Fighting for the rights of football fans

Impact at a glance

• Through direct engagement with the Scottish Parliament and the media, Dr Joseph Webster’s research was instrumental in repealing the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 in March 2018.
• Since repeal, ‘at risk’ football fans – mostly young men from deprived communities – will no longer have their prospects blighted by criminal records classing them as sectarian offenders.
• The Scottish government went on to allocate £530,000 into anti-sectarianism education in 2019 after the research called for non-legislative solutions to sectarianism via early years education.

“[Dr Webster's] contribution was extremely important in terms of providing a credible and convincing evidence base which clearly impressed the Committee Members. This is the first (and only) piece of legislation enacted by the Scottish Parliament itself to have ever been repealed. In our view Dr Webster's expertise lent academic weight to the campaign and played a significant part in the repeal of the Act.”

Jeanette Findlay, Convenor of Fans Against Criminalisation

Football, by its very nature, is a unifier and a divider. Crowds come together to support their team in the hope of beating the opposition, whoever they may be, sometimes involving deep and bitter rivalries.

These rivalries stretch far beyond stadium walls, through towns, cities and entire regions. This is particularly evident in Glasgow, home to Rangers Football Club and Celtic Football Club – collectively known as the Old Firm.

The rivalry between the two Glasgow sides has become deeply embedded in Scottish culture. They are by far the most successful, and most popular, Scottish football clubs and the competition between them is more than simple sporting rivalry, with their politically charged derbies infamous and legendary around the world.

These matches mirror the city’s ethno-religious divides where clashes between self-identifying Protestant-Unionist-Loyalists and their Catholic-Nationalist-Republican counterparts have been frequent and bloody and sometimes deadly.

The UK government’s attempt to police and control football fans goes back to the 1980s with Margaret Thatcher’s proposal to impose ID cards on all football fans.

The plans ultimately failed in the late 1980s after the Taylor Report, written in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, raised serious issues with fans carrying such cards.  

In 2011, the Scottish government decided to take significant action to tackle football sectarianism. The trigger was a Scottish Cup replay between Rangers and Celtic which ended in an aggressive confrontation between Old Firm coaching staff and players and resulted in three red cards being shown.

For Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland at the time, the match embodied the ugly reality of sectarianism within Scottish society (often simply referred to as “Scotland’s shame”) – a reality that required urgent legal action.

An emergency summit was called. Evidence was shown that illustrated the spike in the number of arrests around Old Firm matches, the true cost of policing these matches as well as growth in reported cases of domestic violence. Proposals included changes to Old Firm fixtures and limiting pre-match alcohol sales, but nothing changed in law.

It wasn’t until May 2011, when the Scottish National Party (SNP) formed a majority government after winning a landslide electoral victory, that the Scottish government was able to announce the introduction of a piece of emergency legislation aimed at tackling football fans’ behaviour.

In 2012, the Scottish Parliament voted to pass a new law that created new criminal offences concerning sectarian behaviour at football games. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was passed by Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) by 64 votes to 57 without any opposition support.

Only applying to football fans, the act was intended to deal with sectarian behaviour such as prejudiced chanting at matches, in pubs, and/or on public transport. Moreover, it sought to prevent communications that incited religious hatred on social media.

From the offset the act divided opinion and protest ensued. Opposition was fierce. Former MSP for Glasgow James Kelly, who led the repeal effort, described the act as “the worst piece of legislation in the Scottish Parliament’s history” stating that it was “time for it to go”. Many opponents across the political spectrum argued that the act compromised the principal of free speech and discriminated against the football fans it was applied to.

“I was completely taken aback by how this issue of the Orange Order and the game of football erupted onto the political scene in Scotland,” says Dr Joseph Webster.

Webster, a social anthropologist and currently a Lecturer in the Study of Religion in Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity, was researching Exclusive Brethren fishing communities in northeast Scotland when he was first introduced to the Orange Order.

Founded in 1796, the Order takes its name from William of Orange, the Dutch prince who became King of England, Scotland and Ireland after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – a conflict that sought to ensure the British throne remained Protestant.

“It was through working with the Orange Order that I realised many Orangemen, particularly in Scotland, but also in Northern Ireland, were really invested in supporting Rangers Football Club as an extension of their ethnic identity and connecting that to their religious identity.”

Dr Joseph Webster

When Webster embarked on research with Rangers fans, he wasn’t planning for policy engagement on sectarian football disorder. Instead, the issue arose organically from his meetings with Orangemen and Rangers fans concerned about the negative impact of the Football Act.

Derby matches such as the Old Firm between Rangers and Celtic are seen by many Orangemen as opportunities for patriotic displays of national pride and Protestant commitment. The matches are engrained in what the Orange Order perceive to be a “good, Protestant life”.

Groups of young men chanting offensive songs is a common sight in football stands around the United Kingdom.

“Most people assume that these really controversial football chants are what football fandom is all about,” says Webster, but he argues that most chanting is actually intended to benefit the side those involved are supporting, rather than actually seeking to enrage opposition fans.

A lot of chanting and singing takes place in pubs or on transport to games when only one fan group is present, which suggests that while songs may still be offensive to the opposing side, it is misleading to suggest that their primary motivation is to enrage their fans.

Meanwhile, the 2012 Act has remained a contentious piece of legislature. In 2016, former MSP James Kelly told the media: “It has not tackled bigotry, it has been widely criticised by lawyers and human rights groups, and football fans have been treated as second-class citizens.”

The majority of people who were arrested under the law were young men in their teens and 20s, many of whom came from deprived backgrounds, had low educational attainment and were either unemployed or underemployed. “They were easy to target,” notes Webster.

In an attempt to get lighter sentences, many of those who had cases go to trial were encouraged to plead guilty, even if they contested having acted illegally. Although the conviction rate was low – 268 in the first year, of which 99% were male and 74% under the age of 30 – those who were convicted were left with a serious criminal record that blighted their futures. They were labelled sectarian offenders, despite the often low-level nature of offences, such as swearing at a police officer.

According to Webster, there were three main problems with the Football Act. First, it was unjustified on free speech grounds. “I think there were legitimate reasons to object to an act which made the singing of certain songs or chants illegal, especially where it didn’t appear to be inciting violence,” he argues.

Second, the law was unenforceable. When some 20,000 people were simultaneously chanting songs banned by the legislation, it was impossible for police to intervene and make arrests. Police would use CCTV and other methods to identify who they thought were the ringleaders and target them for arrest.

But these prosecutions would usually fail because the young men arrested would often have their mouths covered with scarfs or their hands, making it almost impossible to prove that anything illegal was being sung.

Finally, the most important reason that the law failed, according to Webster, was the law-makers lack of understanding of the social reality of football chanting, and the social motivations behind it.

When advising the Scottish government Justice Committee, Webster reiterated his point that football chanting’s main purpose is not to incite hate and violence among opposing fans, but rather to create an identity and sense of togetherness within the participants’ own fan base.

As a result, the Football Act was largely self-defeating because groups of fans who felt unfairly targeted by politicians and police became even more inward looking, bonding together via ever escalating acts of sectarian chanting and displays.

Kelly led the fight to have the act repealed and introduced the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill on 21 June 2017.

Webster was asked to submit evidence to the Justice Committee on the proposed repeal of the act. His comments were picked up by the national press including The Herald, The Scotsman and The Times. Even at pre-repeal stage, Webster’s research was influencing debates beyond football sectarianism, especially about religious hate as it pertains to UK-wide concerns about anti-Semitism.

Webster was invited to appear before the Scottish government Justice Committee in November 2017 to give oral evidence on the repeal bill. Those on both sides of the argument praised his evidence for providing new insights.

“The comprehensive analysis of Dr Webster's work evident in his verbal submission […] helped provide a necessary richer understanding of where sociocultural indicators that help define individuals and communities play a positive role in broader societal and intra community relations.”

Danny Boyle, Parliamentary and Policy Officer of BEMIS Scotland

In March 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed the bill to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act.

Not only was this an important moment for football, reflects Webster, but also for wider society.

“It’s a lot deeper than just a piece of legislation, and it’s bigger than football. What if future governments decide that a certain behaviour is something that they find offensive, and therefore they will make that illegal? It’s not hard to argue that other community groups or sporting contexts could one day find themselves enveloped in the same issues.”

Webster’s research on sectarianism has been instrumental in bringing about major legislative change in Scotland.

Not only has the repeal of the 2012 Act improved the life chances of young ‘at risk’ football fans, many from deprived communities, but it has also assisted Police Scotland in more effectively tackling football disorder by shifting the focus from policing verbal and symbolic displays to preventing acts of physical violence.

Webster’s research has also shaped a much broader debate about the nature of sectarianism and hate crime. His research has influenced current and future anti-sectarianism policy in Scotland by engaging with politicians, journalists, campaigners and further education colleges to redefine sectarianism not as a juridical problem, but as a social problem that requires a societal solution.

Since the repeal of the Football Act in 2018, offensive football chanting is typically dealt with under breach of the peace legislation, a conviction that brings with it far less stigma - although this might change, as Scotland moves toward implementing a new Hate Crime Act which Dr Webster is also consulting with the Scottish government on.

In March 2019, the Scottish government announced £530,000 in funding to help tackle sectarianism including training and education for teachers and young people across Scotland.

As the Scottish government currently debates new ways to tackle hate crime, as well as the merits of creating a Scottish Parades Commission similar to that in Northern Ireland which has the power to place restrictions on public processions and other protest meetings, Webster’s research continues to influence policy and draft legislation by helping politicians to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Published on Wednesday 2nd February 2022.

The text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

… visit our interactive map to find out how.