ward, r. e. (2002) - fan violence - social problem or moral panic

Fan violence

Social problem or moral panic?

Russell E. Ward Jr.*

Department of Psychology and Sociology, Francis Marion University, Florence, SC 29501-0547, USA

Received 25 June 2001; received in revised form 5 October 2001; accepted 29 October 2001

Abstract

The author reviews the theoretical and empirical resources available for social scientists who study

fan violence. Reviews of fan violence typically discuss the phenomenon from psychological,

psychosocial, and sociological approaches. In this review, the author uses social problem and moral

panic approaches to organize theories of and research into fan violence. The social problem approach

focuses on what causes the ‘‘problem’’ of fan violence. The moral panic approach focuses on how fan

violence becomes translated into a social problem. Moral panics are rapid and righteous appeals from

the media and other agents of control that ‘‘something must be done’’ to extinguish a social menace. It

is argued that both the social problem and moral panic approaches signify the importance of ‘‘we-

group’’ versus ‘‘they-group’’ antagonisms in the creation and maintenance of fan violence.

Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Fan violence; Spectator violence; Sports violence; Hooliganism; Moral panic; Social problem

1. Introduction

Sports fan violence probably receives more attention from the media than it does from

scientific research. A recent headline from a national newspaper read ‘‘Displays of

disaffection by fans alarm baseball’’ (Beaton, 2001). As described in the article, fans of

the Minnesota Twins threw coins, hot dogs, plastic beer bottles, and golf balls at a New York

1359-1789/02/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S1359 -1789 (01 )00075 -1

* Tel.: +39-843-661-4632; fax: +39-843-661-1628.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R.E. Ward Jr.).

Aggression and Violent Behavior

7 (2002) 453–475

Yankee player. Major league baseball’s head of security remarked on the displeasure shown

by fans, and said ‘‘I’ve been in this business for some 15 years, been to World Series and big

games, and I can’t recall it being this bad’’ (p. 1c). A few days after the game, Governor Jesse

Ventura of Minnesota issued the New York Yankees a letter of apology.

Despite the periodic accounts of fan violence, the phenomenon rarely occurs, particularly

in North America. Fans who attend athletic events appear boisterous and animated, but

seldom engage in physical confrontation with others. In countries with a more notable history

of fan violence (e.g., Britain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium), fan violence

occurs in about 10% of soccer matches (Marsh, Fox, Carnibella, McCann, & Marsh, 1996).

Past reports of fan violence appear more sinister than modern accounts. The first written

report describes a chariot race in Constantinople in 532 B.C. (Yarson & Taylor, 1992). Fans

seized the stadium and intervention by Roman soldiers was required to stop the riot. By the

time fans were quieted, an estimated 30,000 people were dead.

Fan behavior at the turn of the 20th century was more violent than today. Nash and Zullo

(as cited in Coakley, 2001) describe an incident in a baseball game in 1900:

Thousands of gunslinging Chicago Cubs fans turned a Fourth of July doubleheader into a

shootout at the OK Corral, endangering the lives of players and fellow spectators. Bullets

sang, darted, and whizzed over players’ heads as the rambunctious fans fired round after

round whenever the Cubs scored against the gun-shy Philadelphia Phillies. The visiting team

was so intimidated it lost both games . . . at Chicago’s West Side Grounds (p. 193).

Modern media coverage and scientific research of fan violence range from understanding

the phenomenon as a ‘‘notable social problem’’ (Williams, Dunning, & Murphy, 1986), or

‘‘moral crisis’’ (Petrovic, 1990) to a ‘‘moral panic.’’ From the social problem approach, fan

violence threatens the well being of society. From the moral panic approach, zealous and

intense media treatment of the phenomenon exaggerates and amplifies the ‘‘problem’’

(Moorhouse, 1991; Murphy, Dunning, & Williams, 1988; Weis, 1986; Young, 1986).

This paper attempts to make a modest contribution by organizing theories and research of

fan violence into two lines of inquiry—social problem and moral panic approaches. The

social problem approach advances explanations of why fan violence occurs, and how rational

actions should be taken to control it.

The moral panic approach examines the public discourse on fan violence. In particular, this

approach examines how the media and other social control agents present fan violence in a

dramatic, stereotypical, and canned style, which stimulates emotional reactions rather than

rational thinking. The moral panic approach draws on labeling theory to show how applying

the label of social problem to fan violence amplifies the ‘‘problem.’’

This paper begins by clarifying some of the concepts commonly used in the study of fan

violence. Social scientists and the media use concepts such as sports, fans, and violence to

describe a very broad range of events, people, and behavior. Second, the scope of fan violence

across cultures is discussed. In this section, arguments for why the phenomenon appears less

often in North America than other regions of the world are introduced, the stages of fan

violence are outlined, and the forms of fan violence are described. In Sections 3 and 4, the

social problem and moral panic approaches to the phenomenon are reviewed. The paper

R.E. Ward Jr. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002) 453–475454

concludes with ideas for integrating social problem and moral panic approaches to further the

study of fan violence.

2. Definitions

Key words in this review include sports, fans, and violence. These three terms are

commonly used, but the conceptual boundaries for them are very broad. Fan violence

research is plagued by their inconsistent application by scholars (Coakley, 2001).

First, sports involve dynamics of organization, competition, and physical skill. Organized

football, soccer, basketball, baseball, wrestling, and boxing are appropriate for this discus-

sion. Activities that are pursued only for recreational purposes (e.g., a weekend of biking or

skiing with friends or family), or prefabricated displays for audience entertainment (e.g.,

American professional wrestling) are not covered in this review. Recreational and prefabri-

cated events may be guided by different norms, and involve unique dynamics that deserve

special attention elsewhere.

Second, the generalizations and conclusions about fan violence may depend on how fans

are defined. For this discussion, fans refer to the crowd of onlookers and not the people

watching sports on television at home or in a bar. The question of how sports affects

spectators, who are not physically present at the event, may be an intriguing issue, but not

explored in this discussion. The physical and social environments of the home and bar are

difficult to compare with environment of live action.

The group of fans should not be confused with the groups of athletes, officials, sponsors, or

commentators who also attend the event. The reasons for attending sporting events are not

always consistent across various individuals and groups. Among the fans themselves, there

may be individual and subgroup differences that make theorizing about fan violence a

challenging pursuit.

Third, violence should be distinguished from aggression. Violence is ‘‘the use of excessive

physical force, which causes or has the potential to cause harm or destruction’’ (Coakley,

2001, p. 174). Aggression is ‘‘verbal or physical behavior grounded in an intent to dominate,

control, or do harm to another person’’ (p. 175). Violence involves a behavioral component,

but aggression entails motivation. Leonard (1993) has illustrated the conceptual distinction

between violence and aggression:

For example, on the basis of the . . . ‘behavioral definition’ of violence, if I accidentally slam

a car door on your finger and cause injury, then I have performed a violent act. According to

the ‘motivational definition’ of violence, if I intend to harm you but fail to properly negotiate

the slamming of the car door, my premeditated action is still construed as violent (in intent)

(p. 157).

Thus, intent introduces an aggressive dimension to violence that may or may not be present

in any given violence act. The terms violence and aggression are often used interchangeably

in studies of sport, which has thwarted efforts to bridges various theories. Most (but not all)

episodes of fan violence involve elements of both violence and aggression. As specific

R.E. Ward Jr. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002) 453–475 455

theories of fan violence are discussed in this paper, an attempt will be made to frame them in

terms of violence, aggression, or both.

3. The scope of fan violence

3.1. Cross-cultural variations

The most significant problems of fan violence, especially soccer violence, occur in

Britain (Dunning, 2000), Italy (Roversi, 1991), Germany (Pilz, 1996), the Netherlands (van

der Brug, 1994) and Belgium (Walgrave, Colaers, & van Limbergen, 1987), with violence

from English soccer fans (i.e., ‘‘football hooligans’’) being the most studied region and

group. Other countries where fan violence has been scientifically studied include: Argentina

(Duke & Crolley, 1996), Austria (Horak, 1991), Croatia (Perasovic, 1995), and Yugoslavia

(Petrovic, 1990).

Fan violence appears less common in North America than other regions of the world.

Three explanations for the relative scarcity of fan violence in North America center on the

sporting event, the sociodemographic structure of crowds, and sociopolitical factors.

The relative absence of public interest in soccer, compared to other North American sports,

may be one explanation for the relative infrequency of fan violence in the United States and

other North American countries. A disproportionate amount of fan violence around the world

occurs at soccer matches. There may be something unique about soccer that stimulates

violence. For instance, it could be that spectators experience fewer opportunities at soccer

matches to vicariously purge aggressive impulses, because soccer involves less on-the-field

violence than other sports (e.g., rugby, American football). In the absence of a voyeuristic

release, the impulses could be released in the form of fan violence. Such an explanation is

doubtful. In some parts of the world, rugby (i.e., a more violent sport) attracts greater fan

violence than soccer (Holt, 1981).

Another soccer-centered explanation centers on the perceptions fans have of what happens

on the field. Although soccer may involve less on-the-field violence than other sports, soccer

is a high contact event with a territorial component, and fans see aggressive facial expressions

on players. Some research has found that if spectators interpret on-the-field action to be

violent, they are more likely to imitate that behavior (Smith, 1983). However, other sports

(e.g., basketball) fit a similar description, and violence occurs much less frequently at these

events than at soccer matches. Furthermore, reports of fan violence at soccer matches in North

America remain rare, casting doubt on a soccer-centered explanation of fan violence.

There does not appear to be much support at this time that something about soccer causes fan

violence. It may be reasonable to assume that the game of soccer is promoted differently in

North America than other parts of the world. Coakley (2001) argues that ‘‘if an event is hyped in

terms of violent images, spectators are more likely to perceive violence during the event itself,

and they are more likely to be violent themselves’’ (p. 196). It may be that fan violence in North

America remains relatively uncommon, in part, because promoters and the media are more

likely to focus on the action and drama expected from an event, not the blood and violence.


A second explanation for why fan violence appears less often in North America focuses on

the composition of crowds (Lewis, 1982; Roberts & Benjamin, 2000). The sociodemographic

profile of North American spectators differs from the profile of European and South

American fans. Soccer and many other sporting events in North America are attended by

educated, middle-class audiences, and women make up a sizable proportion of attendees. For

example, Roberts and Benjamin (2000) report that ‘‘almost half (45%) of the supporters of the

Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team (a typical NHL franchise) . . . were female, with an average

income of almost US$70,000, considerably above the national average income’’ (p. 173). In

contrast, there is evidence that most fan violence in Europe and South America originates

from young, working-class, white, males (Dunning, Murphy, & Williams, 1986; Zani &

Kirchler, 1991) who represent a much higher proportion of attendees. The youth of fans could

be an important factor in fan violence. Crime statistics indicate that almost half of recorded

crimes are committed by the under-20 age category.

The characteristics of fans may be less important to fan violence than the behavior of those

groups responsible for controlling crowds. In media reports, police intervention is often

implicated in fan violence. The recent violence in Ghana is an example:

The official toll issued by Ghana today—at least 123 deaths and 93 injuries—turned a

stampede at a soccer match on Wednesday into the worst sporting disaster in Africa’s history

and pushed to nearly 180 the number of spectators killed across the continent in the last

month . . .. In all cases, many have accused the police of having failed to control the unruly

crowds and, in at least two incidents, of making the stampedes worse by firing excessive

amounts of tear gas (Onishi, 2001, p. A14).

Studies have found cross-cultural differences in the policing of crowds. Lewis (1982) has

discovered that English police engage crowds more directly than North American police. That

is, the police in North America may be slower to respond to fan violence, because the

structure of stadiums and playing grounds prohibit the squaring off of police and fans, which

could be a precursor to violence.

In Australia, where violence at sporting events has become an issue, communities have

expressed concern over the excessive use of police force (Palmer, 1995). Palmer argues that

community understanding and involvement with the police are necessary components of

social order. Crowd control problems could be reduced if the community becomes involved

in the debate, investigation, and refinement of police polices.

Third, the sociopolitical environment could be an important variable that explains differ-

ences in the frequency of fan violence across countries. In particular, the significance of race,

class, and gender must be considered, as well as religious and political structures of

professional sports teams.

Racism appears at sporting events, as described in a recent story about Italian soccer.

As sure as the whistle blows every Sunday players will be vilified for the colour of their skin.

It carries with it an echo of English football 25 years ago, when black footballers could be

greeted by monkey noises and bananas thrown from the terraces. But even then the abuse was

not so vicious and the disease not so widespread—or so acceptable . . . not just skinheads are


doing it . . . a coordinator of Football Against Racism in Europe was shocked to see women

and children hurling abuse (Carroll, 2001).

Although such flagrant displays of racism are not often reported in the United States,

accusations of ‘‘racism in the crowd’’ occasionally surface. Recently, the father of African

American tennis pros Venus and Serena Williams argued that racism was responsible for why

a predominantly white crowd booed Serena after Venus withdrew minutes before a much

anticipated match between the two sisters. He further said that fans hurled racial epithets at

him as people waited for the match to begin (Rhoden, 2001). Racial tension has been an

ingredient in some of the worst fan violence in the United States, intensified by highly

publicized rivalries between high schools whose students come from different backgrounds

(Guttmann, 1986).

Besides racism, many studies have linked fan violence to a reassertion of social control by

the lower or rough working class in the face of the widening gap between the rich and poor

(Dunning et al., 1986), and to demonstrations of a masculine identity (Hughson, 2000). In

addition, fan violence may be an opportunity for competing teams, in some countries, to enact

religious and colonial rivalries that are centuries old (Bradley, 1996).

The United States is a nation of divided groups. However, sports teams in the United

States, compared to other countries, arguably appear to be more aligned by apolitical

geographical boundaries than by sociopolitical distinctions. For instance, Clemson and the

University of South Carolina are intense college football rivalries. Both schools seek to claim

‘‘king of football’’ in the state, but the two teams are not characterized by oppositions such as

Catholics opposing Protestants, or blacks opposing whites. In Scotland, where fan violence

has become more problematic, the matches between two soccer clubs, the Glasgow Rangers

and the Celtic Club, signify a religious rivalry (Bradley, 1996).

No single factor emerges to explain why North America appears to have experienced less fan

violence than other regions of the world. To summarize, there are three explanations for cross-

cultural differences in the frequency of fan violence that cannot be ruled out: (a) variations in the

popularity of soccer (i.e., a sport closely associatedwith fan violence), and in particular, how the

media hypes soccer, and other sporting events; (b) crowd factors that include sociodemographic

differences in the people who attend sporting events, the police procedures for containing

violence, and the structure of playing arenas; and (c) factors in the broader society that include

racism, socioeconomic inequalities, gender norms, and religious tension.

3.2. Stages and forms

There are very few generalizations about fan violence drawn from studies of the

phenomenon across diverse societies. The most significant generalization may be that fan

violence occurs everywhere in three stages of development (Marsh et al., 1996).

First, there is an initial stage of random violence directed at sports officials, coaches, and

players. These encounters occur inside the stadium, and typically involve at least two broad

forms of violence: (a) verbal assaults and (b) ‘‘missile throwing’’ or ‘‘aerial bombardments.’’

Verbal assaults are probably the most common type of fan violence. Examples include clusters


of fans singing, chanting, yelling, or making obscene gestures toward other fans, players,

referees, or the police. The verbal attacks can range from mild heckling or name calling during

the event, to threats of ‘‘kicking some butt’’ in the parking lot after the game. Verbal assaults

can precipitate other forms of fan violence such as throwing things at people inside the playing

arena. Examples of ammunition tossed by fans range from fairly harmless objects and liquids,

such as hot dogs and beer, to potentially injurious or deadly materials that include bricks, darts,

coins (sometimes with edges sharpened), bottles, broken seats, fireworks, smoke bombs, and

crude petrol bombs (Beaton, 2001; Dunning et al., 1986; Lewis, 1982; Porter, 1993).

The second stage of fan violence involves clashes between groups of fans or between fans

and the police/security inside the stadium. The forms of fan violence in this stage range from

verbal assaults and missile throwing, to fights that break out in seated sections of the stadium,

to ‘‘pitch invasions’’ (Dunning et al., 1986). Pitch invasions may be one of the more dramatic

forms of fan violence, and are sometimes precipitated by verbal assaults and missile throwing.

In a pitch invasion, as many as two to three hundred fans rush toward the territory of opposing

fans in an attempt to ‘‘take the end’’ of the rival fans. Hundreds of people can be trampled to

death during the invasion, or in the mass flight from police who attempt to intervene. Second

stage fan violence, particularly pitch invasions, are extremely rare (if not unheard of)

occurrences in North America. They are more common in countries of South America,

Europe, and Africa.

The third stage of fan violence involves encounters between opposing groups of fans

outside the stadium. Fans from opposing teams may engage one another at bars, trains, and

busses around town before the game. The opportunity for pregame fights occurs because rival

fans visit the same bars near the playing grounds, and use the same transportation (e.g., trains,

busses, subways) en route to the game. It may be speculated that pregame fights occur less

often on the North American continent because of the underdeveloped and underused public

transportation system. Furthermore, the North American tradition is for fans to gather in

private residences before the game rather than assemble in a bar (Roberts & Benjamin, 2000).

Postgame fights in Europe sometimes begin with a run, involving a rush of young, male fans

searching the streets for rival fans. In North America, third stage fan violence is uncommon,

but postgame ‘‘celebratory riots’’ (e.g., fans taking to the streets to celebrate a big victory) in

the United States have recently received attention (see Lewis as cited in Saraceno, 2000).

4. The social problem of fan violence

A social problem exists ‘‘when most people in a society agree that a condition threatens the

quality of their lives and their most cherished values, and they also agree that something

should be done to remedy that condition’’ (Kornblum & Julian, 2001, p. 4). Much research

has examined fan violence from a social problem approach. Lewis (1982) has described fan

violence as an American social problem:

A week doesn’t go by without the gathering of tens of thousands of people whose sole

purpose it is to witness a sporting event. In recent years we have become increasingly aware


of potential threats to civic peace posed by the existence of these massive but ephemeral

collectivities . . .. Much work remains to be accomplished before policies can be instituted

which will be effective in controlling and defusing the mass disruptions that have become the

all-too-familiar correlates of public contest (p. 175).

Lewis attacks the ‘‘problem’’ of fan violence from a positivist perspective. Positivists assume

that fan violence is governed by a set of rules rather than being a random, chaotic event. For

instance, some research has identified precursors to fan riots, including ‘‘an intensely contested

championship series that concludes with a victor who hadn’t won anything in 10 years or more’’

(Lewis as cited in Saraceno, 2000, p. 3C). The goal of positivist research into fan violence is to

identify laws and patterns associated with the phenomenon, so that violent episodes can be

explained, predicted, and eventually controlled.

The next three subsections of the social problem approach describe theories used to explain

fan violence. The explanations will be organized into (a) theories that examine characteristics

of the fans, (b) theories related to characteristics of the crowd, and (c) theories connected to

the social, economic, and political context of the community or society.

4.1. Violence and the characteristics of fans

The characteristics of fans have been used to explain fan violence. The most prevalent

of these theories include instinct theory, frustration–aggression theory, and hooligan

addiction theory.

4.1.1. Instinct theory

The German neurologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud believed that much of human

behavior is programmed by instincts. One instinct constructed by Freud was the death wish.

He theorized that all human beings possess self-destructive energy that must find a safe

release (i.e., catharsis) or else violence against oneself or others will result. Instinct theory

implies that sporting events are safe opportunities for fans to express their self-destructive

energy (Lorenz, 1966).

In a variation of instinct theory, Freud (1922) believed that people in a crowd develop a

childlike and frustrated dependence on a leader who cannot possibly control the primitive

impulses and needs for love experienced by every member in the group. As people in the

crowd grow dependent and frustrated, they renounce the moral component (i.e., superego) of

their personality in favor of a more primitive and irrational level that could lead to violence.

Contemporary frameworks for understanding the possible psychological sequence of events

leading to football hooliganism have been developed (Brindley, 1982).

4.1.2. Frustration–aggression theory

The premise of frustration–aggression theory is that aggressive behavior can be traced to

frustration. The intense involvement characteristic of watching sports can lead fans to closely

identify with their team. If their team plays poorly or faces defeat, fans may feel frustrated

because they have not ‘‘proven’’ themselves. This inability to realize their desired identity may

create a new frustration in their life that could lead to aggressive behavior. This biologically


based understanding of fan violence has lead sport psychologists to measure the aggression

levels of individual fans and focus on the type of people who attend sporting events. In a study

of spectator aggression toward officials at a college basketball game, Wann, Carlson, and

Schrader (1999) find that fans who report a high degree of identification with their team report

more acts of aggression toward officials than fans who report low team identification.

4.1.3. Hooligan addiction theory

While both instinct and frustration–aggression theories focus on aggression, other theories

of fan violence maintain that violence can occur without aggressive intent. Hooligan

addiction theory borrows from work that describes escalating stages of addiction (Brown,

1991). The core thesis of hooligan addiction theory is that extreme fans become addicted to

violent behavior. For some fans, violent behavior may provide a sense of arousal predictable

as the highs that come from drugs. In the same way that an alcoholic or gambler gains

emotional satisfaction from thinking about and preparing for his or her drug or activity of

choice, hooligans may get high from planning for and participating in violent events.

4.2. Violence, crowd dynamics and the event

Some fan violence research employs concepts derived from studies of small groups. For

instance, an important discovery of small group research is that processes develop within

groups that are independent of the individuals who make them up. Examples of theories that

focus on crowds, rather than individuals as the subjects of analysis, include emergent norm

theory, contagion theory, convergence theory, collective mind theory, and value-added theory.

Among the ‘‘crowd dynamic’’ theories, convergence theory is the only one that includes

aggression as a mechanism in fan violence. The value-added theory has been applied to

explain occurrences of fan violence (Lewis & Kelsey, 1994), but most crowd theories of fan

violence have not been empirically tested.

4.2.1. Emergent norm theory

People modify their judgements to make them more consistent with others in the group

(Asch, 1951; Sherif, 1958). Common expectations or norms emerge about howpeople are to act.

From this observation, Turner (1964) and Turner and Killian (1957) have developed an

emergent norm theory where the power of the norm is more salient than individual

motivation. Norm theory implies that people behave violently at sporting events, because

they deem such violence to be appropriate or expected, and not because they are irrational

from emotion or want to live vicariously through the ‘‘battle’’ they see on the playing field.

4.2.2. Contagion theory

Unlike emergent norm theory, which asserts individual fans are active agents in

determining the ‘‘correct’’ line of conduct, contagion theory states that individuals become

unwittingly infected with emotion. Fan violence may erupt because one aroused person (e.g.,

usually a leader) affects another in the crowd, producing a heightened sense of arousal that

further influences the leader. As people move throughout the crowd, ‘‘they present each other


as stimuli, and in turn react to the emotional tones of others’’ (Milgram & Toch, 1969, p.

550). Arousal may reach the point where rational thought is subordinated. Violent acts, which

are not normally considered by the individual crowd members, may be committed.

4.2.3. Convergence theory

Convergence theory is less interactional than either emergent norm or contagion theory.

Violence does not evolve among heterogeneous people at the sporting event. Rather, a

process of selection occurs. The major assumption of convergence theory is that inhibitions

are lowered in a crowd because like-minded people are gathered together. The fans consist of

people who share common qualities. It may be that people surrounded by others, who are

perceived to be similar, feel freer to express violent emotions. Furthermore, sporting events

may attract people predisposed toward aggression.

4.2.4. Collective mind theory

Near the turn of the 20th century, two French theorists articulated the idea that society

consists of both individual and collective minds. These theorists had opposing views about

the level of rationality existing within the individual and society. One theorist adopted the

view that phenomena exist in the social system that unifies the masses Durkheim (1893/

1933). One such phenomenon is the ‘‘conscious collective,’’ or collective mind (p. 79). This

concept refers to the ideas and sentiments shared by each member of society. According to

Durkheim, the conscious collective establishes moral order. In the absence of the conscious

collective, individuals would act in their own self-interest, and not in the interests of society.

The existence of the collective mind in society is accepted by Le Bon (1895/1960), but his

interpretation of it contradicts Durkheim. In opposition to Durkheim, who proclaimed the

moral supremacy of the conscious collective, Le Bon believed that the collective mind is

intellectually inferior to the more rational individual. According to Le Bon, decent solitary

individuals become transformed to a more primitive level in crowds where people become

impulsive and lose judgement. It is believed by collective mind theorists that the more

primitive the level of consciousness, the greater the likelihood of violence. From Le Bon’s

perspective, the mechanisms for generating violence in a crowd are anonymity, contagion,

and suggestibility (Milgram & Toch, 1969).

4.2.5. Value-added theory

One popular crowd-based approach has been Smelser’s (1963) value-added theory that

identifies six determinants of crowd violence. By ‘‘value-added,’’ Smelser means that each

determinant is a prerequisite that sets the limitations for the following determinant to operate.

For instance, the second determinant of structural strain (e.g., rival fans are seated close

enough together to engage in taunting and baiting) can occur only within the limits

established by the first determinant of structural conduciveness (e.g., fans from different

teams arrive at the football game).

In Smelser’s value-added model, the six determinants of fan violence are (a) structural

conduciveness—the social structural conditions necessary for violence to occur (e.g., fans

from different teams arrive at the football game), (b) structural strain—an encounter that


creates new norms or a deprivation that takes away once expected privileges (e.g., rival fans

are seated close together creating opportunities to taunt and bait), (c) growth and spread of

generalized belief—a perceived source of tension and a plan for its eradication (e.g., the belief

may spread among home teams fans that something must be done about the lucky breaks

visitors receive), (d) precipitating factor—a specific event that sparks violence (e.g., a

controversial decision by a referee), (e) mobilization—the affected group takes action (e.g., a

group of leaders emerge in the opposing team’s bleachers to fight), and (f) operation of social

control—the prevention and intervention by agents of social control (e.g., the actions taken

by faculty observers, faculty marshals, athletic directors, police, etc.).

Most research from Smelser’s (1963) theory assumes a rationality that underlies fan

violence. In particular, the potential for violence and aggression exists because fans in the

crowd believe that force can be used to right a perceived wrong. The crowd crush at

Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England has been analyzed with the framework of

Smelser’s theory (Lewis & Kelsey, 1994).

4.3. Violence and the social, economic, and political context

Some theories identify factors of fan violence more distal than the characteristics of fans,

or the dynamics of crowds. Examples of these theories include functionalist theory, figura-

tional theory, conflict theory, and postmodern theory.

4.4. Functionalist theory

From a functionalist view, the institutions in society are analogous to the organs of the

body. Interrelationships among the parts of society are necessary to maintain the social system

(Parsons, 1951). Sports, for instance, may help create strong bodies and endow individuals

with the personal characteristics (e.g., persistence, a healthy body) necessary for the economic

system of capitalism to thrive.

At the heart of the functionalist perspective is the ‘‘problem of order.’’ How can a system

comprised of individuals pursuing their self-interest achieve any order at all? One answer for

functionalists is the pursuit of temporary roles. The sick role, for example, may be functional

because it offers a respite from the pressures of working in a competitive system. Similarly,

the fan role may permit people to let off steam. Functionalists would argue that it is more

appropriate to ‘‘act out’’ at a ball game than at work or home. Thus, fan violence may serve a

purpose. It occurs because people need a break from their disciplined lives. Fan violence may

even be interpreted as a ritual (Marsh, Rosser, & Harre, 1978), and to the extent that rituals

provide energy and a sense of renewal, fan violence may sustain order in society.

4.4.1. Figurational theory

Figurational theory (Dunning, Murphy, & Waddington, 1991) may be the most interdis-

ciplinary fan violence theory, combining biological, psychological, sociological, and historical

approaches. The theory introduces the importance of social class, and has its roots in a rather

complex theory of civilization (Elias, 1978), based on the idea that human history has moved


toward a refinement of manners. From this observation, it is speculated that there are greater

expectations for people to monitor their own behavior as opposed to external constraints, fewer

structured opportunities to express human aggression, and more guilt, shame, and anxiety

about experiencing feelings of aggression. Modern violence exists in the form of ‘‘socially

constructed ritual violence’’ that differs from the freer and more unexpected episodes of

violence from the past. Civilization has had an important implication for violence. That is,

expectations for self-control and the decline of external constraints to control human behavior

lead to not more aggression, but the type of chaotic and bloody aggression that occurs among

fans at sporting events.

While Elias (1978) believes in the progression of a civilized lifestyle, he asserts that the

civilization process is not a random phenomenon. Rather, the process begins with the top

classes and moves downward. This trickle-down process implies that groups with different

lifestyles and resources will inevitably interact. The dissimilarities and inequalities become

visible at sporting events where many owners, athletes, and players are rich, but many of the

fans receive average or below average incomes. Beginning in the post World War II years until

the mid 1970s, pro athletes made two to four times the median family income in the United

States. In the year 2000, the ratios between salaries in the major men’s professional sports and

the median family income was 44:1 for the National Basketball Association; 40:1 for Major

League Baseball; 21:1 for the National Hockey League; and 20:1 for the National Football

League (Coakley, 2001, p. 339). According to Murphy (1990), the lifestyle of the working

class and the recognition of their inequality became factors in fan violence. In particular,

violence can be traced to unruly fans who come from the rough or exploited working class.

Research of football hooligans in Britain finds that most convicted hooligans consist of partly

skilled or unskilled workers as opposed to professional or skilled workers (Murphy, 1990). The

value orientation of these laborers may deviate from the rest of society. It has been speculated,

for instance, that circumstances of economically disadvantaged groups require them to focus

on the present for survival, and this present-time orientation could lead to impulsiveness and a

disregard of consequences (Banfield, 1974). Dunning, Murphy, and Williams (1988) further

argue that the rougher sections of the working class experience resentment toward the securely

employed, and have strong feelings about kinship and territory, and a distrust of outsiders.

The territorial attitude assumed to exist within certain segments of the working class may

have been amplified by the changes in organized sport (e.g., especially football in England) in

the 20th century. Taylor (1982) has argued that prior to the 1960s unskilled workers who were

active with players and involved in policy making attended English football. As affluence

among players and owners grew, the working class felt a loss of ownership over the game.

Hooliganism could be a violent product of this process.

4.4.2. Conflict theory

The conflict perspective has its roots in the 19th century Marx and Engels (1846/1947)

idea that structural conditions (e.g., capitalism) in society create classes of people with

opposing interests. For instance, laborers who want less work for more money are in conflict

with the owners of production, who want more work for less money. Sport may be another

institution that creates tension in society.


Violence at sporting events may sometimes be connected to strains that exist between fans

because of economic, religious, ethnic, or political reasons (Eitzen, 1979). Sporting events

may be catalysts for violence because the events fail to provide fans with the power and

resources to relieve social strains. Violence forces others to take notice and respond to the

needs of the powerless.

Conflict theory argues that the political maneuvers and economic interests of sport may

create the conditions for fan violence. One explanation for the excess violence in contem-

porary professional sports emphasizes the culpability of the owners of sports facilities who

increase their profits through the sale of alcoholic beverages at games (Levine & vinten

Johansen, 1981). Conflict theory introduces the culture of commercialization, and focuses on

how sport emphasizes heroic values, including violence, to generate spectator interest, and to

‘‘enhance the chances for players commercial reputations and popularity’’ (Coakley, 1981, p.

44). According to conflict theory, fan violence originates with the corporate decisions made

by powerful people working within a capitalist system.

4.4.3. Postmodern theory

There are many features of postmodern thought, but postmodernism is generally described

as a break from modernist thinkers (e.g., Marx, Weber, Durkheim) who attempted to explain

the conditions of social life with broad, sweeping theories. For postmodernists, society cannot

be understood in a Marxist framework that emphasizes the significance of capitalism and class

conflict, a Weberian scheme of bureaucratization, or a Durkheimian focus on forms of social

solidarity. Postmodern society is better understood as the ‘‘transgression of the normal’’

(Douglas, 1969). Of course, the transgression of boundaries cannot occur unless boundaries

exist. Boundaries that include nationalism and masculinity continue to exist in the postmodern

era, but they are constructed and deconstructed at the will of the people. In particular, the

desires to defend against outsiders and become the proper male exist as before, but for different

reasons. They exist not to divide society in some logical and orderly way (e.g., home team vs.

visiting team, or males vs. females), but to create exciting opportunities for breaching

nationalism and masculinity. In a postmodern world, these boundaries of nationalism and

masculinity operate as confrontations articulated by male fans rather than structures created to

prevent disorder (King, 1997). For instance, male fans may use the coexistence of outrage and

sensationalization propagated by the media to continue establishing and breaching boundaries

for the sake of pleasure and affirmation of identity, and not necessarily because of aggression.

The next section introduces the moral panic approach to fan violence. Comments from and

research of sports officials (Ward, Lewis, & Benson, 2000, 2001) are used to illustrate the

social problem and moral panic approaches.

5. The moral panic approach to fan violence

Fan violence has not exclusively been discussed as a social problem. Some scholars

have voiced impatience at the degree of public attention the phenomenon receives

(Moorhouse, 1991):


The sober truth is that football violence is not a particularly large segment of all recorded

violence and that one theoretically puzzling issue is why, given a high value on masculinity

norms, heavy drinking, and pre-existing social antagonisms in British society, football

‘hooligans’ have not been a lot more violent. Certainly, we have cause to wonder why policy

makers, funding bodies and yes, academics and students are so interested in it because on

figures alone it is difficult to claim that it really is exceptional or even an important indicator

of the ‘well-being’ of society (p. 493).

Moorhouse considers that fan violence represents a moral panic, that is, is a sweeping

opposition to a phenomenon that threatens social values and interests. Moral panics are

characterized by rapid and intense emotional fervor toward an issue that the media and other

social control agents call to public attention. This approach accepts that fan violence is a

ghastly occurrence, but argues that the interpretation of the violence, and the crusade to do

something about it, are constructed by groups who shape a phenomenon into news.

Since the term ‘‘moral panic’’ was first coined (Cohen, 1972/1980), studies have surfaced

on how various moral entrepreneurs incite opposition to a given phenomenon. Some of the

recent moral panics or ‘‘folk devils’’ include heroine use (Agar & Reisinger, 2000), women

drinking during pregnancy (Golden, 2000), school shootings (Burns & Crawford, 1999),

boys’ underachievement (Griffin, 2000), and child molestation (Goode, 2000).

The moral panic approach to fan violence has its origins in the constructionist study of

deviant human behavior. The constructionist perspective departs from the positivist view that

fixed, universal truths about fan violence await discovery. While the positivist perspective

searches for causes of fan violence, the constructionist perspective examines labelers, the

process of labeling, and the impact of labeling. That is, constructionists are interested in who

defines fan violence, the process of explaining fan violence to the public, and the

consequences of labeling fan violence as a social problem.

5.1. Defining fan violence

According to the moral panic approach, social problems are generated and orchestrated

by powerful groups who represent the status quo. The label of ‘‘problem’’ may be applied

to any group or condition that threatens the forces of law and order as well as conventional

morality. From a constructionist perspective, moral panics are mechanisms that local and

national governments use to create social order. It may be that communities need to

periodically create deviance for the purpose of highlighting boundaries of good and evil. As

Erikson (1962) explains:

As a trespasser against the group norms, he [the deviant fan] represents those factors which

lie outside the group’s boundaries: he informs us, as it were, what evil looks like, what shapes

the devil can assume. And in doing so, he shows us the difference between the inside of the

group and the outside. It may well be that without this ongoing drama at the outer edges of

group space, the community would have no inner sense of identity and cohesion . . .. Thusdeviance [fan violence] . . . may itself be, in controlled quantities, an important condition for

preserving stability (pp. 307–314).


At least one community in the United States appears interested in demarcating lines of

acceptable and unacceptable fan behavior. The Iowa High School Athletic Association

(IHSAA) has institutionalized a plan to label fans (Ward et al., 2002). The IHSAA has taken

steps to address sportsmanship at boys’ varsity events. In particular, Iowa sports officials

have been asked to use a five-point scale to assign sportsmanship ratings (1 = superior,

5 = unsatisfactory) to the fans after every athletic event. At the end of each academic year, the

IHSAA publishes in local newspapers the schools rated in the top 10% and bottom 10% in

fan sportsmanship.

It may be speculated that singling out the ‘‘bad’’ schools serves an important social

function for Iowa communities. Thio (2001) theorizes that ‘‘when some individuals or groups

are labeled deviant, there will follow some positive consequences for the community as the

labeler, the most important consequence being the preservation and strengthening of social

cohesion and social order’’ (p. 38).

5.2. Process of explaining fan violence

From a moral panic approach, fan violence is not a static condition whose causes are to be

sought out. Instead, fan violence is a dynamic process by which powerful groups apply the

stamp of ‘‘problem,’’ set the parameters for solving it, and use tools such as the media to

ensure that the broader society shares official explanations, and concurs in the belief that

something must be done.

The media may be an important agent that presents the issue of fan violence to the

public (Dunning et al., 1986; Lewis, 1982; Weis, 1986). Media stories tend to focus on

how fan violence begins at the sporting event where crowd members attend to their most

basic inner needs. These needs include: getting drunk to lessen one’s inhibitions;

identifying with an individual or group to maintain and enhance one’s self-esteem;

compensating for one’s sense of powerlessness in a complex world; and, expressing

anger toward villainous personas (e.g., superstar players who switch teams to sign a more

lucrative contract).

Lewis (1982) finds very few structural reasons for fan violence mentioned by the

press. The most structural explanation may be that the relatively late 8:00 p.m. or 9:00

p.m. start of many professional football and basketball games permits people to get off

work and chug some beers before going to the game. By the time the game begins, fans

may already be pretty ‘‘hammered.’’ Lewis concludes that the issue of fan violence is

seldom framed in terms of racial conflict, economic problems, strikes, and school-related

problems (p. 183).

Media explanations of fan violence may serve useful functions for local and national

governments. In particular, media stories typically deflect attention away from more pressing

social issues, and deter speculations on the role that established and trusted groups may play

in the creation and maintenance of fan violence. For instance, the sportsmanship rating

system designed by the athletic association in Iowa puts the onus of poor sportsmanship on

fans, players, and coaches rather than social institutions or social structures that surround the

world of sport.


It should be noted that some groups connected to sport have identified factors beyond fans

that could be related to fan violence. For example, an examination of comments by sports

officials (Ward et al., 2000) reveals how school administrators, the media, stadium design,

and the culture of competition, are implicated in fan violence:

School administration needs to be more active in removing offensive fans, coaches, and

players.

Administrators, coaches, and announcers—these three groups could help control fan violence

before it gets out of hand . . .. Most fan disorder could be handled early and without violence

by school administrators, were they to accept responsibility and take care of it early.

My feeling on fan violence is directly related to TV sports and the general lack of knowledge

or rules. The treatment of all officials by the TV media and the close look at every play by the

media places officials in a bad view by the fan.

Large schools (in our state—4A) seem to have less aggressive behavior from fans, but the

fans are usually seated further away due to stadium design. Small schools (1A–3A) seem to

have more adults close to the sidelines and they seem to be more aggressive with profanity.

I feel the parents put too much pressure on the sport to win and have their athletes achieve a

high level of competition. This pressure has distorted the view that high school and college

sports is still a game to be enjoyed by all involved.

To put the responsibility of fan violence on individuals (e.g., fans, players, coaches), or

other narrow parameters such as the violent nature of sport, protects groups in powerful

positions who reap rewards from doing ‘‘business as usual.’’ Contrariwise, if respected

authorities are implicated in fan violence, they could face disadvantages from the restructur-

ing of power that others might deem necessary to control the ‘‘problem.’’

The process of explaining fan violence does not presuppose a conspiracy between

sport and the media. In other words, it is not suggested that powerful groups in sport

actively use the media to hide the potential causes of fan violence that might implicate

the institutions that govern sport. It is more likely that organizations (e.g., athletic

associations) and social institutions (e.g., the media) share and benefit from the dominant

‘‘ideology of the individual,’’ which appeals to Western civilization. The further that

social institutions distance themselves from potential social problems, the less likely that

the taken-for-granted effectiveness of public school systems, capitalism, and dominant

American values (e.g., individualism, competition, achievement, and success) will be

called into question.

One may argue that the control of fan violence will best be accomplished by implementing

interventions that require adjustments from all groups, both those groups who hold positions

of power and those who do not. This plan may not be easy to put into practice. There are time,

money, political, and moral constraints associated with interventions that will inevitably tip

explanations of and solutions to fan violence that follows the path of least resistance—the

path of the status quo. This means that unless systematic changes in institutions and shifts in

social values occur, systematic or structural factors potentially related to fan violence will not

likely gain popularity.


5.3. Consequences of labeling

The groups of people linked to fan violence receive labels. In England, they are named

‘‘hooligans,’’ and in Italy ‘‘ultras’’ (i.e., extremists). When fan violence erupts in countries

outside England, the behavior has been labeled the ‘‘spread of the English Disease’’ (Duke &

Crolley, 1996). Football supporters are further demonized by the assignment of official labels.

For instance, Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), which is responsible

for collecting information about hooligans, assigns fans into three categories: A, for law-

abiding ones; B, for those who will fight if provoked or presented with the opportunity; and

C, for serious, committed offenders.

The demonizing of sports fans may lead to further fan violence because labels such as

hooligan or thug fill a void for some fans. Many sports fans are young, and represent a

marginal group in society. In Britain, they are marginal because of their youth and working

class status. North American fans may be demographically different than their British

counterparts, but North American fans also face a relative deprivation. In fact, it appears

that fans in all countries experience a growing social and economic distance between

themselves and the players. That is, players at most all levels of sport, successful or not,

achieve a degree of celebrity status. At the professional level, their status is enhanced by

extraordinary financial rewards. Furthermore, fans are not provided opportunities at

sporting events to display their athletic skills that likely fall short of the feats performed

by many players. As Lewis (cited in Saraceno, 2000) describes ‘‘they [fans] can’t dunk like

Shaq or shoot like Reggie Miller, so they riot . . . and when you think about it, rioting does

take some skill’’ (p. 3A). In other words, the uncertainty of employment, the certainty of

economic inequality, and the general exacerbation of needs confront the lives of many fans

at a game. Fan violence may be the remedy or mechanism that raises some groups in

society to a visible level.

One might wonder why negative identities, as opposed to positive identities, would be

desired among fans. One answer may be that fans who cause trouble capture the media

spotlight. Research has found that in all countries with significant levels of fan violence, rival

groups of hooligans actively compete for column inches and mentions in sensational

headlines (Marsh et al., 1996). Thus, amplification of fan violence by the media could be

a principal cause of the problem for at least two reasons. First, the media constructs a much-

needed sense of identity by calling attention to fan deviance, which leads to more fan violence

in order to reinforce that identity. Second, it could be argued that negative identities signify

rebellion against a system that provides unjust or unequal rewards. Some social theorists

contend that fan violence will remain a problem as long as social conditions for young people

do not change (Pilz, 1996). The best temporary solution may be to integrate difficult young

fans into the teams they support rather than to distance or exclude them.

It may be premature to conclude that fans prefer negative labels. Some research suggests

that the principal motivation of fans is ‘‘just plain media coverage,’’ and not necessarily a

controversial image. For instance, Marsh et al. (1996) argue that the festive, but peaceful

Danish Roligans and the Tartan Army in Scotland take pride in the disproportionate amount

of media coverage they receive, compared to their more violent rivals. In an effort to curtail


fan violence, Marsh et al. propose that ceremonious media coverage of nonviolent groups of

fans be used in combination with the removal of headlines that draw attention to violent

groups of fans. In North America, gangs of sports fans are not typically named or labeled by

the media, but the moral panic approach predicts that too much attention to fan violence raises

the potential for the problem to develop.

6. Conclusions

There are three reasons why scientific inquiry into fan violence has generated many

theories, but few facts about the phenomenon. First, the topic itself is problematic. For

instance, in some cases fan violence is clearly a planned activity, and in other cases fan

violence seems to surface spontaneously. Fan violence consists of both physical assaults and

verbal attacks, which raises the question of whether understandings of this phenomenon are

similar or different across its varied forms. Furthermore, the study of fan violence in North

America may require a different theoretical framework than the study of fan violence in

Europe or other regions. It is not surprising that many scholarly investigations into the topic

remain exploratory.

Second, the relative disinterest in the social scientific study of sport hinders the production

of new knowledge on the topic. For instance, sport did not become a subfield of general

sociology until the 1960s (i.e., when studies of crowd behavior were more abundant). Today,

there are 43 sections (e.g., medical sociology, family, sociology, and computers) of the

American Sociological Association, but sociology of sport is not one of the sections.

Third, studies of fan violence present few new insights because scholars of fan violence

typically fail to integrate their work with the work of others. The large numbers of social

scientists competing for recognition in a relatively narrow subject area explain, in part, why

no serious interdisciplinary work on the topic has appeared. The provincial character of the

subject is evident by vitriol discussions between researchers that resemble early forms of

football fan disorder (Marsh et al., 1996). There needs to be reviews of fan violence that make

sense of the many theories. This paper helps fill that void.

It has been argued in this review that social problem and moral panic approaches represent

distinct approaches to the study of fan violence. From the standpoint of perspective, this

distinction seems warranted. The social problem approach from the positivist perspective

implies the search for causes of fan violence; the moral panic approach from the con-

structionist perspective directs the focus on narratives of fan violence constructed by the

media and other social agents.

Besides the search for causes versus the search for societal reactions, prevalence of fan

violence represents another point of departure for social problem and moral panic approaches.

From the social problem approach, fan violence is patterned behavior that threatens the social

fabric. From the moral panic perspective, media reports of fan violence exaggerate the

empirical reality of the phenomenon. However, it is worth saying that the apparent

infrequency of fan violence across the globe, and in particular North America, should not

undermine its significance. There may be much fan violence that gets ignored or goes


unreported. For instance, Ward et al. (2000) have chronicled reports of fan violence from high

school sports officials in the United States:

I had a situation while working a high school wrestling conference tournament last year

where one school became hostile with me based on the outcome of a consolation match.

While seated with my back to the school’s crowd, they yelled several profanity laced

comments and actually threw three objects such as paper and candy at me . . .. I felt I might

have to physically protect myself in an ugly situation.

Any cases that I remember were after the game was completed when leaving the field. After a

freshman football game my crew was met at the gate by 4 or 5 men in their 20’s. They

proceeded to yell profanities at us about what a bad job we had done (their team was beaten

badly). They followed us to the car screaming all the way. This was a very scary experience

for me.

These recollections reveal a terrifying face of fan violence. The evidence suggests that

perpetrators of fan violence work within groups rather than alone. The collaboration among

violent fans intensifies their menacing appearance.

Presence of groups in episodes of fan violence highlights the potential significance of

‘‘we-group’’ versus ‘‘they-group’’ antagonisms (Dunning, 2000). Sports officials represent

a much different group than fans who attend the game. They are distant from the fans in

terms of their appearance, perceived coolness, and impartiality. These differences alone

may be enough to give them an outsider status from the perspective of fans, but a

controversial call or decision made by sports officials would certainly confirm their

enemy position.

In discussing the varied factors related to fan violence, Dunning (2000) speculates on

the relationship between fan violence and in-group/out-group antagonisms by relating fan

violence to (a) ‘‘social class and regional inequalities’’ in Britain; (b) ‘‘religious

sectarianism’’ in Scotland and Northern Ireland; (c) the ‘‘linguistic subnationalisms of

the Catalans, Castilians, Gallegos and Basques’’ in Spain; (d) ‘‘city particularism and

perhaps the division between the North and South as expressed in the formation of the

‘Northern League’’’ in Italy; and, (e) the ‘‘relations between East and West and political

groups of the left and right’’ in Germany (p. 161). Dunning cautions that the universal

existence of we-group and they-group antagonisms across the many forms of fan violence

represents a working hypothesis, and not a statement of fact. However, it seems

appropriate to pursue empirical, comparative research to test, modify, and possibly reject

the hypothesis that the intensification of we-group and they-group bonds increases the

likelihood of fan violence.

6.1. Group antagonisms: social problem and moral panic approaches

In the social problem approach, group oppositions appear in frustration–aggression theory,

which predicts that unsuccessful efforts by fans to achieve a desired identity (i.e., winner),

compel them to act aggressively toward an outside group they deem responsible for their

unrealized ambition. That is, the we-group wishes to maximize identification with their team,


but when that maximization becomes threatened, a villainous, they-group is created to

become a target of their aggression.

In value-added theory, in-group and out-group oppositions are evident in at least the

structural conduciveness determinant of collective behavior. For example, Lewis and Kelsey

(1994) argue that ‘‘a differentiated market between ticket holders [i.e., insiders] and non-

ticket holders,’’ [i.e., outsiders] in part, was responsible for the crowd crush at Hillsborough

Stadium in Sheffield, England in 1989 (p. 190).

Group oppositions appear in other social problem theories: (a) figurational theory’s

assertion that the rough working class (i.e., we-group) has resented their loss of control

over soccer to wealthy owners and players (i.e., they-groups), and consequently, express

their discontent through pitch invasions, and other forms of fan violence with strong

territorial themes; (b) conflict theory’s argument that racial, ethnic, and social class

inequalities in the broader society provide the impetus for the powerless (i.e., we-group)

to engage in fan violence with the goal of the powerful (i.e., they-group) responding to

their needs; and, (c) postmodernism theory’s implication that pitch invasions represent

postmodernists’ (i.e., we-group) attempts to breaching the boundaries imposed by modern

society (i.e., they-group).

Group antagonisms are also implied in the moral panic approach. For instance, the labelers

and the labeled represent two opposing groups. Politicians, sport administrators, the media,

and moral authorities (i.e., labelers) raise the passion of the public to create opposition against

a perceived problem (i.e., the labeled). Further fan violence research can examine how media

hype positions competing teams in favorable versus unfavorable categories, or fans into

respectable versus unrespectable categories. As noted earlier in this review, the dichotomy of

good and evil, and the campaign against evil, may need to be periodically manufactured in

order to promote and sustain the social consensus necessary for order in society. Moral panics

operate as rituals that renew public faith in government.

If group antagonisms are a significant factor in fan violence, research can explore ways

to reduce that antagonism. For instance, the entertainment dimension of sport could be

promoted as strongly as the competitive dimension. This author has seen crowds of fans

captivated by sports officials who perform half-time dance routines at basketball games.

The sports officials portray themselves not as clowns or buffoons, but as sharing in the fun

with fans. Such microlevel pursuits do not preclude efforts to implement macrolevel

solutions. In fact, some scholars and administrators might argue that microlevel changes

represent ‘‘Band-Aid’’ solutions to fan violence that ultimately waste time and resources.

Conversely, the best plan might be to maximize resources that affect societal-level changes.

The author shares the belief in macrolevel changes, but suggests that microlevel attempts to

integrate fans are far more effective than the measures of surveillance and punishment of

fans currently favored in most countries.

This discussion of the potential theoretical linkages between the social problem and moral

panic approaches provide an exemplar for the type of integrative work needed to reduce the

provincial study of fan violence. More detailed comparisons may discover presence of group

antagonisms across additional theories, and further develop common themes across social

problem and moral panic approaches.


Acknowledgments

The author recognizes Denzel E. Benson and Jerry M. Lewis for furthering his

understanding of social deviance and sports in society. Dr. Lewis has generously reviewed an

earlier draft of this paper.

References

Agar, M. H., & Reisinger, H.-S. (2000). Read all about it: media construction of a heroin epidemic. Substance Use

and Misuse, 35, 1551–1571.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow

(Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Banfield, E. C. (1974). The unheavenly city revisited. Boston: Little, Brown.

Beaton, R. (2001, May 4). Displays of disaffection by fans alarm baseball. USA Today, 1c.

Bradley, J. M. (1996). Abstruse and insecure? Immigrant identity in modern Scotland. Social Identities, 2, 293–310.

Brindley, J. M. (1982). Disruptive crowd behavior: a psychological perspective. Police Journal, 55, 28–38.

Brown, R. I. F. (1991). Gaming, gambling, and other addictive play. In J. H. Kerr, & M. J. Apter (Eds.),

Adult play (pp. 101–118). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: ingredients for a moral panic.

Crime, Law and Social Change, 32, 147–168.

Carroll, R. (2001, May 6). Racist. Violent. Corrupt: welcome to Serie A. Guardian Unlimited, (Retrieved May 6,

2001: from www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Articles/0,4273,4179057,00.html).

Coakley, J. J. (1981). The sociological perspective: alternate causations of violence in sport. Arena, 5, 44–56.

Coakley, J. J. (2001). Sport in society: issues and controversies (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, S. (1972/1980). Folk devils and moral panics: the creation of the mods and the rockers. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

Douglas, M. (1969). Purity and danger. London: Routledge.

Duke, V., & Crolley, L. (1996). Football spectator behavior in Argentina: a case of separate evolution. The

Sociological Review, 44, 272–293.

Dunning, E. (2000). Towards a sociological understanding of football hooliganism as a world phenomenon.

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 141–162.

Dunning, E., Murphy, P., & Waddington, I. (1991). Anthropological versus sociological approaches to the study of

soccer hooliganism: some critical notes. The Sociological Review, 39, 459–478.

Dunning, E., Murphy, P., & Williams, J. (1986). Spectator violence at football matches: towards a sociological

explanation. The British Journal of Sociology, 37, 221–224.

Dunning, E., Murphy, P., & Williams, J. (1988). The roots of football hooliganism. London: Routledge.

Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press (Original work

published 1893).

Eitzen, D. S. (1979). Sport and deviance. In D. S. Eitzen (Ed.), Sport in contemporary society (pp. 161–172).

New York: St. Martin Press.

Elias, N. (1978). The civilising process. Oxford: Blackwell.

Erikson, K. T. (1962). Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 9, 307–314.

Freud, S. (1922). Group psychology and analysis of the ego. London: Hogarth Press.

Golden, J. (2000). A tempest in a cocktail glass: mothers, alcohol, and television, 1977–1996. Journal of Health

Politics, Policy and Law, 25, 473–498.

Goode, E. (2000). Moral panic: changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. Sociological forum,

15, 543–552.

Griffin, C. (2000). Discourses of crisis and loss: analyzing the ‘‘boys’’ underachievement debate. Journal of Youth

Studies, 3, 167–188.


Guttmann, A. (1986). Sport spectators. New York: Columbia University Press.

Holt, R. (1981). Sport and society in modern France. London: Macmillan.

Horak, R. (1991). Things change: trends in Austrian football hooliganism from 1977–1990. The Sociological

Review, 39, 531–548.

Hughson, J. (2000). The boys are back in town: soccer support and the social reproduction of masculinity. Journal

of Sport and Social Issues, 24, 8–23.

King, A. (1997). The postmodernity of football hooliganism. The British Journal of Sociology, 48, 576–593.

Kornblum, W., & Julian, J. (2001). Social problems (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Le Bon, G. (1895/1960). The crowd. New York: Viking Press.

Levine, P., & vinten Johansen, P. (1981). The historical perspective: violence and sport. Arena Review, 5, 22–30.

Lewis, J. M. (1982). Fan violence: an American social problem. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 2,

175–206.

Lewis, J. M., & Kelsey, M. L. (1994). The crowd crush at Hillsborough: the collective behavior of an entertain-

ment crush. In R. R. Dynes, & K. J. Tierney (Eds.), Disasters, collective behavior, and social organization

(pp. 190–206). Newark: University of Delaware Press.

Leonard II, W. M. (1993). A sociological perspective on sport (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Marsh, P., Fox, K., Carnibella, G., McCann, J., & Marsh, J. (1996). Football violence in Europe. Amsterdam: The

Amsterdam Group.

Marsh, P., Rosser, E., & Harre, R. (1978). The rules of disorder. London: Routledge.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1846/1947). The German ideology. New York: International Publishers.

Milgram, S., & Toch, H. (1969). In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.)

(pp. 507–610). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Moorhouse, H. F. (1991). Football hooligans: old bottle new whines? The Sociological Review, 39, 489–502.

Murphy, P. (1990). Why there are no equivalents of soccer hooliganism in the United States? In P. Murphy, J.

Williams, & E. Dunning (Eds.), Football on trial: spectator violence and development in the football world

(pp. 194–212). London: Routledge.

Murphy, P., Dunning, E., & Williams, J. (1988). Soccer crowd disorder and the press: processes of amplification

and deamplification in historical perspective. Theory, Culture and Society, 5, 645–673.

Onishi, N. (2001, May 11). Soccer in Africa once more turns deadly. The New York Times, A14 (L).

Palmer, D. (1995). Excessive force. Alternative Law Journal, 20, 53–56.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Perasovic, B. (1995). Soccer fan tribe—toward the nation and back. Erasmus, 11, 61–67.

Petrovic, K. (1990). Violence and sport. Kultura, 88–90, 17–24.

Pilz, G. A. (1996). Social factors influencing sport and violence: on the ‘‘problem’’ of football hooliganism in

Germany. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 31, 49–68.

Porter, A. (1993). Life as a hooligan. New Statesman and Society, 6, 17.

Rhoden, W. C. (2001, March 30). Tennis, race and much more. The New York Times, D1 (L).

Roberts, J. V., & Benjamin, C. J. (2000). Spectator violence in sports: a North American perspective. European

Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 163–181.

Roversi, A. (1991). Football violence in Italy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 26, 311–332.

Saraceno, J. (2000, June 21). L.A. story: riots follow the script. USA Today, 3C.

Sherif, M. (1958). Group influences upon the formation of norms and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. New-

comb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 219–232). New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Smelser, N. J. (1963). Theory of collective behaviour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Smith, M. (1983). Violence and sport. Toronto: Butterworths.

Taylor, I. (1982). Putting the boot into working class sport: British soccer after Bradford and Brussels. Sociology

of Sport Journal, 4, 171–191.

Thio, A. (2001). Deviant behavior (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.


Turner, R. H. (1964). Collective behavior. In R. E. L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of modern sociology (pp. 382–425).

Chicago: Rand McNally.

Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1957). Collective behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

van der Brug, H. H. (1994). Football hooliganism in the Netherlands. In R. Guilianotti, et al. (Eds.), Football,

violence and social identity. London: Routledge.

Walgrave, L., Colaers, C., & van Limbergen, K. (1987). After Heysel: a Belgian research project on the societal

and socio-psychological backgrounds of football hooliganism. In T. O’Brien (Ed.), European conference on

football violence. Preston: Lancashire Polytechnic.

Wann, D. L., Carlson, J. D., & Schrader, M. P. (1999). The impact of team identification on the hostile and

instrumental verbal aggression of sport spectators. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 279–286.

Weis, K. (1986). How the print media affect sports and violence: the problems of sport journalism. International

Review for the Sociology of Sport, 21, 239–252.

Ward Jr., R. E., Lewis, J. M., & Benson, D. E. (2000). [Sports officials’ judgments of fan violence]. Unpublished

raw data.

Ward Jr., R. E., Lewis, J. M., & Benson, D. E. (2002). Sports officials’ judgments of fan violence: a factorial

survey. Michigan Sociological Review. Forthcoming.

Williams, J., Dunning, E., & Murphy, P. (1986). The rise of the English soccer hooligan. Youth and Society, 17,

362–380.

Yarson, S., & Taylor, J. (1992). A psychological model of fan violence in sports. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 23, 207–226.

Young, K. (1986). The killing field: themes in mass media responses to the Heysel stadium riot. International

Review for the Sociology of Sport, 21, 253–266.

Zani, B., & Kirchler, E. (1991). When violence overshadows the spirit of sporting competition: Italian football

fans and their clubs. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 5–21.


ward, r. e. (2002) - fan violence - social problem or moral panic

Documents

van der brug

moral panic

moral panic

median family

explaining

sports officials

american social

social problem