2023-12-14 06:50:34
► “Individual sanctions are implemented too little”
Julian Jappert, director of the Sport and Citizenship think tank, former lawyer in the world of sport.
We always wake up too late. With the Olympic Games coming up, we can wonder if these recent decisions do not reflect a fear of the public authorities linked to the organization of this event.
In France, there is a lack of a real fan management policy because political leaders tend not to consider sport, and in this case football, as a major social and political fact. Sport can, however, bring cohesion, a feeling of belonging, and self-esteem. This lack of consideration is also linked to legal uncertainty: no one knows who really runs sport in France. Who is responsible for the sanction? Governance is so complex that the different actors pass the buck, between the ministry, the prefectures, the federations, the clubs, etc. There is a thousand layers of governance even though the legal arsenal exists.
With travel bans, the risk would be to create other feelings among supporters, prevented from supporting their team and living their passion. Sport is seen by some sociologists as a catharsis. This allows you to relieve yourself of violence, but in a rather healthy way, in a supervised context. We can wonder if the ban will not exacerbate the violence that we will find in the streets. Supporters will then find devious ways to overcome the bans.
As a European think tank, we have the opportunity to compare with what is done on a European scale. We note that in France, unlike our English and German neighbors, individual sanctions are implemented too little. For example, there is a certain hypocrisy on the part of clubs, which complain of excesses but never file complaints against their violent supporters. In England, someone who gives a Nazi salute will be banned from stadiums for life and go to prison. However, supporters of the same club will not be deprived of access to the enclosure. There is a balance to be found between firmness and flexibility, but it is clear that we are not firm enough.
Beyond individual sanctions, it is about working on prevention. At Sport and Citizenship, we campaign so that all money, public and private, invested in the world of sport is subject to measurable compensation in terms of impact on education, health, behavior, etc. In other words, clubs cannot benefit from subsidies if they do not first do this work of dialogue and prevention with supporters. When we explain the framework to a young person who plays a sport, they always understand the sanction better. It’s the same principle.
► “Respect the rule of law for supporters”
M Jean-Jacques Bertrand, sports law lawyer in Paris
Ministerial and prefectural decrees make it possible to legally prohibit or limit the movement of supporters, in order to avoid tragedies. For the judge to assess the validity or otherwise of a ruling on the dangerousness of a match, he consults the national anti-hooliganism division (LDNH). This commission is responsible for evaluating the risk rate of a sporting event, on a scale of 1 to 5. Disputes between the two teams, the history of violence or the number of supporters are criteria which influence this risk rate. . But the opinion rendered by the LDNH remains a simple assessment and has nothing legal in it. Appeals to the administrative court, often at the last minute, are systematic in an attempt to have the sanctions annulled.
These orders are always made urgently and force the judge to take rapid measures. They are generally done a few days, or even a few hours before the matches. Circulars from the Ministry of the Interior have tried to restrict the ban on travel before sporting events to a period of fifteen days, but in reality, they are not respected. Very often, a trip by supporters cannot be improvised, what to do if a ban comes in while they are already on their way? Some find parades, they come without jerseys, individually, and are scattered all over the stands, they are not identifiable. But these elements rarely constitute a disturbance of public order.
Before, threats of overflow were identified for certain specific matches, whereas today we have the impression that all matches are dangerous, for no good reason. Recently, we have seen more and more orders with a very low risk rate, assessed at 1 or 2. When the movement of supporters is maintained despite an order, it is because the judge has considered that the threat of overflow was not sufficient to limit fundamental freedoms. It is essential to uphold the rule of law, the freedom to come and go and the freedom to assemble. The tragic death of a Nantes supporter also played a role in the increase in the frequency of these sanctions, even if many are ultimately not applied. This is a response from the Minister of the Interior to try to appease the media effect. We must not forget that most matches go well.
People who do not comply with the order risk six months of imprisonment and a fine of €30,000. An interesting question would be whether measures will be taken to increase sanctions against disruptors. But I don’t see how, because those that already exist are rarely applied.
#banning #supporters #travel #effective