21 Hall, N.  153, 182 Hall, Stuart  8 Hamad, H.  52 Hamilton, Blair  145–​146 ‘hand of God’ goal (1986)  59 Hansen, M.  111 hate  1, 33, 129–​130 hate crimes  about  1, 129–​130, 182 chanting  181, 182–​183, 184, 185–​187, 193 and feminism  131–​132 hate speech  33 increase in  108 intersectionality and  125–​126, 131–​132, 133–​134 investigations of  48, 95–​96 legislation  130–​132, 182–​184, 188–​191, 192–​195 at matches  87 misogyny as  125, 126, 131, 132–​134 online  1–​3, 29–​30, 63–​64, 74, 84–​92, 177n2, 192 (See also social media) protected groups (five)  130, 131 racial  30–​31 religious  22–​24, 24, 25, 26–​27, 27, 129, 183, 193 research of online  84–​86 vandalism  45–​47, 48–​52, 55 See also specific hate crimes (e.g. Islamophobia, HBT, antisemitism, racism) HBT (homophobia, biphobia, transphobia)  discrimination/hate crimes  103, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116, 144–​145, 162–​163 social acceptance of  97–​98 Healy, Jane  131–​132 hegemonic masculinity  107, 148 Heidenry, R.  49, 55 Hekma, G.  106 Henderson, Jordan  94, 168 Henry, Thierry  69, 94 Heysel Stadium disaster  59, 60 hierarchies  19, 22, 107, 130, 152–​153 Hill, Ricky  47–​48 Hillsborough disaster  60, 168, 181, 186, 191 Hines, S.  144 hissing noises (antisemitic)  19–​20, 32, 35, 185 Hitler, Adolf  185 Hitzlsperger, Thomas  110 HIV/​AIDS  105, 183 Holocaust  21, 24, 28, 32

203

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL

Home Office  on hate crimes at matches  87, 186–​187, 192–​194 increase in hate crimes  109 religious hate crimes  24 transphobia hate crimes  144–​145 violence in hate crimes  45 See also United Kingdom Football Policing Unit (UKFPU) homophobia  discrimination/hate crimes  103, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116 education  166, 171–​172, 177n7 governing bodies on  164–​165, 169–​170 history of  104–​106, 108 hypotheses  161 legislation  182 online  110–​111 paradox  160 social acceptance of  97–​98 in sports  106–​108 homosexuality  103–​104, 108 hooliganism  7–​8, 59, 60, 61, 112, 184, 190 Hopkins Burke, R.  51 hormone therapy  147, 149–​150, 151, 154 horse racing  93 hostility  1, 2, 21, 106–​107, 125, 129–​131, 183–​184 Human Dignity Trust  176 Human Rights Act (1998)  190 Humphries, Connor  109 hypothetical inclusivity  110 Hysén, Antonio  109 Hysén, Glenn  62, 109 I identities  See clubs; gender identities; local identity; national identity IHRA  See International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) immigrants  experiences of  59–​60 football culture  60–​61 national identity, impact on  9 national team, playing on  74 Ince, Paul  72 inclusion  See LGBT+​ inclusive masculinity theory  111 inclusivity  109–​111, 165–​166, 168 inclusivity myth  47–​48, 51 The Independent  192 in-​groups  1, 152 Instagram  See social media Inter Milan (Italy)  77 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)  21–​22, 23, 35 intersectionality  about  125, 127, 131–​132 hate crime legislation  131–​132, 137

hate crimes  53, 55, 163 women’s experiences of in sport  125–​126, 132–​136 IRA  See Irish Republican Army (IRA) Irish Republican Army (IRA)  185 Irrespective of Sexual Orientation (The FA)  112 Islamophobia  antisemitism, compared with  21 as faith-​based discrimination  28 hate crimes  61, 188 legislation  182 research on  86 social acceptance of  97–​98 Italy  26, 76–​79, 80, 108 J Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism  21, 22 Jews  football players  19 history  20–​21 population  22 as a race  183 religious hate crimes against  23, 28–​29, 30–​31 See also antisemitism Johnson, Boris  49, 50, 54, 73–​74, 126, 132, 146 Jönsson, A.  91 journalists  75, 80, 98, 111, 116, 194 Judaism  21 Jurasz, O.  95–​96 The Justin Campaign  112 K Kaepernick, Colin  11, 75 Kane, Harry  83 Katz, J.  46 Kearns, C.  85, 86, 88, 89, 96, 111 Keleher, A.  108 Khan, Imran  64 Khazir, Amjid  59–​67 Kian, E.M.  110, 111 Kick It Out  categories of discrimination  26 efficacy of campaign  6, 10 Football Online Hate Working Group  30, 91, 97 funders  90 HBT hate crimes/discrimination  103, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116, 163, 192 Klick It Out campaign  90, 92 reports (hate/discrimination/abuse) 26–​27, 27, 87, 91, 177n1 role of  14, 160 sexism of campaigns  128 smartphone app  27, 90–​91, 113, 114 social media boycott  93 workshops  66 The Y-​Word  33, 34 Kilvington, D.  88–​89, 90, 92, 93, 96

204

INDEX

Kimmel, M.S.  104 Klick It Out campaign  90, 92 Klopp, Jürgen  171 knee  See taking the knee Kop Outs  164, 170, 171, 174 Krept & Konan  12–​13 Kyeremeh, S.  128 L Labour Party  22 language  antisemitic  24, 25, 35 homophobic  110, 111, 116, 163, 166, 168, 171, 173 racist  6, 24, 44–​45, 74, 88, 188 Law Commission  130, 132 Lawrence, Stephen  45, 129, 182 Laws, Lord Justice  190 Lazio ultras (Italy)  26 League Managers Association  93 Leeds  7 Leeds Pride  168 legislation, hate crime  130–​132, 182–​184, 188–​191, 192–​195 lesbians  108, 132, 146, 161, 174, 175 Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football  See Kick It Out LGBT+​  allies  169 anti-​LGBT+​-​phobia  111, 112 athletes, support for  111 education  166, 171–​172, 177n7 fan groups  161–​162, 164, 165–​167, 170, 173 inclusivity  165–​166, 168 physical activity levels of  146 policy influencing  167, 169–​170 socializing  167, 170 supporters (fans)  116 visibility  165, 166, 167–​168 LGBTphobia  111, 112, 160, 162–​165, 166–​167, 169, 170–​172, 177n7, 188 LGBT Survey, National  162, 163, 173 Lightning Seeds  12 Liston, Katie  98 Liverpool Football Club  134 Liverpool players  60–​61, 62–​63, 94, 109, 134 Liverpool supporters (fans)  32, 54, 60, 62–​63, 168, 170–​172, 186 ŁKS Łódź (Poland)  26, 35n3 local communities  49, 65 local identity  14–​15 Long, M.  51 Lukaku, Romelu  77 M MacKenzie, G.  150 Macpherson enquiry  129, 182 Magrath, Rory  104, 107, 110, 113

Maguire, Harry  83 Major League Soccer (MLS)  75–​76 Malicious Communications Act (1988)  194 management  See football administration Manavis, S.  94 Manchester City  66, 173 Mann, J.  34, 35 Mannix, Joel  73 Marschall, S.  49 masculinity  104–​105, 107, 116 Mathers, M.  126 Maynard, Melanie  52 McCormack, M.  171 McDevitt, J.  1 McManaman, Steve  62 McNally, David  166 Media Cultured  xi, 64, 65–​66 media industry  76 mediatised activism  53 medicalization (of trans bodies)  145, 147, 148–​149, 150, 154 Méïté, Yakou  87 mens rea principle  33 Merton, R.K.  51 Messner, M.A.  106 Mexico  108 microaggressions  128 Middlesbrough Football Club  59–​60, 65, 188 Mido (Ahmed Hossam Hussein Abdelhamid Wasfy)  188 Migration Museum  74 Miles, B.  53 Mills, K.  47, 48, 51 Millwall  7 Milton Keynes Dons  29 Mings, Tyrone  11, 87 minority players  6, 10–​11 See also specific groups (e.g., Black athletes, Jews, gay men) minority supporters  10–​11 misandry  132 Misogynies (Smith)  132–​133 misogynoir  3, 125, 126, 133–​134, 136, 137 misogyny  as hate crime  125, 126, 131, 132–​134, 137 social acceptance of  97–​98 MKS Cracovia (Poland)  35n3 MLS  See Major League Soccer (MLS) Mølby, Jan  62 The Month of Hate (CST)  23 #MoreThanMean  85 motivations (for hate crimes)  1 MTK Budapest (Hungary)  35n3 multiculturalism  6, 10, 12–​13 mural (of Marcus Rashford)  12, 48–​51, 52–​55 Murray, Zander  104 Muslims  21, 23, 62, 98, 163, 183, 191

205

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL

N Nabano Martins, J.  110 Napolitano, V.  52, 53–​54 National Front  7, 26 National Health Service (NHS)  147 national identity  5, 6, 8–​10, 11, 12, 15 National LGB&T Partnership (2016)  146 National LGBT Survey  162, 163, 173 National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)  185, 192, 194, 195 national team  See England national team Nazi salutes  26, 28–​29, 31, 35 Netherlands  108 networking  170 Neville, Phil  93, 94 Newcastle United Football Club  73, 173 new racisms  9–​10 See also racism 9/​11  64, 183, 188 non-​performing inclusion  113, 128, 134, 135, 137 Norwich City  161–​162, 164, 166, 168, 173, 177n5, 192 NPCC  See National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) O ‘Olé (we are England ’21)’ (Krept & Konan)  12–​13 Olusoga, David  53 Olusoga, Peter  53 O’Neill, R.  111 online  See hate crimes; social media; specific hate crimes (e.g., antisemitism, homophobia, racism) Online Safety Bill  30, 92, 98 Opening Doors and Joining In (The FA)  113 out-​groups  1, 2 Owens, Jesse  185 Oxford English Dictionary  32–​33 P Paddy Power  173 Paouros (Proud Lilywhites)  166, 167, 170, 173, 177 Parpworth, N.  182 Patel, Priti  48, 73, 74, 126 patriarchy  107, 127 Pearce, Stuart  51–​52 Perry, B.  152 PFA  See Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) Platt, David  63 players  diversity, lack of  75–​76 opposition to racism/xenophobia  11, 16 See also Black athletes; British Asian players; gay men; Jews; Liverpool players; minority players; South Asian players; White players

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (2022)  193, 194 police, role in hate crimes  184–​185, 186–​187, 190, 191, 195 policy influencing  167, 169–​170 Policy on Trans People in Football (The FA)  149–​151 popular culture  9 postcolonialism  13, 52, 55 Pound, Simone  93 poverty  food poverty campaign  49–​50, 53, 54, 55 and participation in sports  147 Powar, Piara  77 prejudice  1, 45, 46–​47 Premier League  antisemitism definition adoption  22, 35 Equality Diversity and Inclusion Standard  165 on homophobia  165, 170, 172–​173 Jewish players  19 Kick It Out funding  90 non-​playing positions, lack of diversity in  72–​73 online hate, tackling  96 role in addressing racism/discrimination  97 social media boycott  93 taking the knee  11 See also specific clubs (e.g., Tottenham Hotspur) Price, J.  90, 92, 93, 96 Pride in Football  162, 165, 169, 173 Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA)  87, 90, 93, 111, 113 Pronger, B.  106 prosecutors, role in hate crimes  184–​188 Proud Canaries  161–​162, 164, 166, 173 Proud Lilywhites  164 Public Order Act (1986)  29, 31, 33, 130, 182, 183, 187, 193 Q Qatar  15, 61, 160, 164, 172 R race  experiences of within football cultures  8–​9 hate crime based on  1, 193 national identity, role in shaping  5, 6, 8–​9, 11, 12, 15 race making  7, 8–​9 Race Relations Act (1976)  185 Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006)  130 racialization  process of  7–​8, 9, 15, 28 of religious minorities  21 racial microaggressions  128 racial terminologies  137n1 racism  chanting  7, 10, 79, 84, 87, 131, 185, 188, 190–​191

206

INDEX

closet  44–​45 evolution of  9–​10 forms of  28–​29 history of in football  5–​6, 7, 8–​9, 26 institutional  129 Italy  76–​79 local variations of  14 online (cyber)  1–​2, 5–​6, 29, 74, 83–​84, 90–​96 research  84–​86 sexism and (intersectionality of)  132–​136 social acceptance of  97–​98 United States  75–​76 vandalism motivated by  45–​47, 48–​52, 55 See also antiracism Racism in Sport (Culture, Media and Sport Committee)  160 Rafiq, Azeem  66 Rainbow Laces  111, 116, 165, 166, 167, 173 Rapid Vienna  28 Rapinoe, Megan  75 Rashford, Marcus  critical race theory and  52–​54 food poverty campaign  49–​50, 53, 54 and inclusivity myth  47–​48, 51 mural of  12, 48–​52 racist abuse faced by  6, 12, 16, 63, 74, 83–​84 reparation for  54–​55 taking the knee  53 Rashford, Robert  52 Ratcliffe, Sean  190–​191 Ratna, Aarti  127–​129, 134 RB Leipzig (Germany)  29 Redknapp, Jamie  62 referees  diversity, lack of in  73 hate crimes by  61, 72, 194 racist behaviour of supporters (fans)  70–​71 Regis, Cyrille  45, 47–​48, 63 Rennie, Uriah  73 Respect programme (UEFA)  164 Reyes, José Antonio  69 Roberts, Mark  96 Rogers, R v  183 Rowe, Michael  131 rugby  9, 15, 93, 145 Rugby League  145 Russia  69, 189 R v Rogers  183 S Saka, Bukayo  and inclusivity myth  47–​48, 51 racist abuse faced by  6, 12, 16, 63, 74, 83–​84 reparation for  54 Sam, Michael  111 same-​sex marriage  108–​109 Sampson, Mark  133, 135

Sancho, Jadon  and inclusivity myth  47–​48, 51 racist abuse faced by  6, 12, 16, 63, 74, 83–​84 reparation for  54 Sanderson, Lianne  136 Santana, A.D.  95 Santo, Nuno Espírito  73 Saudi Arabia  173 #SayHerName campaign  127, 135 scale of prejudice (Allport)  45, 46–​47 scoping reviews  84–​85 Scott, Alex  87 sectarianism  28, 182, 185 Section 28 legislation  105 self-​regulation  89, 94, 97 Semerjian, T.  150 Sentencing Act (2020)  130, 131, 183, 184 September 11  64, 183, 188 Serie A (Italy)  76–​78 sex  assumptions about  143–​144 gender and  147 sex-​binary model  148 sexism  in antiracism campaigns  128 in football  124–​125 racism and (intersectionality of)  132–​136 sex-​segregation  144, 146, 147–​148, 153 sexual identity  132 sexual minorities  hate crimes/discrimination towards  103, 109, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116 participation in sports  105, 106 sexual orientation hate crimes  1, 183, 193 Sheffield United  11 Show Racism the Red Card  66, 92 Signify  87, 111 Skinner, Frank  12 Sky  90, 92 Smalling, Chris  77 Smith, E.R.A.N.  108 Smith, J.  132–​133 social groups  1, 2, 152 socializing  167, 170 social media  anonymity on  88, 93, 95, 97–​98, 110 antisemitism  29–​31, 32 backstage/frontstage behaviour  88–​89, 97 boycotts  93–​95, 134 companies, role in hate speech  2 Euro 2020  1–​2, 5–​6, 12, 74, 83–​84, 87 FBOs for posts  95, 163 hate crimes investigations of  48, 91, 184, 192 HBT discrimination on  114, 114, 115 inclusivity  110–​111 increase in hate posts  87–​88 racist comments on  1–​2, 5–​6, 29, 74, 83–​84, 90–​96 research of hate on  84–​86, 89–​90

207

HATE CRIME IN FOOTBALL

social regulation  89 Sol Campbell case  182 Solomos, John  72 Sostres, Salvador  80 South Asian players  62, 64 Southgate, Gareth  51, 73, 83, 94, 159 Spain  108 Spirit of Shankly  171 Sports Councils Equality Group  146 SportsMedia LGBT+​  176 Spurs  See Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) Football Club Stein, Edwin  73 Sterling, Raheem  53, 95 Stewart, Rod  46 Stoke City  66 Stoke on Trent Magistrates’ Court, Director of Public Prosecutions v  187–​188, 190, 191 Stonewall  165, 173, 176, 192 Stott, P.  113 strain theory (Merton)  51 Suárez, Luis  10 Suave, Myles  12 Suler, J.  88 supporters (fans)  Black and ethnic minority  10–​12 criminal proceedings against  28–​29, 30–​31, 33 demographics of  160–​161 homosexuality, attitudes toward  109, 110, 116 opposition to racism/xenophobia  12, 16 on race and identity  8 racism by, examples of  6, 7, 8–​9, 10 representation  65 UEFA racism guidelines  70–​71 White  10, 45, 46, 52 See also football cultures Sweden  108, 109, 146 ‘Sweet Caroline’ (Diamond)  12 Switzerland  108 Symons, C.  106 Szatan, Gabriel  12–​13 T Tackling Online Hate in Football  84, 96 Taiwan  108 taking the knee  Black players  53 England team commitment to  11 public response to  11, 48, 66, 73–​74 women and girl footballers  126–​127 Tanner Stage 2  145, 154n1 target vandalism  51 Tavernier, James  87 Taylor, Lord Justice  186 Taylor, Lyle  87 Taylor Report  186 Terry, John  5, 10

Thatcher, Margaret  105 Thomas, Gareth  112 Thorpe, H.  116 ‘The Three Degrees’  45, 48 ‘Three lions’ (Baddiel, Skinner, and Lightning Seeds)  12 Three Lions Pride  164 Tobin, H.  150 Together (EFL)  165 Toney, Ivan  87 Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) Football Club  antisemitism, as targets of  20, 28, 29, 30–​31, 32, 184 Black manager of  73 education initiatives  33–​34 trans men  146 trans people  about  144 hate crimes against  1, 109, 143, 152–​153, 162 legislation  130, 143, 148–​149, 183 medicalization of  145, 147, 148–​149, 150, 154 participation in sports  145, 146–​147, 149–​151, 174 transphobia  discrimination/hate crimes  103, 112–​114, 114, 115, 116, 144–​145 legitimization of  148, 153 trans women  143–​144, 146 TRUK United Football Club  146 Trump, Donald  54, 75 Turner, A.  191 Twenge, J.M.  106 Twitter  analysis of Euro 2020 hate speech  74, 88 anonymity of account owners  88, 95 posts, examples of  30, 31, 75, 78 research of hate on  85–​86 See also social media tyranny of gender  147–​148 U Ubhey, Baljit  33 UEFA (Union of European Football Associations)  on homophobia  164, 172 racism, addressing  69–​71 social media boycott  93 See also Euro 1988 (Germany); Euro 2000 (Belgium); Euro 2016 (France); Euro  2020 UKFPU  See United Kingdom Football Policing Unit (UKFPU) Union of European Football Associations  See UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) United Kingdom Football Policing Unit (UKFPU)  football-​related arrests  193

208

INDEX

hate crime investigation team  159, 163, 185 online racism, addressing  90, 91, 95–​96, 97 reports of racism to  48, 95 United with Pride  173 United States  homosexuality, attitudes towards  105–​107, 108, 110 inclusivity in sports  109 racism in soccer  75–​76, 80 trans participation in sports  146 US Soccer  75–​76 V vandalism  45–​47, 48–​52, 55 Vardy, Jamie  168 victims  experiences of  131–​132 identity as hate crime motivator  1 of vandalism  45–​46 Vieira, Patrick  73 violence  antisemitic  22, 24, 25 domestic  170, 176 gender-​based  125, 126, 131, 132, 148 hate vandalism as  45, 54 Islamophobic  61 legislation  188, 189–​190, 191, 193, 194 masculinization of  104–​105, 109 at matches  2 online  2 racially motivated  129, 133 symbolic  150, 154 trans people  148, 150, 151, 152–​153, 154 visibility  165, 166, 167–​168 W Waddle, Chris  51–​52 Welch, R.  112 Welsh Premier League (Cymru Premier)  189 Wembley Stadium  46, 47, 51, 74, 83, 133 West Bromwich Albion  45 West Ham  antisemitism by fans  28, 31, 32

Islamophobia by fans  188 racism by fans  7 Wharton, Arthur  185 Whelan, Noel  168 White (Gay Gooners/​Three Lions Pride)  167, 169, 170, 173, 174 Whiteness  74, 124, 127–​128, 133–​134, 135–​136 White players  51–​52 White privilege  20, 73, 76 White supporters (fans)  10, 45, 46, 52 WhY Word: Time To Think About It  34 Widzew Łódź (Poland)  26 Williams, H.  133 Withington  48–​49, 54, 55 Withington Girls’ School  49 women  antidiscrimination campaigns, ineffectiveness of  128–​129 exclusion from sports  105 intersectionality in hate crimes  131–​134 marginalization of  126 misogynoir experiences  133–​134, 135–​136 misogyny experiences  132–​133 racism experiences  125–​126, 127–​128, 134–​136 Women’s Championship  93, 193 Women’s Super League  93, 193 Wood, Roisin  92 World Aquatics  145 World Cup 2022 (Qatar)  15 Wright, Ian  87 X xenophobia  5–​6, 7, 12, 14 Y ‘Yid’  20, 31, 32–​34, 184 ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’  62, 171 Young, Jock  52 Younis, Waqar  64 The Y-​Word (Kick It Out)  33, 34 Z Zabir, Mohammed  61, 64, xi Zaha, Wilfred  87

209