Football Banning Orders Analysis of Consultation Responses

3. Experience of football in Scotland

This chapter presents the analysis of questions Q5 to Q9, which explored respondents’ experiences of football in Scotland, in particular the extent to which the behaviour of football fans has changed over time and the impact this has on their match attendance.

Q5. In your experience, has the behaviour of football fans in Scotland changed in the last 10 years?

Respondent type	n=	% A lot better	% A little better	% Not changed	% A little worse	% A lot worse	% Don’t know	% No answer
All respondents	903	29	17	32	10	10	2	1
All answering	896	29	17	33	10	10	2	0
Campaign responses	384	30	21	49	0	0	0	-
Individuals - Other	435	32	15	21	15	14	3	-
Individuals - Police	49	6	6	6	35	45	2	-
Organisations:	28	7	4	36	29	18	7	-
- Football club	22	9	5	36	27	18	5	-
- Football body	3	0	0	0	33	33	33	-
- Legal and criminal justice	1	0	0	100	0	0	0	-
- Other	2	0	0	50	50	0	0	-

Respondents were first asked if they felt the behaviour of football fans in Scotland had changed in the last 10 years. Overall, those answering were more likely to feel behaviour has got better rather than worse. Almost half (46%) felt behaviour is better, including 29% who feel it is much better and 17% a little better. A further third (33%) felt there had been no change, while one in five (20%) felt it had got worse.

However, views varied considerably by type of respondent. Much of the perception that behaviour has improved was driven by the campaign response; half (51%) of this group feel that behaviour has got better, with the remaining 49% believing it has not changed. Individuals were also more positive than negative, with 47% indicating behaviour has improved, 21% that there has been no change and 29% that it has got worse.

While smaller proportions of other respondent types noted an improvement, they were more likely to perceive a deterioration in behaviour. In particular, 80% of individuals identified as police officers felt behaviour has got worse, with 45% of this group indicating it has got ‘a lot worse’. While 14% of football clubs felt there has been an improvement, 36% indicated there has been no change, and 45% believe that behaviour has got worse.

Q6. If football fans’ behaviour has worsened in your experience, what has changed? Please select all that apply or provide comments in the box below.

Type of behaviour	% among all respondents (n=903)	% among all answering (n=663)	% among non-campaign respondents answering (n=283)	% among campaign responses answering (n=380)
Setting off pyrotechnics	18	24	57	0
Possession of pyrotechnics	15	21	49	0
Sectarian behaviour	14	19	44	0
Throwing missiles	13	17	40	0
Verbal abuse	13	17	41	0
Drug misuse	12	16	37	0
Abuse of police officers	9	12	29	0
Alcohol misuse	7	10	23	0
Abuse of match stewards	8	10	24	0
Abusive behaviour based on protected characteristics	7	9	22	0
Abuse of match officials	7	9	21	0
Selected ‘other’ or left a comment	53	72	35	100
Not answered	27	N/A	N/A	NA

At Q6, respondents were presented with a list of behaviours and asked which, if any, they felt had changed. While Q6 was directed at those who felt behaviour had worsened, anyone could answer. Among all respondents, 73% answered, and 27% did not.

Among those who did answer Q6, the biggest concern was expressed about pyrotechnics. One quarter (24%) of those answering felt the setting off of pyrotechnics had got worse, and one fifth (21%) felt the possession of pyrotechnics had got worse. While fewer than one in five respondents selected each of the other behaviours, there was more concern about sectarian behaviour (19%), throwing missiles (17%) and verbal abuse (17%) than other behaviours.

A relatively similar pattern of response was recorded among all non-campaign respondents who answered, and by respondent type within this. Concerns around pyrotechnics were most evident in most groups. Specific differences included:

• Among individuals, the most frequently selected behaviour was setting off pyrotechnics (48%), followed by sectarian behaviour (44%).
• Individuals identified as police officers were more likely than other groups to select most behaviours, with 89% selecting possession of and setting off pyrotechnics, followed by 75% throwing missiles and 64% verbal abuse.
• Of the football clubs that answered, 70% selected setting off and 60% possession of pyrotechnics, with the next most selected being verbal abuse (45%).

Seven in ten (72%) of all those answering either selected the ‘other’ option, or did not select ‘other’ but still left an open comment. Of these, almost four fifths (79%) belonged to the campaign response and commented that football fans’ behaviour has not worsened. The analysis of these and the remaining open comments is presented below.

Campaign response

Although their closed question selection at Q5 indicated that they did not feel that the behaviour of football fans in Scotland had changed in the last 10 years, many of those submitting the campaign response still commented at Q6. Their comments represent four fifths of all open comments provided at Q6.

The campaign response used the opportunity to comment at Q6 to reiterate their view that football fans’ behaviour has not worsened.

“The premise that there is clear evidence of a general worsening of supporter behaviour in Scotland is not accepted. Scottish football continues to attract very high crowds, and Scotland has been reported by the SPFL, drawing on UEFA reporting, as having the highest top-flight attendance per capita in Europe. That pattern is difficult to reconcile with a narrative of widespread deterioration across the match-going experience.

It is also worth noting that the policy response has increasingly defaulted towards enforcement and punitive measures, rather than structured engagement, harm reduction, and supporter liaison. A more enforcement-heavy approach can itself drive tension and mistrust, particularly among younger supporters.

For these reasons, it is considered more accurate to focus on targeted issues involving a small minority of individuals, rather than implying a general deterioration in supporter behaviour.” – Campaign response

Other examples of worsening behaviour

Of the remaining comments at Q6 from non-campaign respondents, many reiterated the examples provided in the answer options for the closed element of Q6. Most commonly, some respondents highlighted an increase in antisocial behaviour, citing examples of intimidation, fighting and violence between different groups of supporters. A few respondents liked this behaviour to ‘Ultras^[4]’ supporters groups, younger fans, or both.

Some respondents perceived an increase in the possession and use of pyrotechnics. Beyond this, each of the other issues was mentioned by a few respondents and included, from most to least mentioned:

• Sectarian behaviour, in particular singing and chanting.
• Abuse online and on social media.
• Pitch invasions.
• On-site abuse of match officials, stewards and police.
• Drug misuse.
• Possession or use of weapons (e.g. knives) and missiles.
• Alcohol misuse.

Some respondents expressed the view that not enough was being done to prevent these types of behaviour. Their comments suggested that sectarian behaviour, use of pyrotechnics and drunken behaviour were being ignored by authorities or that action by police and match stewards was too light touch. This is covered in more detail in the next chapter under the analysis of responses to Q8 and Q9.

“It would seem that for this group of supporters, there is no deterrent, and for those criminal cases that do go to court, there is a common sense of frustration that there is no appropriate punishment relating to their actions. The imposing of a Football Banning Order in these cases would provide a deterrent, making supporters think before acting in unacceptable behaviour at matches. FSOAS members are frustrated when this happens, and it is felt the process and awarded punishment is an area of concern that perhaps require some review.” – Football Safety Officers Association Scotland (FSOAS)

While responses from a few organisations noted that most supporters’ behaviour is positive, a range of views were expressed. For example, Falkirk FC noted it sees no evidence that supporter behaviour has worsened, and Raith Rovers FC stated it does not believe that supporter behaviour has fundamentally changed. However, they and other clubs acknowledged that isolated instances of challenging behaviour remain, particularly in relation to pyrotechnics and antisocial behaviour, which present safety risks, require significant response, and highlight the continued need to work with other authorities.

“The SPFL and Scottish FA acknowledge that, while the overwhelming majority of supporters behave responsibly, there has been a visible increase in isolated but serious incidents involving a minority of supporters post-Covid pandemic. These include the misuse of pyrotechnics (flares, fireworks, smoke bombs), the throwing of objects onto the pitch, pitch invasions, and abusive conduct. Such incidents have a demonstrable impact on safety, jeopardise the wellbeing of players, staff and fellow supporters, and adversely impact the match-day experience for the vast majority.” - Scottish Professional Football League and Scottish Football Association.

“PFA Scotland believes that although rising attendances are positive, there remains a concerning level of visible disorder. This includes the use of pyrotechnics, as well as racist, sectarian, sexist, homophobic, and personal abuse directed at players, alongside incidents of missile throwing, which has resulted in injury and permanent scarring not only to our members but to other members of club staff and fellow supporters. Online abuse, including targeting women involved in football with sexist and homophobic comments, has also become increasingly prevalent and continues to be an area of significant concern.” – Professional Footballers Association (PFA) Scotland

“While the vast majority of supporters behave and enjoy the matchday experiences, Aberdeen has experienced isolated incidents involving a minority of supporters in recent seasons. Such incidents require significant operational response and highlight the importance of partnership working with Police Scotland and the football authorities.” – Aberdeen FC

Fans’ behaviour has not worsened

Some respondents made a similar case to the campaign response that there is no evidence that supporters’ behaviour has deteriorated, that in some cases it has improved, and that football games continue to be safe environments.

“It's interesting to note the various options offered for 'worsened fan behaviour' but nothing on aspects around Scottish fan culture which have improved the game: improved atmosphere and attendances; a new generation of fans forging their own culture, primarily centred around noise and colour in the stadium; the potential societal benefits of increased connection among young people — particularly in relation to the mental health crisis gripping the country's young men; foodbank drives and charity initiatives.” – Individual

Similarly, some respondents expressed the view that policing and crowd control at football games is too aggressive and heavy-handed, with little evidence of clubs and authorities engaging with fans and supporters groups. They felt this approach does not reflect the good behaviour of the majority of fans, can be off-putting for attendees, and creates a negative atmosphere.

“Sadly, these days there is little constructive engagement with match-going fans, with many police and stewards clearly having been absent when the customer service part of their training was on!” – Individual

Q7. Have you been discouraged from attending football matches in Scotland because of any of the behaviours you have identified in Q6?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	903	13	85	2
All answering	882	13	87	-
Campaign responses	378	0	100	-
Individuals - Other	426	21	79	-
Individuals - Police	49	45	55	-
Organisations:	29	17	83	-
- Football club	22	9	91	-
- Football body	4	0	100	-
- Legal and criminal justice	0	-	-	-
- Other	3	100	0	-

Among those answering Q7, 87% indicated they had not been discouraged from attending football matches because of the behaviours identified in Q6, while 13% indicated they had. All campaign responses and four fifths (79%) of individuals who answered indicated that they had not been discouraged, as did 83% of organisations that answered. Opinion was more divided among individuals identified as police officers, of whom 45% had been discouraged, and 55% had not.

Almost three fifths of all respondents left an open comment in response to Q7, with the campaign response making up seven in ten of the comments received. Beyond the campaign response, other themes included opposing views on the safety of football matches and the extent to which people have been discouraged from attending.

Campaign response

The campaign response to Q7 presented evidence to highlight the high level of attendance at football matches, to illustrate that people are not being discouraged from attending.

“No. On the contrary, Scottish football attendances indicate strong and sustained willingness to attend. The SPFL reported a total of 5,151,522 supporters across all SPFL competitions in season 2023 to 24 and then 5,336,353 across all SPFL competitions in season 2024 to 25, described by the SPFL as the highest figure in the SPFL era.

At the top-flight level, Scotland has been reported by the SPFL, drawing on UEFA reporting, as Europe’s highest attendance per capita. This again suggests that whatever issues exist, they are not deterring the overwhelming majority of supporters from attending. The aggregate behaviour of supporters demonstrated through record crowds shows that the match-going environment remains attractive and valued.” – Campaign response

Not been discouraged from attending

Beyond the campaign response, some other respondents, all of whom selected ‘no’ at the closed question, highlighted a range of reasons why they had not been discouraged from attending matches. Most commonly, some commented that matches are safe, behaviour has not worsened, and that any incidents arise from a small minority of attendees. As at Q6, a few respondents expressed the view that behaviour had improved, which had encouraged them to attend.

“Quite the opposite: Scottish football has never seemed more alive with potential, and while there may be valid safety concerns about certain issues or behaviours, these can be addressed through dialogue and good-faith cooperation.” - Individual

Some football clubs also commented at Q7, as did the Scottish Professional Football League and Scottish Football Association, and Football Safety Officers Association Scotland (FSOAS), all expressing a similar view that levels of attendance suggest that fans were not being discouraged.

“Attendance trends at Dumbarton FC demonstrate that these behaviours are not discouraging the vast majority of supporters from attending matches. This reinforces the view that targeted measures aimed at individuals are more appropriate than approaches that affect responsible supporters.” – Dumbarton FC

“Professional football in Scotland continues to record strong and growing attendances, reflecting sustained public confidence in the matchday environment and the enjoyment supporters derive from attending games. This reinforces the view that incidents of unacceptable conduct are confined to a small minority of individuals and should be addressed through targeted measures, rather than approaches that risk affecting the experience of the responsible majority. However, these strong attendances should never be taken for granted, and it is incumbent on all relevant parties to ensure that all reasonably practicable steps are taken to seek to ensure that attending Scottish football matches is a safe and enjoyable experience for all.” - Scottish Professional Football League and Scottish Football Association

A few other points were each raised by a small number of respondents at Q7, including:

• While they had not been discouraged from attending, a few noted actions they had taken to avoid potentially problematic behaviour, such as moving to other parts of the stadium or driving to the match rather than using public transport.
• A small number called for alcohol or pyrotechnics to be allowed at matches.
• The perceived heavy-handed nature of policing and crowd control at matches was reiterated by a few respondents.

Reasons for being discouraged from attending

Among non-campaign respondents who answered ‘yes’ to the closed question, a recurring theme raised by some respondents was that they had been discouraged from taking their family, particularly their children, to certain matches. This was usually due to experiences of, or concerns about, the behaviours noted below.

“It discourages me entirely from taking my own children to watch club football. Why would I subject them to the sheer level of supposedly 'acceptable within the confines of a football stadium' level of verbal abuse, when we can watch it safely on TV.” - Individual“I have two children. The increase in violence and antisocial behaviour means that one of my children will not attend matches, as they are scared. I would also never take my child to an away fixture and frankly wouldn't attend myself.” - Individual

Some other respondents commented more generally that they felt Scottish football is unsafe, while a few respondents expressed the view that not enough was being done to improve safety or enforce existing restrictions.

Many respondents cited specific behaviours that had discouraged them from attending football matches. Most commonly, several respondents cited concerns about sectarian behaviour, in particular singing and chanting. These individuals typically stated that they would not attend games at Ibrox or Celtic Park, or their team’s home games if they were against Rangers FC or Celtic FC. A few of these comments expressed concern that not enough was being done to tackle sectarian behaviour, or that it was left unchallenged by match authorities.

“It's just not worth going to see games involving my team and Celtic or Rangers. The risk of violence in or out of the ground makes it an unpleasant and stressful experience.” – Individual

Next most frequently mentioned in comments were some respondents expressing concerns about the possession and use of pyrotechnics, followed by concerns about the potential for antisocial behaviour and violence at matches.

Other reasons for being discouraged were each mentioned by a few respondents, including, in order of prevalence, verbal abuse of match officials and stewards, racist or homophobic abuse, alcohol and drug misuse and use of weapons.

Q8. Would you like to see more done to tackle and prevent the behaviours identified at Q6? If yes, please use the textbox below to explain your answer and suggest what action might be taken.

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	903	27	70	3
All answering	876	28	72	-
Campaign responses	379	1	99	-
Individuals - Other	419	39	61	-
Individuals - Police	49	94	6	-
Organisations:	29	97	3	-
- Football club	21	95	5	-
- Football body	4	100	0	-
- Legal and criminal justice	1	100	0	-
- Other	3	100	0	-

Almost three quarters (72%) of those answering Q8 answered ‘no’, indicating that they would not like to see more done to tackle and prevent the behaviours identified at Q6. The remaining 28% indicated they would like to see more done. However, opinions varied considerably by type of respondent. Almost all (99%) campaign respondents felt nothing additional needed to be done. Among individuals, three fifths (61%) felt no further action was needed, but 39% indicated they would like to see more done. Other groups were far more likely to support further action, including 94% of individuals identified as police officers and 97% of organisations, including 95% of football clubs.

Just over half of respondents left an open comment at Q8, with around six in ten of those belonging to the campaign response. Beyond the campaign response, which opposed further action, the most common themes, in order of prevalence, were calls for stronger sanctions, improvements to policing and crowd management, discussion of specific behaviours, calls for football clubs to take greater responsibility for the behaviour of their fans, and concerns about disproportionate responses to football fans’ behaviour.

Campaign response

The campaign response to Q6 rejected the prospect of additional penalties or sanctions, instead calling for consideration of the broader context and the positivity found within the football community.

“The idea that “more” necessarily means additional police powers or an expanded punitive approach is rejected. The evidence from attendances and participation points the other way. Scottish football support is overwhelmingly positive, sustained, and growing. That context matters because policy should be proportionate to the scale of the problem and should not be driven by a culture of demonising supporters as a whole.

Where action is needed, the culture of defaulting to punishment and exclusion should be challenged. Repeatedly treating supporters primarily as a public order problem risks undermining trust, inflaming tensions, and entrenching divisions between supporters and authorities. A review of football policing in Scotland emphasised the importance of relationship building between operational stakeholders and supporters over a more confrontational approach.

Supporter engagement should therefore be prioritised and resourced, with clubs and authorities expected to work consistently with supporter groups, including effective supporter liaison officers who can support a positive matchday experience. Where issues arise around individual fan behaviour, diversionary schemes such as SACRO can provide a practical and evidence-informed route to reduce harm and influence behaviour without expanding police powers or deepening an adversarial punitive model.

For these reasons, further punitive escalation is not considered necessary or proportionate.” – Campaign response

Stronger sanctions required

Following the campaign response, the next most prevalent theme at this question was calls for stricter penalties to tackle and prevent the behaviours listed at Q6. This was raised by many respondents, almost all of whom selected ‘yes’ at the closed question. Within this theme, a variety of suggestions were put forward.

Several respondents referred to the use of FBOs, with calls for them to be considered across a wider range of safety-related incidents and to be issued sooner. One respondent suggested using a cross-club intelligence model to achieve this. Suggestions to include wider conditions under FBOs were also made, such as exclusion zones around stadiums and making FBOs last longer. A few organisations felt that the existing legislative framework for FBOs is no longer fit for purpose.

“The framework has remained largely unchanged since its introduction and was last formally reviewed more than a decade ago. It was designed at a time when supporter behaviour, social media influences and types of conduct such as widespread pyrotechnic misuse were less common than they are today.” - Scottish Professional Football League and Scottish Football Association

A small number of football clubs expressed the view that sanctions at the club level alone had a limited impact.

“We support targeted legislative refinement to strengthen deterrence where behaviour poses a clear risk to safety, including enabling courts to consider Football Banning Orders in a wider range of serious cases.” - Arbroath Football Club

Some respondents suggested sanctioning football clubs to tackle the behaviours identified at Q6, including fining the clubs, point deductions, stand closures, reducing attendances at matches and abandoning games when necessary. It was felt that this would be a more impactful deterrent for supporters, who may feel a sense of loyalty to the club.

Some other respondents called for tougher penalties, such as custodial sentences or imprisonment. This was particularly prevalent for behaviours involving violence and pyrotechnics. A few respondents called for the increased use of existing laws to arrest and prosecute, referring to hate crime legislation and possession of a dangerous weapon with intent, for example.

Other suggestions put forward by a small number of respondents included targeting organised groups, such as Ultras, removing anonymity for those responsible for disorder, and taking measures to make punishments visible, such as publishing sanctions, sharing CCTV footage, and clubs publishing the costs of fines.

Comments on specific behaviours

Another prevalent theme, commented on by many non-campaign respondents, was concerns about specific behaviours identified during matches. The majority of these respondents expressed negative views about pyrotechnics and called for them to be banned, citing reasons such as being a safety risk and fire hazard, health impacts such as on people with asthma, and the potential for them to be used as a weapon. Conversely, a small number of respondents commented on the potential for safe use of pyrotechnics, suggesting that there should be consultation with fans to manage this properly, safe pyrotechnics sold in the stadium, and dedicated areas for their use.

Comments about alcohol and drug misuse were relatively evenly split, with a few respondents expressing the view that these are a problem and more preventative measures are needed to address them, such as better searching on entry to the grounds. In contrast, a few others felt alcohol sales should not be banned, highlighting economic benefits and suggesting other approaches should be considered. One respondent suggested linking it to the nature of the game, with less alcohol on sale at higher-risk games, while another suggested keeping the alcohol ban for the top two divisions.

Some respondents left comments specifically about sectarian behaviour, expressing the view that not enough is being done to stop it, and that those who take part in such behaviour do not face sufficient repercussions. Within this, some respondents suggested improving education on the topic and tackling it with appropriate penalties.

“How can thousands get away with singing a banned song in the stands?” - Individual

“Verbal racism would not be tolerated at a football match, and sectarianism, I felt, should be treated in the same manner.” - Individual

A small number of comments on this question specifically addressed racism, calling for racist behaviour to be identified as such, rather than being labelled sectarian.

Improved approach to policing and crowd management

Several respondents suggested how the policing of football matches could be improved to tackle and prevent the behaviours identified at Q6. Suggestions included:

• Using more proportionate policing, including de-escalation approaches and working with supporters.
• Increasing police presence and visibility, including outside grounds.
• Using police to enforce behaviour, rather than stewards.
• Having more robust entry controls, including thorough searches.
• Taking measures to reduce anonymity and improve identification, including banning face coverings.
• Stronger partnership working between Police Scotland, clubs, and the criminal justice system.
• Improving reporting mechanisms, making it easier to report disorderly behaviours safely.
• Only allowing adults to attend matches.

Club accountability

Comments about football clubs taking greater responsibility were left by some respondents. These included calls for clubs to be held more responsible for supporter behaviour, including taking more proactive action with the use of bans and funding a security presence outside the stadiums when supporters travel to and from matches. A few respondents felt that clubs should be held accountable for inaction, for example, by facing legal or financial repercussions for not dealing with inappropriate behaviour from supporters.

A few respondents commented specifically on match stewards, with suggestions to increase their capabilities and confidence through better training, increasing powers to search and intervene, and being granted the ability to remove supporters engaging in antisocial behaviour from matches.

Perceived disproportionate response

Beyond the campaign response, some other respondents expressed the view that action taken towards football supporters can be perceived as an unfair overreaction, which has been blown out of proportion to the reality of the situation. A small number of respondents expressed the view that football supporters are over-policed, with enforcement seen as disproportionate.

“We are policed enough. Leave football fans alone to enjoy the game without being harassed.” - Individual

Further to this, a similar proportion of respondents expressed the view that football supporters are subject to stigma and are often portrayed in a negative light through being unfairly associated with criminal behaviour. A small number of comments suggested that politicians and the media were singling out working-class supporters in particular. A few also felt there was evidence of bias in the policing of matches, suggesting unequal treatment of football supporters compared to other types of crowds, and also disparities between different types of supporters, such as home and away fans.

Other comments

Other comments, each made by a few respondents, included, in order of prevalence:

• Calls for prioritising supporter engagement and communications, such as clubs and authorities working alongside supporters, to build better relationships and gain a more comprehensive understanding from the perspective of a supporter.
• Suggestions around increasing education opportunities, such as education programmes on identified issues for all ages, from children to adults.
• Emphasis on the view that football matches should be a safe place, enjoyed by all and not be subject to inappropriate behaviours.

Q9. Do you think the police, criminal justice system, football authorities or football clubs are doing enough to address disorder by supporters at football matches?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	903	68	29	3
All answering	876	70	30	-
Campaign responses	381	94	6	-
Individuals - Other	422	58	42	-
Individuals - Police	47	19	81	-
Organisations:	26	12	88	-
- Football club	21	14	86	-
- Football body	3	0	100	-
- Legal and criminal justice	0	-	-	-
- Other	2	0	100	-

Reflecting the alternative framing of the question, the pattern of responses at Q9 was almost the inverse of Q8. Seven in ten (70%) of those answering Q9 answered ‘yes’, indicating that the police, criminal justice system, football authorities or football clubs are doing enough to address disorder. The remaining 30% felt they are not doing enough.

Most (94%) campaign respondents felt sufficient action is already being taken. Among individuals, three fifths (58%) felt enough is being done, but 42% indicated they would like to see more done. Other groups were far more likely to disagree that enough is being done currently, with 81% of individuals identified as police officers answering ‘no’, as well as 88% of organisations, including 86% of football clubs.

Almost three quarters of all respondents left an open comment in response to Q9, with the campaign response making up six in ten of the comments received. Beyond the campaign response, other themes often overlapped with those raised at Q8, and included comments about policing of matches, concerns about disproportionate responses to inappropriate behaviour, and the role of football authorities and clubs.

Campaign response

The campaign response expressed the view that current policing costs are excessive and that the existing level of policing is already sufficient. Instead, the response put forward the suggestion that removing police from matches would reduce the cost for football clubs.

“The policing costs, notably £8.75 million over the last 4 years at football matches, are extremely excessive in comparison to the amount of disorder that happens. There is minimal disorder inside stadiums, so football clubs and footballing authorities have limited involvement in dealing with these matters. Given the consequences already in place through the criminal justice system, this is more than sufficient to address the problems at hand. In most fixtures, police are not necessary inside stadiums and removing them would help reduce the financial costs that clubs face. Additional powers would not be proportionate or justified by the evidence.” – Campaign response

Insufficient policing of matches

By far the most prevalent theme beyond the campaign responses, mentioned by many non-campaign respondents, was comments about the approaches that are currently used to police football matches and address inappropriate behaviour. A range of views were provided within this theme, including comments expressing dissatisfaction that the police are not doing enough, commenting on specific behaviours that are not being tackled, and putting forward suggestions for how the police could address inappropriate behaviour at football matches.

Many respondents expressed the view that police are not doing enough, citing a lack of firmness in their approach and an apparent unwillingness to act. This perceived leniency from the police was felt to be plastering over some of the symptoms of disorder instead of addressing root causes; an example of this was the use of netting to segregate fans, which physically contains crowds but does little to address underlying tensions between them. It was noted that the lack of involvement from the police means there is little deterrence for supporters acting or considering acting in a disorderly manner at matches. One respondent felt the lack of active policing was particularly apparent when large crowds were involved.

“Too many occasions, police and stewards just stand back and allow the behaviour to happen.” - Individual

The second most prevalent type of comment within this theme, left by several respondents, was specific suggestions to improve policing. These included:

• Increasing the use of CCTV and facial recognition.
• Having more thorough searches.
• More visible action, including a greater police presence.
• Working constructively with supporters.
• Dealing with disorder at the time, rather than retrospectively.
• More consistency with policing and sanctions, both within and between clubs.

“Police are reluctant to deal with criminality in the stadium at the time of the incident and rely on retrospective investigation. Courts are unlikely to issue FBOs where offenders are not taken into custody at the time of the offence.” - Dunfermline Athletic Football Club

A small number of football clubs expressed the view that there is currently strong collaboration between clubs, football authorities and Police Scotland, but felt a greater consistency was needed.

“Greater consistency in how serious incidents are progressed through the justice system would strengthen deterrence. More consistent use of Football Banning Orders for serious offences would complement existing club and league disciplinary action.” - Hibernian FC

“There have been cases where Safety Officers have gathered substantial evidence suggesting a strong sanction was appropriate, only to find that an offender received a warning, potentially allowing them to return and create further issues.” – Football Saftey Officers Association Scotland

Examples of specific disorderly behaviours that have not been tackled by the police were put forward by some respondents. These included sectarian behaviour, the use of pyrotechnics, inappropriate chanting, and violence. One respondent linked the lack of police searches to the prevalence of disorderly behaviours.

Respondents also shared the view that disorder is not solely based inside the football grounds, and felt that there is a lack of police presence to manage and contain disorder outside the stadium.

Some respondents under this theme acknowledged the difficulties trying to police football matches, including underresourcing, competing priorities when needing to respond to emergencies, and constraints within the wider criminal justice system.

Perceived disproportionate response

The next most prevalent theme, again raised by many non-campaign respondents, was the opposite view that there is an unnecessary overreaction from the police, criminal justice system, football authorities and football clubs when it comes to addressing disorder by supporters at football matches. These respondents felt supporters are overpoliced and treated in an oppressive manner, using inconsistent approaches.

Some respondents expressed the view that current policing is too heavy-handed and that, rather than addressing disorder, it causes further disruption instead. A small number felt that this ruins the environment at matches and creates a hostile atmosphere.

“The police cause most of the disorder with ridiculous tactics and treating all football fans like they are criminals from the moment they arrive at stadiums.” - Individual

The view that police act with negative intent towards football supporters was also shared by some respondents, with suggestions of a power imbalance and potential misuse of power put forward. Respondents described supporters being criminalised, demonised, or treated as second-class citizens. A small number of respondents also opposed the police being given additional powers; it was felt that existing powers are sufficient and that any more would further escalate excessive policing.

“The police are over-criminalising football fans... this is evident in if and when many of the cases get to court, as they are more often than not thrown out or do not go ahead.” - Individual

“The youth of today should be encouraged to attend football, not criminalised by overzealous policing.” - Individual

A less common theme, commented on by some respondents, was the view that there is a bias in the police’s approach to addressing disorder by supporters at football matches. These respondents felt that the police selectively apply laws and that certain supporters, such as Old Firm fans, are given free rein by the police to behave in whichever way they wish, while disproportionately targeting supporters of other clubs.

The role of football authorities and clubs

Many non-campign respondents in this question commented on the role of football authorities and clubs. Respondents commented on the accountability of the clubs themselves and expressed the view that football authorities should take a greater responsibility to address disorder.

Several respondents felt that football clubs were not doing enough to address inappropriate behaviours, and that they should take accountability and ownership of their fans' behaviour, rather than minimise it. Respondents called for clubs to impose stronger punishments on their supporters and ensure these are followed through. It was also felt that there should be better prevention and enforcement, such as increased and more thorough searching at stadiums, and more investment in security. One respondent expressed dissatisfaction with the poor standard of security staff at football matches, and another felt that there should be constant dialogue between clubs and their fans to help ensure unlawful action is dealt with.

The role of football authorities was also mentioned by some respondents. It was felt that existing sanctions imposed on clubs by the authorities were insufficient to discourage disorderly behaviour and that a more robust approach was needed. This included authorities issuing more severe punishments to clubs when disorder from their fans is not dealt with, such as deducting points and holding matches behind closed doors. It was felt that this would create a stronger deterrent and ensure a consistent approach where all clubs are being held to the same standards.

Other comments

A few respondents each raised the following points:

• The lack of a replacement for the repealed Offensive Behaviour at Football Act (OBFA) is leading to increasingly aggressive behaviour from certain supporters.
• More education and educational materials are needed, aimed at supporters, to prevent and highlight the consequences of disorder.
• The view that the police, criminal justice system, football authorities, and football clubs are doing the best they can to manage a difficult situation.