After two decades of a French policy of managing supporterism based solely on repressive measures, and although there is still a long way to go to completely appease relations between the ultras and the political and sporting bodies, the various actors seemed to have done so. of the way in recent seasons to normalize their relations.
In the meantime, the pandemic and the unbearable closed doors had come to reinforce the idea that football is nothing without full and festive stadiums.
Unfortunately, the events of Sunday in Nice raise fears of a new turn of the screw for all the French supporters this season.
To find out if we have really taken a step forward for two steps back,
20 Minutes
spoke with Nicolas Hourcade, sociologist at the Ecole Centrale de Lyon and member of the national body of supporterism.
Can the events in Nice ruin everything that has been done in recent years
on the issue of fan management?
To ruin everything, no, I don't think so. We are in a context, at the level of the management of supporters, which has evolved significantly for four or five years now, with an opening of dialogue between the public authorities, in particular the Ministry of the Interior, the sports authorities, in particular the League. , and the associations of supporters represented by the ANS (National Association of Supporters), which brings together many ultras groups.
However, in my opinion, this dialogue is sufficiently stable and lasting, and the objectives are sufficiently shared (namely: to allow the stadium public to be fervent and festive while limiting incidents as much as possible), so that the events in Nice do not question this process.
On the other hand, compared to public opinion in a more general way, or compared to certain regional prefects, it is sure that it gives a disastrous image of the supporters and of the whole of football more broadly.
We give pretexts to continue in the all repressive ...
Before confinement, the Ministry of the Interior had issued a circular to the prefects reminding them that travel bans had to be exceptional and reserved for matches for which security was really difficult to ensure. Thibaut Delaunay, the head of the DNLH (National Division for the fight against hooliganism), also recalled it at the start of the season, which shows that it remains the basic doctrine in force in France today.
But indeed, in certain cases where the tensions between supporters are too strong, that can lead to travel bans because they will appear proportionate.
As far as supporters are concerned, the issue is always the same: it is the balance between rights and duties.
Supporter groups claim their rights to be treated like other citizens, to be able to move around freely on the territory, etc., but this implies a certain number of duties, in particular that of limiting incidents as much as possible.
However, it is clear that if the incidents multiply, this could automatically have the effect of increasing the restrictive measures.
Is France at a turning point in the management of supporters?
https://t.co/ebOxISYbI9
- 20 Minutes (@ 20Minutes) November 22, 2019
The stake is always easy to state but it is more complicated to achieve: to ensure both the festive atmosphere with the supporters of the two camps present at the stadium while ensuring security. It means making everyone accountable: first and foremost the supporters' associations, but also all the other players in the security of football matches. Because the Nice match brought to light several problems: The first is that the security was not up to standard. It is not normal that so many projectiles can be thrown at players. It is not normal that a land invasion can be so easy to achieve. Beyond the supporters, it is the whole of French football which has shown a poor image, and it is the whole of this world which must wonder about the follow-up to be given to this affair.
What exactly are the consequences to be given to all this?
The first step is to identify and punish the troublemakers.
It therefore concerns the supporters who threw projectiles and committed violence, but also the players or staff members who behaved completely unacceptable.
There has to be a global questioning of the behaviors we witnessed on Sunday.
We cannot continue in this direction, with supporters who are overflowing and players and leaders who blow on the embers as was the case in Nice.
Beyond that, the question that arises is "how do we involve all the players in the preparation of a football match?"
".
In Nice, for example, the Populaire Sud decided for some time to descend to the first ring of the bend (it's a radical change since it places them very close to the ground) and we can see that it was not enough thought out and discussed between the club, the stadium operator, supporters and private security forces. There was not enough adaptation to do this under the best conditions of safety. All parties must behave in a professional manner and be able to exchange constructively in order to find the best possible arrangements. From the moment the hottest ultras are at the foot of the platform, that implies adapting the device since, in fact, the context is no longer the same as when they are at the second level of the platform.
Is it also time to question the relevance of collective sanctions, as will be the
case in Nice after the prefect's announcement to apply a closed session to the entire Populaire Sud for the
next
four
home games?
The first thing to do is to establish the facts.
Since Sunday, we have not stopped wondering what sanctions to inflict and on whom.
However, before establishing the sanctions, it is crucial to establish all the facts and identify those responsible.
Then there are individual sanctions that absolutely must be taken.
If we really want to dissuade people from throwing bottles on the lawn, invading the field or punching a player or a supporter, these people must be sanctioned commensurate with the situation. act committed.
It is crucial, and the prefecture is committed in this direction, to identify the authors of throwing projectiles or acts of violence so that they are sanctioned.
What about the issue of total or partial closed session?
I think that, in this specific case, this sanction can make sense since the responsibility of the organizer is engaged. We can clearly see, and the club has recognized it themselves, that there were failures in the organization of this match, so that there is a sanction of this style seems to me unavoidable. It is not absolutely not comparable, however, with other partial closed sessions that have been pronounced because of the smoke, while the clubs can not completely control them. There were large-scale incidents there, repeated throwing of projectiles, the beginning of an invasion of the ground, fights.
So that the club is sanctioned by a total closure of a platform for the next matches does not seem inconsistent to me.
On the other hand, we have to wonder whether this measure should be taken by the disciplinary committee of the LFP or by the prefecture.
When Pablo Longoria says he refused to bring his team back to the field in order to "set a precedent", what does he mean by that?
The problem posed by Pablo Longoria is deeper. It's “what do we do with the result of the match? ". The stake is real. Should we consider, since the Marseillais did not return to the lawn, that they lost the match? Or do we consider that, since their security was involved, they were in their strictest right and therefore we forget the defeat on the green carpet? Should we give them a won match, when we have seen that some members of OM were involved in the incidents? Do we have to replay the match? In my opinion, the main stake for the world of football is there. This is what will set a precedent and this is what Longoria is talking about. Replaying the match behind closed doors seems to me to be the most appropriate solution, but I do not have all the elements in the file.
Wouldn't it be time to take the issue of projectile throwing head-to-head and put in place a clear protocol that allows the referee to make the right decisions without waiting for it to degenerate, as it has been? case Sunday evening?
The throwing of projectiles is a problem that did not arise from this match, it is a recurring problem that has existed for a long time in stadiums.
Indeed, this may be the right time to take up this subject.
The team
proposed yesterday [Monday] to ban plastic bottles from the stands to serve only "ecocups" to supporters: that can be a good idea. We can also put safety nets in certain stands. But one can also imagine a very clear procedure which allows the referee to say that in the event of repeated throwing of projectiles, the match is definitively stopped, with threats of sanctions against the club as a deterrent. I think that the whole of the public must be made responsible on this issue because, in fact, the throwing of projectiles come from all the stands and not just from the bends.The Montpellier-Marseille match [Rongier received a projectile in the face as he warmed up along the touchline] showed that it was not correlated with the mere presence of the ultras since the groups of supporters de Montpellier boycotted this match. This therefore calls for raising the awareness of all stadium audiences.
Roxana Maracineanu: “Still happy, we attack the players, it's normal that we react.
What are we going to do ?
We let people go after the players, that's not possible.
It is up to security, to the receiving club, to the supporters, and to the managers to be responsible.
"
- BeFoot (@_BeFoot) August 23, 2021
A word finally on the words of Roxana Maracineanu, who declared Monday "still happy that they [the players] have defended themselves".
How should we understand this?
It's strange to hear that from the mouth of a Minister of State ...
I think the speech is clumsy but that it was partly linked to an imperfect knowledge of the incidents at the time when these comments were made. We must distinguish the reaction of Dimitri Payet who receives a bottle on the neck and who, under the effect of the shock and because it is not the first time of the evening that one throws projectiles at him, reacts badly, before to calm down. It's a humanly understandable reaction, even if he shouldn't have had it. On the other hand, there were other behaviors, in particular that of the physical trainer of the OM [who struck a violent punch to a supporter of Nice], which are totally unjustifiable, extremely serious, and which contributed to throw oil on the fire.
I think the minister was just reacting to what had happened to Payet and not to the rest of the behavior of certain players and staff members which are obviously reprehensible.
Sport
Nice-OM incidents: José Cobos tells how he had to come between Jean-Pierre Rivère and Pablo Longoria in the stands
Sport
Nice-OM: The Nice Ultras "firmly condemn" the throwing of projectiles and the invasion of the field
Sport
Support
LFP
League 1
OM
OGC Nice
Soccer