When the name of John Terry echoed around Wembley Stadium before England’s friendly against Egypt, it was met with a mixed reaction. Some cheered him, holding the belief that as a footballer representing his country, Terry deserved support. Others booed, concluding that the Chelsea captain was indebted to the crowd and had a duty to reconcile the hostile fans present. Terry’s alleged affair with Wayne Bridge’s ex-girlfriend has been written about in abundance in recent weeks, and, although the majority respected Fabio Capello’s decision, the nation appeared to be split on whether the England manager was correct to relieve “JT” of his duties as England skipper. This division was reflected whenever he touched the ball last night: the boos early on were retorted with cheers by advocates of Terry as the match grew older. Terry put in an accomplished performance at the heart of a jittering defence: the derisory jeers did not affect him. Notwithstanding such analysis of a player’s performance, do fans have a duty to support all those who pull on the shirt that they too are donning in the stands?
In the case of John Terry, the decries were both inevitable and understandable. However, the same cannot be said of previous cases. The taunting of Owen Hargreaves prior to the 2006 World Cup was ridiculous and unjust – Hargreaves was considered to be far too cumbersome for the England side, an observation that was countermanded after an impressive tournament where, along with Joe Cole, he was England’s best player. Peter Crouch, Phil Neville and Frank Lampard have been victims of the boo-boys too, for similarly absurd logic. The clichéd defence from such fans states that the purchasing of a match ticket triggers the right to behave in any way that the consumer wishes. Although this is true to some extent, it does not justify the negativity. Furthermore, it is dangerous to condone this response. Working on the basis that spending money awards one a new set of rights, then surely those with extreme wealth are pretty much exempt from the law? Likewise, the suggestion that buying a ticket for any given game justifies the distribution of sickening chants is erroneous and obscene.
Last season saw a landmark legal case: eleven Tottenham Hotspur fans were charged after abusive chants were aimed at the then Portsmouth defender Sol Campbell. The disgusting refrain pokes fun at Campbell’s mental health issues, as well as containing homophobic references and revealing what Spurs’ fans reactions would be if the centre-back committed suicide. Campbell is not a mass murderer, he does not harm children, nor is he a serial rapist. His crime was simple: he chose to play football for another team. Tottenham fans are yet to forgive Campbell for moving to fierce rivals Arsenal in 2001 and there is no reason why they should. Campbell should accept the cries of Judas and the mass booing from the White Hart Lane faithful whenever he returns. However, this does not legitimize such revolting lyrics. Hitherto, despite the vulgar nature of many supporters’ songs, they have never interfered with the British legal system. The Sol Campbell example can clearly be defined as indecent (chanting of this nature can result in expulsion from all football stadia), as can chants that feature homophobic and racist remarks. The minority of Manchester United fans that mock the Hillsborough disaster are joined by the miniscule amount of Liverpool followers who sneer at the Munich air tragedy. The ease at which some people ridicule the loss of human life is disturbing and, although the key word in the above sentence is minority, this does not lessen the severity. It is far too often that issues are dismissed because of the relatively small number that take part: the fact that the majority of citizens do not kill others does not mean that we should ease our pursuit of a country with a minimal amount of murders.
Difficulty arises when a chant cannot be categorized as racist or homophobic. This does not mean that it is not offensive, it just makes it much harder to decide whether, like the anti-Campbell chorus, it is worthy of arrest. Michael Shields, a Liverpool fan, who was wrongfully imprisoned in Bulgaria on charges of attempted murder, has been a victim of vicious Manchester United jibes. Before his release in September 2009, United fans revealed their delight at his illegitimate detention, as well as calling for him to receive ten more years in prison and hinting at some of the activities he undertook while locked away. Although not racist or homophobic, the chant is definitely indecent. To scoff at the unrighteousness destruction of part a young man’s life just because he supports a different football team to you is vile and despicable, but should it be punishable with legal charges? Throughout life, people are likely to be upset by personal remarks others make: the police, however, should not be obliged to step in on every occasion.
The eradication of repulsive songs is an awkward job: how can a small number of stewards tackle a large crowd with the instruction that they are to dispose of anyone chanting obscenely? Self-policing has been cited as a potential solution; suggestions that other fans have a responsibility to report the perpetrators are supported by many. While such an arrangement may succeed when dealing with coin-throwers, it is unlikely to work for chanting as this involves a considered opinion. For the most part, people attend football matches to watch the game: they are not present to act as moral observers, nor interpreters or judges of what equates to indecent. When Arsene Wenger is called a paedophile or Emmanuel Adebayor’s parents are attacked, it is not the responsibility of Joe Bloggs to intervene.
The line between acceptable and unacceptable appears to be unidentifiable, something that makes it no easier for the authorities to add to the eleven convictions. Short of a private committee analysing individual chants, it is impossible to draw a divide between what should be tolerated and what should not. Even if such a system was introduced to judge austerity, it could perhaps be damaging. Banter-fuelled chants must not be confused with the shameful variety. Another anti-Liverpool Manchester United chant suggests that Scousers can often be found eating rats in your council house, while the clubs from Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham are frequently labelled as sheep-shaggers. An attempt to ban such playful exchanges would ruin the fans’ recurrent enjoyment. Football terraces are home to clever, cunning and quick-witted songs and the retention of this is vital. Nonetheless, if, over the years, the number of fans charged for chanting indecently grew, it is inevitable that these principles would be challenged.
Clearly, it is all a matter of personal view. The schizophrenic Andy Goram was once subjected to chants of There’s only two Andy Gorams, a song that some saw as brilliant, others cruel. A small number of Stoke City fans shouted You’ve only got one leg to Aaron Ramsey last Sunday. Although most would agree that taunting a nineteen year old because of a shattered limb is unacceptable, not many would call for authoritative action. Videos of the aforementioned Shields and Campbell chants can be found on the internet, despite the prosecution of the fans involved in the latter. If chants of this nature continue, action from the police will undoubtedly increase, along with accountability for actions at a football match. The lawyers are twitching and, whilst friendly banter will never be outlawed, racial, homophobic and all other kinds of unacceptable chanting will be confronted more and more often. Having an involvement in football does not mean it is acceptable for you to be personally abused in any way, regardless of the cost of a match day ticket. Fans should be wary. Anything you do chant may be given in evidence.
Posted by Greg Lea 
