Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,280
From an article from The Observer, Sunday August 12, 2007
In 1993, the German Football Association (the DFB) published a report into whether stadiums there should have their terraces removed. The answer was an emphatic no, on several grounds.
The notion that standing encouraged hooliganism was rejected, with blame placed squarely on the individuals. 'The majority of these spectators will not behave any differently in an all-seat stadium.' Abolishing standing would raise prices, but 'football, being a people's sport, should not banish the socially disadvantaged from its stadia, and it should not place its social function in doubt'.
Just as important, 'young fans on the terraces embody the vibrant world of football. It is here where the atmosphere that attracts millions of people all over the world to our sport is created.'
The DFB also recognised, unlike the British authorities, that simply installing seats did not guarantee that fans would use them. 'We are now witnessing more and more cases of spectators ignoring seats... and simply standing on them. This is a very dangerous practice.'
As a result, every ground in Germany has terracing, with 24,000 standing each weekend in a single stand at Borussia Dortmund's ground. Though it is not easy to tell from pictures of the vibrant Nord tribune (stand), the fans are divided into small pens that hold about 2,000, each with its own controlled entrance. Fans are admitted only to the pens for which they have tickets - and those tickets are far more affordable than in England. A standing ticket at Dortmund costs as little as €10 (£7), season ticket €148.
For Uefa club matches and competitive internationals, German stadiums are reconfigured. In Dortmund's case, this involves (in the upper tier) releasing seats built into the crash barriers and (in the lower tier) bolting in removable banks of seats. Thus capacities are reduced, as England fans found out at the 2006 World Cup. But this is simply because Uefa and Fifa regulations mirror those in England, not because of safety issues. Volker Fuerderer, safety officer at Schalke's Veltins Arena, where England went out of the World Cup, told the Football Supporters Federation (FSF): 'In nearly six years of the existence of the Veltins Arena I would go as far as to say that there is not a single incident or injury that could be explained by the existence of standing.'
The Football Licensing Authority (FLA), the body who implement government policy on standing, reject the German experience, however. As long as Fifa and Uefa demand that internationals and Champions League games are played at all-seat venues, terraces would have to be convertible. In reaction to the FSF report, John de Quidt, chief executive of the FLA, cited a trip to Hamburg's AOL Arena, where the terraces are converted via a hi-tech system that involves the rotation of the terrace steps through 180 degrees. De Quidt argued: 'There is no way that could work in England. [The Hamburg stand] was built on a huge site and on solid ground with no concourses underneath.'
But this visit was to a single ground and took place six years ago; Dortmund's ground is reconfigured in a completely different way. The depth of De Quidt's opposition to standing areas is apparent from a 2002 interview, when he said 'there's more chance of Martians landing' than of the reintroduction of terraces. Given the obvious prejudice this comment reveals, it is plain De Quidt is not a neutral in this debate.
The arguments against safe standing are weak. Neither the government nor anybody else has demonstrated the imposition of all-seat stadiums to be the best or the only way of ensuring an acceptable level of safety at a football ground. The only figures cited by the FLA are that the number of injuries in grounds that are all-seat is lower than in those that retain a standing area.
But those who wish to establish a causal link between standing areas and accidents/injuries need detailed information on the nature, cause and exact location of those accidents and injuries. They then need to analyse this information in detail, taking into account the wide range of other factors that might act as intervening variables. The FLA have done no such analysis and are in no position to justify the assertion that small, properly designed safe standing areas are inherently less safe than seated areas.
The last sports minister, Richard Caborn, claimed that all-seat stadiums led to a rise in attendances and widened the appeal of football to 'many more groups in society who were previously reluctant to attend matches', including women. He also said that any return to standing areas would cost clubs a fortune because they would need to make expensive adjustments to their grounds.
We strongly dispute the accuracy of some of those assertions. Indeed, the reverse of what Caborn says about social inclusiveness is true, as poorer fans are priced out of the grounds. And, yes, it would cost clubs money to adapt their stadiums, but that would be their choice if they were allowed to reintroduce standing areas.
The FLA have stated: 'Premiership and Football League grounds are safer, more comfortable and more civilised than they were 10 or 12 years ago.' Only one of these concepts, safety, is an appropriate subject for government regulation. And a significant proportion of spectators say the comfort and civility of their experience has been reduced by the abolition of terraces.
Some are seated next to or near others whose size, language or demeanour they may not like. Some seating areas are decidedly uncomfortable, either because of their cramped seats (Chelsea's West Stand) or because they are open to bad weather (Portsmouth's away end).
Read the full article at Observer Sport examines the case for a return to the terrace at top-flight stadiums | Football | The Observer
something most of the glory hunting twats will never appreciate...
