‘Offside’
Exploring the factors that shape violence among male amateur
athletes on the football field
Aline Slijkerman – 11142553 Words: 19,634
Supervisors: Raheel Dhattiwala, Ramón Spaaij
Masters of Science in Sociology, University of Amsterdam Date of submission: July 2017
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
3
Summary
4
1. Introduction
5
2. Sports related violence
10
3. Situational dynamics
13
3.1 Individual factors 13
3.2 Interpersonal dynamics 15
3.3 Club- and Game related factors 17
4. Structural factors
19
4.1 Social control 19
4.2 Social learning 20
5. Methodology
24
5.1 Research method & Data collection: 24
5.2 Respondents 26
5.3 Analysis 28
6. Findings
29
6.1 Sanctioned & Unsanctioned violence 29
6.2 Sources of frustration 31 6.3 Interpersonal dynamics 34 6.4 Troublemakers 39
7. Reflections
45
7.1 Discussion of findings 45 7.2 Limitations 47 7.3 Implications 48 7.4 Conclusion 49References
51
Appendix I – List of respondent
54
Acknowledgements
I would like to express special thanks to all the people who helped me start, realise and complete this research: first of all my respondents for sharing their experiences with me, each of their stories helped me to put the different pieces of the puzzle into place, but also Hafid, Joenoes, Lana and Richard who acted as my gatekeepers and got me in contact with most of the athletes. I would like to thank Astrid Cevaal, David Romijn, Ed Degenkamp, Irene Dekker and Tim ten Ham for their time and expertise; their information helped provide the context to start this research.
An enormous thanks to both my supervisors, Raheel Dhattiwala and Ramon Spaaij. Not only for being critical, patient and providing me with the right feedback and suggestions. But Ramon inspired me and placed sports related violence under my skin, and Raheel kept positive and motivated me, and most of all you gave me the confidence to think and act like a researcher. An invaluable thanks to the best supportive and crazy study-buddy there is, Inge: the coffee-breaks, your emails and motivating talks helped me surviving this thesis (NOAD, we did it!!). Last but not least I would like to thank my family and friends, writing this thesis would have been a real struggle without their caring words and encouragement.
Summary
Every now and then examples of fights on a football field reach the news. In the Netherlands, unsanctioned violence on a sports field is considered to be a specific problem in football. Previous studies provide information about the rise of football spectator violence or give insights from a quantitative approach. However, this work adds a new understanding about the rise of unsanctioned violence from the athletes’ perspective and examines ‘what factors contribute to unsanctioned
violence among male athletes in amateur football in the Netherlands?’.
On the basis of existing literature, different factors were expected to be important. Inspired by the socio-ecological model, those factors were sorted into situational dynamics and structural factors. Situational dynamics include individual factors, interpersonal dynamics, and club- and game related factors. Structural factors are different mechanisms that allow people to adjust to certain values or beliefs. These mechanisms are the theories of social control and social learning.
This study has a qualitative approach, and ten male, adult, football players were interviewed. Their experiences as athletes on an amateur level provided useful information to answer the research question. The main condition that generates the transition from sanctioned to unsanctioned violence is frustration, whereby the perception of bad or unfair performance of the game officials is the biggest source of frustration among athletes. Moreover, several interpersonal dynamics play a role in the rise of violence: aggressive situations in themselves, athletes who are intervening in aggressive situations, and the extent to which athletes are (not) physically dominant over their opponent. The motives for athletes to intervene in a opstootje are their level of frustration, their quest for excitement and the amount of solidarity towards their team mates (whereby the last motive seems to be influenced by ethnicity).
Within this research two elements appear as the most important. Where the role of game officials in most other research is underexposed, this thesis points at the indirect role of the referee and linesmen in the rise of violence. A second important finding is the effect of intervention on the rise of unsanctioned violence; aggressive situations seems to escalate sooner when a third person intervenes. Searching for the factors that contribute to unsanctioned violence, it appears that it is not the institutional hold of football itself that has most influence on the behaviour of the athletes, but there is a variation in the way athletes do(not) participate in violence, which advocates in favour of the mechanism of social learning.
1. Introduction
“Voetbal is oorlog” – Rinus Michels1
With 745,935 games and 1,2 million memberships of the Royal Dutch Football Association in 2015, football has the highest popularity and is by far the most practiced team-sports in the Netherlands (Admiraal & van Genderen, 2016). Football, or sports in general, has its positive aspects:
Sport is a human activity resting on fundamental social, educational and cultural values. It is a factor making for integration involvement in social life, tolerance, acceptance of differences and playing by the rules. (EU Sports Forum, cited in Krouwel, Boonstra, Duyvendak & Veldboer, 2006:168)
However, the football field can also be a location for the occurrence of less positive incidents for athletes. To win the game one needs possession of the ball in order to score more than the opponent. This makes the ball the most desired object during the game. According to Girard such desire for an object can degenerate in a violent outcome; “violence is the process itself when two or more partners try to prevent one another from appropriating the object they all desire through physical or other means“ (Girard, 1979:9). In other words, a certain amount of violence is intrinsic to a game such as football. However, the fact that not every game results in a violent outcome
1 ‘Football is war’ is accredited to Rinus Michels, a Dutch professional football-player and coach (1928-2005).
Although he meant to say that football is like war, and when you play too correctly, you are likely to lose, it is broadly interpreted as a saying that justifies a tough and aggressive playing style as necessary and accepted when you want to win a game, even when this involves yellow or red cards (Van de Vooren, 2015).
indicates that the nature of the game itself is not sufficient to explain violent behaviour. Other factors must play a role in establishing why violence on a sport field manifests or does not manifest.
Since violence has a “special status (…) within the unique context of sports and especially in those sports involving antagonistic physical interaction” (Grange & Kerr, 2010:36), it is important to make a distinction between violent behaviour happening within and outside the rules of the game. Kerr (2010; 2017) divided acts of aggression into sanctioned and unsanctioned incidents. Sanctioned violence includes violent acts permissible within the rules of the game. In football this can include tackling, pulling down or blocking an opponent. Unsanctioned acts are described as “forms of aggression that generally fall outside the written and unwritten rules or laws and player norms, and are therefore unsanctioned in the sports context and usually punished by sports officials” (Grunge & Kerr, 2010:37)2. Examples include punching, biting, spitting and kicking. Describing sanctioned and
unsanctioned violence, Kerr uses aggression and violence interchangeably. Although anger can lead to violent behaviour, it is not a necessary condition for violence (Collins, 2009). Therefore in this work, these are treated as different concepts, whereby aggression3 is determined as a state of mind
and violence as an actual deed.
Within amateur sports, unsanctioned violence mostly occurs in team contact sports. In the Netherlands it appears especially on football fields (Romijn, van Kalmthout & Breedveld, 2015) and is even defined as a football-specific problem (Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2015). Based on the statistics kept by the KNVB (Dutch Football association), the occurrence of unsanctioned violent acts during senior games is estimated at around 75,000 incidents per year, which means that incidents occur in 10% of all senior games per year. Of all registered incidents, 97% are committed by male athletes, which makes violence on the football field principally a case of violent acts of men against other men (Duijvestijn et al., 2013).There are countless examples of different gradations of unsanctioned violence on a football field committed by athletes. A famous example is that of Louis Suarez, a professional football player who was punished several times for biting his opponent during games (Suarez verguisd na bijtincident, 2014). A more extreme example from the last few years is an incident with a referee’s assistant at a youth football match in December 2012; a 41-year old man died after he was beaten and kicked by players of the opposing team (Mishandelde grensrechter overleden, 2012). Both these and less extreme examples reach the news and it is clear that on-field violence amongst athletes is a recurring phenomenon within the football world (Weer geweldsincidenten Amsterdams amateurvoetbal, 2016). Multiple reports about violence and sports in the Netherlands confirm the fact that unsanctioned violence between male football players takes
2 An extensive explanation of different forms of sport related violence is given in chapter 2.
3 Whereby aggression is derived from the emotion anger which “is triggered by a negative belief about
place on a regular base (Tiessen-Raaphorst, Lucassen, van den Dool & van Kalmthout, 2008; Duijvestijn et al., 2013; Romijn et al., 2015). The main approach of these reports is to examine who acts violently, however the approach of this research is why, when and under what circumstances do athletes act violently when two teams are competing against each other.
This work was triggered by the television show ‘Buitenspel’ where the aim was to change the attitudes of the members of three football teams who had shown extremely violent physical behaviour on the football field (Hilbrand, 2016). My own experience as an athlete and a member of a sports club for most of my life provided an important point of departure for this research. Playing handball myself, I have first-hand knowledge of participation in a rough game, but I never witnessed or experienced the progression from the heavy bodily contact in handball into unsanctioned violence. What makes football teams act differently from my own handball team? And how does a leisure situation, with the purpose of providing athletes with fun, excitement and entertainment, denigrate into an event where violence takes the lead? Instead of playing against each other, athletes are fighting against each other, why does football sometimes look like war?
“Once [one] realises that there are multiple motives underlying different forms of violence [we] can develop well-chosen intervention strategies” (Kerr, 2017:89). Hence the research question of this work is:
What factors contribute to unsanctioned violence among male athletes in amateur football in the Netherlands?
To answer the research question I first define sport related violence in general and examines the different angles from which it can be approached, whilst more specifically investigating how violence can be approached within the context of football. The special position of sports related violence is described ant the notion that this is different from violent behaviour outside the context of sports is examined. The assumption that the character of sports influences the acceptance of violence is described and the intention of the action is questioned (Guilbert, 2004; Collins 2008; Anderson, 2010; Grange & Kerr, 2010; Kerr, 2017). This research also presents a definition of the use of the term unsanctioned violence.
Spaaij (2014:153) argues that “no single factor on its own can explain (…) violence (…), [it] emerges from the dynamic interplay between individual, interpersonal, situational, social environmental, and social structural factors” and introduces the socio-ecological model. The
contribution of the model is that the different factors do not act on their own, but should be brought together to “integrate structural explanations with analyses of immediate origins and experiences of the act” (Spaaij, 2014:149). Spaaij uses the model in the context of sports crowd violence, but it appears that most of the dimensions seem to offer a relevant explanation for athlete violence as well. Hence I decided to drew upon the socio-ecological model to structure the relevant concepts explaining athlete violence, and decided to divide possible risk factors leading to unsanctioned violence into situational dynamics and structural factors.
The first part of situational dynamics describes individual factors. Here I explained how a change in the motivational condition of the perpetrator can cause a change in the nature of violence and how this can transform sanctioned into unsanctioned violence (Kerr, 2017). This is followed by focussing on the interpersonal dynamics between the athletes. This can involve the dynamics within one’s own team, but also the interaction between opposing teams, or the interaction with the game officials (Collins, 2008; Spaaij, 2014). Those dynamics can be explained by the mechanism of interaction ritual theory, and following Collins (2004; 2008) I am explaining how different emotional dynamics can create a situation where the conditions for violence are being met. An alternative interpersonal dynamic can occurs when hostility between teams is triggered by false beliefs about the opponent. For example, native Dutch may perceive a non-native Dutch opponent to profess a racial dislike, which may not be the case, but can trigger a hostile reaction from the former. The same can occur with match-officials such as referees and linesmen (Stott & Reicher, 1998; Biggs, 2009). This process is also known as a self-fulfilling prophecy and described as “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false conception come true” (Merton, 1948:195). In my initial interviews, some evidence pointed to interethnic hostility. Although this is not the main question of this research, the factor was kept in mind while interviewing respondents. In the third part of situational dynamics club- and game factors are described, and it is pointed out how game-related factors and club-related factors can play a role. This includes the meaning and significance of matches (to what extent are matches emotionally charged?), but also the athletes perception of the performance of game officials and the role of risk-clubs (Duijvestijn et al., 2013; Spaaij, 2014).
Structural factors are the factors that are ‘stable’, or fixed. These are the same for every game and do not change spontaneously, or in the short term. The importance of structural factors lies in the fact that they provide conditions wherein certain violent behaviour is accepted. How and which conditions within sports influence the individual’s behaviour can be explained both from the social control and the social learning theory. The social control theory describes the institutional hold on the individual. Due to institutional bonds with the team or the club, participation in sport is seen
as a means of discouraging deviant behaviour, and is often used to define the positive influence of sports (Kreager, 2007b). Social learning, on the other hand, underlines the influence of other individuals and indicates that attitudes vary because individuals have different peer groups with different values (Kreager, 2007a). There is evidence supporting social learning influences in athlete violence as well, whereby a main explanatory factor lies in the concept of masculinity (Messner, 1992). The way masculinity is perceived can influence the perception of achieving honour and coping with shame, but also how we look at athletes and judge violence in sport.
Examination of the research question ‘What factors contribute to unsanctioned violence among male athletes in amateur football in the Netherlands?’ and existing literature resulted in the following sub-questions:
1) How do athletes perceive aggression and violence on the sports field?
2) What situational factors lead some athletes to engage in violence and others not? 3) Do interpersonal dynamics play a role in the arise of violence on the sports field?
4) How do the social environment and the social structural factors influence athletes’ behaviour on the field?
To find out which factors contribute to unsanctioned violence among amateur football players, a qualitative research approach is employed with the main focus on interviews. This decision was taken not simply because of the limited availability of time and data are limited, but more importantly, to obtain a better insight into the athletes’ perspectives. This provided the opportunity to anticipate the playing style of the interviewee, (is he an aggressive player yes/ no, does he use a lot of unsanctioned violence during a game yes/ no?) and how interactions with team members and opponent are experienced. It was considered that that my own experience as a sports person would help me establish a relationship of trust with the respondents and enable access to the right data to address the my research question.
2. Sports related violence
“The definition of sports-related violence is the subject of academic debate. There is no universally agreed upon scholarly definition of violence in sports. The literature reveals diverging conceptions of sports violence, ranging from minimalist to comprehensive. The term “sports violence” is frequently used in a cover-all sense, in which various forms of deviant or criminal behavior are lumped together to refer to acts that threaten the social fabric” (Spaaij, 2014: 147).
Violent actions on a sports field can be seen as a form of deviant behaviour. Whether it will be seen as deviant, depends on the reaction of the people involved. What makes certain violence within sports acceptable and unacceptable, is not the act in itself but the response to the act (Becker, 1953). Anderson (2010) describes this with an example where he wonders why a fight on the street is called a gang-fight and men might get arrested, but when two teams fight on a sports field, it is called a ‘team brawl’ and the only punishments are an amount of time penalties. He asks “why can one get away with committing acts of grievous bodily injury in one context, but not another?”. Spaaij (2014:149) answers this question by stating that “sport can be viewed as a relatively autonomous social world with its own allowable rule-violations”. This is of great importance as it points out that violent behaviour in sports has a different position to that outside the context of sports. Seeing violent behaviour as ‘part of the game’ gives violence within sports a different status to violence outside the context of sports.
Sports related violence does not only concerns acts of aggression between athletes of two opposing teams. Examples of interpersonal violence within football can include violent behaviour of a trainer or coach against his athletes, often thought of as abuse, or forcing players to physically go beyond their limits. It also involves violence among teammates (abuse, particular initiation-processes). However, acts of violence can also be personal, where an athlete is using violence against his or her own body; such as playing with an injury, or the use of doping (Anderson, 2010). This form violence can be caused because by pressure from the team, the coach or parents to perform well. However, individual motives such as the importance of keeping up an appearance as the strong almighty athlete, or the sense of belonging to a group, can be reasons too (Ibid.; Fields et al., 2007).
This research does not focus on the interpersonal violence described in the previous paragraph, but concentrates on incidents happening within the context of the game, whereby two teams are competing against each other. Grange and Kerr argue that “in the sports context, aggression is provoked in the sense that two opposing teams have willingly agreed to compete against each other” (2010:37).
When considering sports related violence, it is essential to recognize that the amount of violence intrinsic to the game differs between sports. Guilbert (2004) subdivides violence within sports into three classes: hard violence sports, soft violence sports, and sports where violence does not exist or is hidden. ‘Hard violence sports’ are sports that require physical contact, whereby the aim is to bodily harm the opponent, such as combat sports. On the other hand, there are sports that imply physical contact, but the aim is to achieve an object. Bodily harming your opponent is not the main goal, however, winning can require damage of the opponent, as in the case of rugby, basketball and football. It is especially these team contact sports that lead to unsanctioned violence or, as Collins terms it “extracurricular fighting” (Collins 2008:286). Examples of soft violence sports are table tennis, tennis or volleyball; sports whereby the purpose is to send a ball inside one particular area but the opponents are being separated by a net and there is no physical contact during the game. And sports where violence does not exist or is hidden are mainly individual sports, such as swimming or shooting, whereby “every man sticks to his lane, his position” (Guilbert, 2004:51). This is important because hard violence sports contain actions that are not far removed from actual fights and therefore it is more likely these sports develop into fights than soft violence sports or sports where violence does not exist or is hidden.
Hard violence sports, that imply physical contact to achieve an object, have an amount of rules and penalties to regulate which physical contact, or violence is acceptable within the game and which is not. However, the fact that there are rules and penalties against violent behaviour implies a certain acceptance within sports to use those fouls. “Penalties allow for a form of protected violence (….) [and] are ways of making violence possible” (Collins, 2008:290). This allows sports to create an environment where the use of violence is tolerated and seen as acceptable and necessary, and this can be seen as confirmed by the approval within sports to foul an opponent, rather than let them score, even when this is a rather unfair foul; “the structure of the sport (the need for one’s team to win) creates the culture of the sport (acceptable violence)” (Anderson, 2010:67).
The extent to which violence is actually accepted or not, depends not only on the kind of sports but also on the character of the action. Anderson (2010) argues that legitimate violence within sports are violent acts accepted within the rules of the game, this is part of the game and can be defined as a ‘fair-foul’. Also referred to as sanctioned violence, or play-aggression, “generally the
sanctioned aggressive acts are not intended to injure or harm opponent” (Grange & Kerr, 2017:37). On the contrary, illegitimate violence “occurs in purposeful fouls against an opponent: committing an act prohibited by the rules of the sport” (Anderson, 2010:67). These are actions that are less acceptable because of their unfair characteristics. Grange and Kerr label illegitimate violence as unsanctioned violence, which they subdivide into three categories: power-aggression, anger-aggression and thrill-anger-aggression (Grange and Kerr, 2017). However, the line Grange and Kerr draw is not always as clear as it seems and distinguishing between sanctioned and unsanctioned violence can be rather difficult. For example a tackle, which is an act of play-violence, can be seen as part of the game because it is committed within the rules of the game. However, when motivated by frustration and with the intention to harm the opponent, this becomes an example of unsanctioned violence. In addition, it is not only about the intention of the perpetrator, but also as Becker (1953) suggests, the perception of the ‘victim’; an action seen by one athlete as relatively harmless and as an act of sanctioned violence, can be perceived by another athlete (or the referee) as an act of unsanctioned violence.
Within this research, I decided to use the term unsanctioned violence, because the situations described and examined are those intended to injure or harm an opponent and take place outside the rules of the game. It is important to keep in mind when reading this thesis that this research is not about fouls and the extent to which they are accepted, but it is about anti-social behaviour such as kicking, biting, hitting and purposely harming the opponent on the football field, whereby possession of the ball is not the main goal anymore.
3. Situational dynamics
“Start with the dynamics of situations; from this we can derive almost everything that we want to know about individuals” Collins (2004:76).
3.1 Individual factors
Although this theory is interpreted as a psychological approach, Kerr’s explanation of reversal theory can be used to understand how athletes can switch between sanctioned and unsanctioned violence. This is based on a qualitative approach whereby Kerr studied the perception and personal involvement of participants in rugby violence.
“Reversal theory is about the inconsistency of human behavior. It explains why sports spectators [or athletes] may conform to rule expectations in one context, but revert to violence in others” (Spaaij, 2014:150). The main concept of reversal theory is that there are four pairs of so called ‘meta-motivational’ states, whereby each pair has its own explanation for acts of aggression. Two important principles of reversal theory are that only one pair of states can be active at any time, and that an athlete can change between states as a result of reversals.
Kerr (2017) links the different types of sanctioned and unsanctioned violence with respective combinations of motivational states (see Table 1). Hence play violence is a combination of enjoyment of the process in the moment with transacting power and control. On the contrary anger violence is a motivational mixture of achievement with the wish to be free and push against existing structures and often involves an immediate response to something an opponent has done. Power violence “can take the form of intimidation in order to subjugate and dominate a rival player or team where ‘the means justifies the end’” (Kerr, 2017:81). Thrill violence can be linked with the ‘quest for excitement’, as Apter (1992) describes: “opportunities for people to take risks have been shrinking in recent decades. This has led to a search for excitement in activities that carry a degree of personal risk, yet within a ‘protective frame’ within which they judge themselves to be safe” (cited in Spaaij & Anderson, 2010).
“Changes in state combinations occur over time as a result of reversals” (Ibid.:81). The reversals of motivational states are triggered by three different conditions: frustration, saturation and contingent events or particular settings (Kerr, 2017; Spaaij, 2014). Hence the motivational state of an athlete can change as a result of frustration, for example, and thereby the type of violence will
also change. For example, play violence can turn into anger violence when a player gets frustrated by feeling mistreated by the opponent or the referee, or play violence can turn into thrill violence when the motivation of athletes is reversed by spectators (contingent event). The presence of spectators and their encouragement of athletes, can switch the motivation of players from an action whereby the special context of sports is on the foreground, into an action motivated by the intention to provoke a violent response from the opponent.
Type of violence Sanctioned/
unsanctioned Description
Play violence Sanctioned Acts of aggression permitted within the special context of sport
Anger violence Unsanctioned Often an immediate reactive response to an opponent’s action
Power violence Unsanctioned Acts of intimidation intended to injure or dominate an opponent
Thrill violence Unsanctioned Engaged in to provoke a violent response from an opponent just for the thrill of what ensues Table 1: Descriptions and examples of the four types of violence in sport adapted from Grange and Kerr (2010) (Kerr, 2017:82).
Although all four states are possible, it is generally found that the individual has the tendency to be one kind of a person rather than another. Duijvestijn et al. (2013) describe this pattern by stating that they identified two kinds of perpetrators of unsanctioned violence on a football field. There is the ‘obvious perpetrator’ (also referred to as ‘short-fuse’ – in Dutch kort lontje), who is a person who is well known for aggressive behaviour on a regular base, regardless of the surroundings (Duijvestijn et al., 2013). In addition, there is the ‘incidental perpetrator’, a person with an unaffected reputation from whom nobody expects an unsanctioned violent act. The ‘incidental perpetrator’ can be considered as an athlete who normally only commits acts of sanctioned violence, but when triggered by one of the conditions, responds in a different way. However, it seems that the ‘obvious perpetrator’ is a person whose violence is motivated by one of the unsanctioned types of violence.
3.2 Interpersonal dynamics
Interaction ritual theory
During the action of a football game, several interpersonal dynamics take place that influence the occurrence of violence; interaction within one’s own team, between the competing teams, between the athletes and the game officials, and between the people who participate on the field and persons who are standing beside/ outside the field. One mechanism to approach interactions and interpersonal dynamics is that of the interaction ritual theory (Collins, 2004; Spaaij, 2014). According to Collins this is the most important starting point to approach violence because “a theory of interaction ritual is the key to microsociology, and microsociology is the key to much that is larger (…) The centre of the micro sociological explanation is not the individual but the situation” (Collins, 2004:75). The situation and the laws and processes within a situation provide the basis for interaction ritual theory.
When mentioning factors that contribute to the rise of sports violence, Collins describes three kinds of emotional dynamics. With the first dynamic, Collins refers to Durkheim and describes collective effervescence, this involves the interaction between the spectators and describes a process whereby the sports crowd experiences a build us of dramatic tension which creates group energy and solidarity. Athletes can experience a similar emotion or ‘chemistry’ which Collins (2008:285) calls emotional resonances, a dynamic that keeps “the team coordinated as well as energetic”. The third dynamic is that of the emotional energy and describes the interaction between athletes and their opponents; whereby the main question is who will become emotionally dominant; “the player or team who gains EE wins at the point where the opponent loses EE. These are the emotional turning points of a game” (Ibid.). In Collins’ description it is not these dynamics that cause violence, but they create a situation where violence can occur.
When athletes actually engage in violence they first have to cross the barrier of confrontational tension and fear. The barrier of confrontational tension and fear is the emotional state experienced when a person is in a violence-threatening situation and which holds the person back from using violence. According to Collins, anger is not enough to cross that barrier and it is the dynamics of interaction in situations that makes the attacker confront a target that causes violence. Within sports Collins indicates two main features that predict violence. The first is “the extent to which violent moves and threats are incorporated into the game action itself”. With this he means the influence of penalty regimes, and the fact that “penalties allow for a form of protected violence (…) penalties are ways of making violence possible, overcoming confrontational tension /fear by
socially organising the violence in a limited form” (Collins, 2008:290). As the second feature, he mentions the “extent to which players are protected from being hurt” (Ibid.).
According to Collins football does not provide a context where unsanctioned violence should occur, and he links this to the extent to which players are protected from being hurt and the penalty structures of the game (2008:290). However, the fact that unsanctioned violence in the Netherlands mostly occurs on the football field, means that the situational factors described by Collins (who takes the North American sports culture as an example) have a different effect when structural factors change. This illustrates the fact that when looking for explanatory factors for unsanctioned violence within sports, approaching the issue from a sole dimension is not sufficient.
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Another mechanism that influences interpersonal dynamics (between teams, but also between athletes and game officials) is that of the self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP). The SFP can be described as “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false conception come true” (Merton, 1948:195), whereby people not only react to objective structures around them, but also take into consideration the significance of the particular situation. Merton’s main point is the influence of the SFP on discrimination and ethnic prejudices. He argues that the theory can play an important role in relations between ethnic groups. The way we think about out-groups is not specifically in terms of a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ will towards this group, but these appear to be “irresistible products of their own observation” (Ibid:196). Biggs points this out even more clearly by adding that “actors within the process fail to understand how their own belief has helped to construct that reality” (Biggs, 2009:295).
Spaaij (2014) explains the role of the SFP on sports related violence, with the example of ‘police-crowd interaction’, where he discusses the role of “the dynamics between spectators and agents of social control”. The way sports crowds are treated by the police has an influence on the behaviour of that crowd. This example is more extensively described by Stott and Reicher (1998). In their analysis, they show how the assumption of the Italian police that English football fans were violent, eventually led to a reactive conflict between the two groups. They “propose a model in which the nature of group norms and group conflict are a consequence of the developing interactions between the two groups” (Stott & Reicher, 1998:353) and explain that it is not the individual characteristics or predispositions that explain fan violence, but the interaction between the police and the crowd that causes violent behaviour. Transferring this to on-field violence by athletes ‘crowd’ can be replaced by ‘athletes’, and the ‘agents of social control’ by game officials. Whereby the importance lies in the expectations of the athletes’ behaviour by the officials. The SFP
is not just a dynamic that can take place between athletes and game officials, but also between teams. Assumptions from one team about its opponent’s behaviour, could also evoke a new behaviour, which eventually fulfils those beliefs. However, Stott and Reicher do not explain the nature of the condition which gets the crowd over the threshold and drives them to actually use violence. Krouwel, Boonstra, Duyvendak and Veldboer (2006) give another explanation for incidents between athletes from different origins, and state that violent encounters between different ethnicities within football can be explained “by the fact that uncomfortable inter-ethnic encounters in public spaces and other social spheres are imported into (…) sport activities” (2006:176). What they mean is that tensions from outside the sports field are having influence on the contact that takes place during sports and that inter-ethnic encounters in sport reproduce tensions that are actually rooted in other societal spheres.
3.3 Club- and Game related factors
By explaining the rise of violence on and around football fields in existing reports, the role of risk-clubs and their particular type of members are mentioned. Risk-risk-clubs are football risk-clubs that, according to the KNVB, commit unsanctioned violence annually or even monthly. This is measured by the number of violent incidents reported to the KNVB and the amount of yellow and red cards clubs during a season. According to the sport policy maker interviewed, the label ‘risk-club’ does not always fit the situation, and being classified as such does not mean clubs are constantly involved in violent incidents. For example, clubs who play at a higher level, have better trained referees who tend to issue cards faster than less well trained referees. (Duijvesteijn et al., 2013). Risk-clubs generally have a large proportion of members with a low socio-economic status and a so called ‘kort lontje’ (‘short-fuse’), described earlier as the ‘obvious perpetrator’ (a person who is easily angered and well known for aggressive behaviour on a regular base, regardless of its surroundings (Ibid.)). Apart from the low SES of the membership, there are financial and organisational problems amongst the other significant element which define risk-clubs. Clubs who are having financial or administrative problems are more prone to violent incidents themselves then clubs who do not have these problems. This situation arises since the former clubs generally do not have the time or the means to cope with the deviant behaviour of their players, or to create frameworks to prevent it.
Game-related factors can differ and are worth taking into consideration as another explanatory factor. Spaaij considers two key factors related to games: the “meaning and significance of the match and the relationship between the contestants” and the “perception of the performance
of game officials” (2014:151). In relation to the meaning and significance of a match, Duijvestijn et al. (2013) observed three different kinds of situations. The first occurs in matches that contain an increased sense of risk and are emotionally charged because they involves a derby (match between two clubs from the same town or region, so a lot of prestige is at stake). There are also matches where a lot is at stake because the teams play for promotion or relegation. Finally, matches can also be emotionally charged because of earlier confrontations where problems between the teams arose. Another important element of game factors is the perception of the performance of game officials. Officials who make dubious decisions or pretend not to be neutral, can be the “igniter” for athletes to act violently (Duijvestijn et al., 2013; Spaaij, 2014). This can happen either directly after the decision, where the violence is generally aimed at the official(s) themselves, or indirectly, where poor decisions build up the players’ level of frustration and this creates a basis for violence to occur faster (Duijvestijn et al., 2013:29).
4. Structural factors
Behaviour can be approached from different viewpoints, depending on the extent to which anti-social behaviour occurs and persons adjust to certain values. “The anti-social environment comprises the social organization and culture of sport which can encourage aggressive and sometimes violent behavior by players and spectators” (Spaaij, 2014:152). Existing literature defines both the positive and the negative influence of sports. Kreager discusses the two central themes explaining how sports can influence behaviour. On one hand “interscholastic athletics [can] have a positive impact on adolescent development” and scholars have found a “negative relationship between sports participation and delinquent behavior” (Kreager, 2007a:705-6). On the other hand, there is evidence that sport promotes principles such as homophobia, sexism, racism and ruthless competition, whereby physical aggression on the field is rewarded, which in the long run can “encourage masculine identities founded on physical aggression and domination” (Ibid.:706). In summary, sports can both increase and decrease anti-social behaviour.
4.1 Social control
Messner mentions that in the early days, sport was seen as a way to ‘build character’ and that games such as boxing and rugby “were justified ideologically, partly as training grounds for war, partly in terms of their use in the education of military and administrative leaders in Britain’s expanding empire” (1992:15). More specific contributions of athletics were the “development of a competitive spirit, ability to cooperate, sportsmanship, good manners, courage, a greater capacity for delay of gratification, persistence, resistance to pain and fatigue, and a release from tension and aggressive impulses” (Landers & Landers, 1978:299). Sports in this case generates and strengthens institutional bonds which inhibit violent behaviour. The general perspective of the social control theory considers sports as a means to increasingly bond adolescents to schools, or enable adolescents to socialise and integrate the basic values of life, and help to curb antisocial behaviour. From this perspective, the violent behaviour of athletes is explained by “a lack of social integration that frees an athlete to behave violently” (Kreager, 2007a:707). However, bonding people together and having a positive pedagogical effect on its participants are not the only effects of sport. There is also evidence that
participation in sports has negative outcomes on the perception of people in relation to the definition of violence within sports. In the case of social control, individuals are effected by the values of their group, but do not internalise them. The values of the subgroup does not become the values of the individual, however the individual is showing the respective behaviour (Felson, Liska, South, McNulty, 1994). The most important factor to explain the social control mechanism according to Felson et al. (1994) is self-presentation or impression management. This means that “when a person has been attacked or wronged in some other way, some audiences may expect an aggressive response. By retaliating the actor saves face or maintains ‘honor’“(Felson et al., 1994:157). This is describing a situation whereby an athlete does not think it is normal to deliberately harm the opponent, however feels that he should do so because everybody else does, and it is what his team expect him to do.
Social “control perspectives assume that the motivation to commit delinquent acts is constant across persons and that group norms supportive of crime are weak or non-existent” (Kreager, 2007a:707), which fits in with the ideas that “sport builds character” and let youth participate in sports and they will get back on track. However, one important point is that not everybody behaves similarly within sports; some athletes commit violent acts whilst others do not. Sport also has the capability to teach its participants anti-social behaviour. The social control perspective assumes that the motivation to show unsanctioned violent behaviour is constant across athletes and that group norms supportive of crime are weak or non-existent (Kreager, 2007a). However, athletes sometimes do act in a deviant manner and show behaviour which does not fit with the norms and values of the institution ‘sports’. Does this mean that violence is so intrinsic to sports that approaching unsanctioned violence by athletes from this theory, would mean that there are institutional bonds in ‘sports’ itself which create an environment that encourages participants to behave in a deviant manner?
4.2 Social learning
Unlike the social control theory, the social learning perspective allows for subgroup variations in the attitudes towards unsanctioned violence (Kreager, 2007a). According to this perspective, any behaviour is learned within social interaction, including both pro-social as well as deviant behaviour and “individuals are thought to internalise the values of their group and then behave accordingly” (Felson et al., 1994:157). Kreager (2007a:708) mentions the influence of the social learning theory on the case of violence within sports and argues that “individual violence and delinquency are thus
assumed to emanate from continual and reciprocal processes of social observation, attitude internalisation, and real and perceived reinforcement from the behaviour of self and others”. It is especially the bond with the group and the interactions within the group that create the values and attitudes of individuals. Interaction with others has a considerable influence on the behaviour of an individual. This is particularly noticeable in small groups (e.g. for an athlete this can be the team), which generate a more extensive interaction amongst members than large social masses. Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce and Radosevich (1979:638) add that besides interaction, and influence by the group, differential reinforcement is another important aspect of social learning; “whether deviant or conforming behaviour is acquired and persists, depends on past and present rewards or punishments for the behaviour and the rewards and punishments attached to alternative behavior” Within the context of football this can mean types of unsanctioned violence (such as pulling the opponent down when he is heading for the goal) can persist because they are accepted by the team, its coach and the club. Group rules can vary between different milieus and conforming to the values of one milieu can mean accepting values that are in conflict with the rules in other contexts. This can be seen in the example of a youth’s conformity with the values of peers, which conflicts with the values of the school (Davies, 1999). Within this context, the most influential groups are the peer-group of friends and the family, whose positive (rewarding) or negative (avoidance/ punishment) reinforcement have the largest influence on social behaviour.
Instead of curbing antisocial behaviour, some research states that “the hyper-masculine cultural characteristics of many contact sports teach violence as an acceptable means of maintaining valued male identities” (Kreager, 2007a:706). One example of this learned behaviour is ‘masculinity’.
Masculinity
Masculinity is significant to mention in the context of football and violence in two aspects. First of all, there is the physical aspect, where more ‘masculine’ means that the athlete is physically stronger than his opponent. Secondly there is the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’, which influences the image held of men. This can mean the image of ‘athletes’ itself, but it also influences the perception of men’s position in society, and this is likely to have a larger impact on men in a marginalized social position.
Hegemonic masculinity can be described as the ideal type of masculinity, or a culturally dominant concept of the requirements that a man is expected to fulfil.
Hegemonic masculinity, the form dominant today, is defined in relation to various subordinated masculinities as well as in relation to femininities. The gender order
is thus a social system that is constantly being created, contested and changed; in relationships and power struggles between men and women as well as between men and men. (Messner, 1992:18)
With the help of the media, commercial sport provides a representation of masculinity, and it is the confrontational body contact sports “which function as an endlessly renewed symbol of masculinity” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005:833). This means that athletes are viewed as people who have to be “tough, strong, aggressive, courageous and able to withstand pain” (Anderson, 2010:63). By approaching athletes this way, sport provides an environment where the use of violence is seen as an acceptable means and failing to behave in this manner can deny men from being accepted within the world of sports.
The lack of certain elements such as money and/ or a high social status which hinders the achievement of this ideal type of masculinity, can induce marginalised men from lower social classes to use violence to compensate for this shortcoming. This argument agrees with the explanation given by Duijvestijn et al. (2013), where they state that it is chiefly the members of the risk-clubs who have a low social and economic status that are causing violence. Kreager (2007b) expands on the idea that violence is used as a means to enhance status and how this depends on the location of an individual within the cultural milieu. In this way, he provides an overview of variables that are seen as factors that effects the violence-status-relationship but he also found evidence that it is not class, socio-economic status, race or level of education that make a significant difference when it comes to using violence as a way to achieve a higher status. This means academic achievement is the important moderator of the violence-status relationship. “Lack of success in school, more so than racial or economic background, contributes to males being embedded in peer networks that allocate status benefits for violent behaviors” (Kreager, 2007b:909). Seeing unsanctioned violence as an act influenced by the concept of masculinity, Kreager’s findings suggest we should not look at the societal position of the perpetrator, but to what extent he is successful within this position.
When applying the concept of hegemonic masculinity to the case of marginalised men, literature illustrates several reasons for the role of masculinity in the initiation violence by men against other men, with the principal accent being on honour. According to Polk “extreme violence in defence of honour is definitively masculine” (1994:188) and he states that it is due to their biological nature that men find themselves in a position to prove their masculinity through rivalry. From a young age boys determine situations and hierarchy through physical activities. On the one hand this hierarchy gives boys clarity and thereby a feeling of safety (Delfos, 2004). However, having a marginalised position within society and lacking the elements that connect to the ideal type of
masculinity can produce feelings of dishonour. Treadwell and Garland (2011) add the socio-psychological factor of shame and being unrecognised to the idea of using violence as a means to obtain respect and authority. The fact that there are no other sources to prove their masculinity in combination with the feeling of being neglected is projected and transformed on to an out-group, and in the case of football this out-group can be the opponent (Ray, Smith, & Wastell, 2004; Treadwell & Garland, 2011). Scheff (2011) also considers the role that shame plays in the use of violence. He cites that potential causes associated with the emotions such as “[a]lienation and unacknowledged shame, spiraling with anger and/ or more shame, can result in a feedback loop ending in unlimited withdrawal of violence” (Ibid.:459). It should be noted that Scheff is describing a theory of serial killing, which (it is hoped) is different from unsanctioned violent behaviour on a sports field. Nonetheless, it appears that lack of honour and feelings of shame have a great contribution to the use of violence by men who occupy a marginalised position in society.
Lack of honour and feelings of shame and non-contribution are also described at the group level. In this sense, the use of disorder and violence can be seen as a collective cultural protest against dominant middle class culture and a means to maintain some kind of a reputation for marginalised men in a lower social class (Tomsen,1997; Polk, 1994). As Elias and Dunning point out: “fighting both within and between such groups, is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of reputations in terms of their standards of aggressive masculinity” (Elias & Dunning, 1986:235). The difference between defending one’s own honour and that of the group, is that within group the individual plays an accessory role, while any player of the opponent team represents the enemy and needs to be taken down (Elias & Dunning, 1986). In addition, “race relations may also become an integral part of the dynamic between masculinities. In a white-supremacist context, black [minority] masculinities play symbolic roles for white gender construction” (Connell, 2005:80). This can explain why a team with members who feel they have a marginalised position in society (for example minority groups as Turkish or Moroccan teams) feel a stronger urge to show aggressive masculinity, and playing in ethnically homogeneous teams can reinforce this feeling of defending the group honour (Krouwel et al., 2006).
5. Methodology
5.1 Research method & Data collection:
Context
In order to obtain a clear view of the nature and extent of on-field violence in a systematic and objective manner, the start of my research was to clarify the context of violence within sports and football in particular. Therefore, contact was made with the sports department of the City of Amsterdam, the KNVB (Dutch football association), the Mulier Institute (an independent, non-profit, scientific sport-research institute) and VSK (‘Towards a safer sport environment’). Access to experts of the City of Amsterdam and VSK were secured through a contact of the UvA. A networking role was played by the VSK who provided contact details of experts from the KNVB and the Mulier Institute.
Since it was not clear which expert had access to what kind of information, I choose for a semi-structured interview style, whereby the main focus was on unsanctioned violence as a football problem, the risk factors leading to unsanctioned violence within sports (and football particularly) and the definition of risk-clubs and their players. It was also hoped to obtain access to more recent and detailed statistical data about violence within sports; knowing when, how, by whom and how much violence is happening would help answering the question why this is happening. Unfortunately, none of the experts could provide additional data to the reports that had already been accessed.
Interviews
To prepare for the interviews and to obtain a better picture of on-field violence, the internet was searched for videos. Watching these incidents (in mostly professional football) gave me a better understanding of the process of violent incidents caused by athletes and enabled me as the interviewer to ask more specific questions about the situational surroundings of the incidents described by my respondents.
Dale (as cited in Biddle et al., 2001:794) states that “it seems by asking all the participants the same questions (…) we are assuming all participants will find each topic figural in their experience. Rather what might be relevant for one person in his or her experience might not be at all relevant for another”. Therefore a semi-structured way of interviewing was selected to explore the players’
experiences. A total of ten adult male players were interviewed. The interviews took between thirty minutes and one hour. The interviews were recorded with on a phone, each of them starting with an oral confirmation by the respondent that it was okay to be recorded and that it was understood what the purpose of the interview was.
The interview questions could be divided into four main themes. These were the ‘warm-up’ questions, the athletes’ perception of unsanctioned violence, their own experience and escalating/ de-escalating factors. All interviews started with ‘warm-up’ questions about sports and football in general, and some more specific questions about the respondent’s sports career; for how long has the athlete been playing football; the level of competition; hours of training; level of competition through the career; position on the field; composition of the team; how this year’s competition was going, etc. This provided some background information about the player and functioned also as a way to create rapport. After this I asked more specific about on-field violence. It was important to find out what the respondents perceived as illegitimate or unsanctioned violence and what they considered as legitimate or sanctioned violence and was still part of the game for them. To what extent did they have experience of aggressive situations and, or fights and which factors triggered them to play an escalating or a de-escalating role within those incidents. In addition, the discussion included encounters which are emotionally charged.
Conducting the interviews, I was helped by my own experiences as an athlete in a twofold manner. First of all, my involvement in team sports for most of my life, helped me understand the context and dynamics of being member of a club and part of a team. And although I did not play football but handball, talking about my own experiences as an athlete and what frustrated me during play, provided me some ‘street credibility’ and seemed to give me a level of informal recognition which enabled the respondents to open up (MacPhail, 2004). I obtained the best reactions when I communicated these comments or stories in a less politically correct way and additionally used sport terms. This was helpful especially in the beginning of the interview, because at that point the respondents had the tendency to talk in the third person when discussing incidents, giving the impression that they were cautious about what to say. However, this changed during the interview and by the end most of them felt they were comfortable enough to be honest about their experiences.
5.2 Respondents
Sample
The initial idea was to interview athletes from risk-clubs as well as non-risk clubs. Risk-clubs are football clubs that, according to the KNVB, are classified on the basis of members who commit unsanctioned violence annually or even monthly. However, this distinction did not seem relevant any more when it was found while conducting the interviews that athletes from non-risk clubs were able to describe on-field violent incidents as well. It was also more difficult than expected to get in contact with risk-clubs and their athletes (as described in the next section). In this context, it should be noted that none of the players interviewed are members of a club defined as a risk-club by the KNVB. Therefore, there could be differences between the players of risk-clubs and non-risk clubs which would not be recognised in this work.
When selecting the respondents the two most important criteria were age (18 years or older) and level of competition (any level within the amateurs). Over 18 was selected as a criterion because from that age athletes play at the senior level. Younger respondents would have still been playing at the youth level, which could involve different circumstances of supervision, etc. The choice of amateur level was not simply a practical decision in the sense that amateurs are easier to approach then professionals, but it was also expected that that professional clubs pay more attention to the prevention of on-field violence. This expectation was confirmed by the respondents: the higher the level of competition, the more attention paid to the prevention of on-field violence. However, within these criteria there was still some variations. In the context of the level of competition, two players were interviewed (with- and without migration background) who play on an amateur level now, but had previous experience playing football at a professional level. These interviews were particularly useful to understand how former professionals perceived structures on the amateur level and gave an insights into the differences between the two levels.
Furthermore the respondents were selected on the basis of certain individual characteristics (for an overview see appendix I). Although most of the respondents were between their early twenties and early thirties, one had reached the age of 48. This former forwarder had helpful information in two ways; on the one hand he had a lot of experience as an athlete and might have seen things change over time. On the other hand, he is now an assistant coach and sees on-field violence from a different perspective to players.. One respondent (22 year old defender S.) was approached because he got, compared with his teammates, the most red and yellow cards by far (something noticed when looking up his team on the internet). This presented the question whether the number of cards was an indicator for violent behaviour. The last two interviews conducted were with two players from the same club; one playing in the first team (the flagship of the club) and the
other in the reserve team. Curiosity about the differences of playing in different levels within the same club, provided the opportunity to speak with both of them (separately).
Overall there was an attempt to differentiate between levels of education and class, however the majority of the respondents are highly educated and none of the respondents appeared to have a low SES. Four of the respondents have a migrant background. All their parents were born in Morocco but have Dutch passports themselves. As far as the respondents had experience of being violent themselves, none of them gave the impression of being an ‘obvious perpetrator’, but there seemed to be more examples of ‘incidental perpetrators’ (Duijvestijn et al., 2013)
Access to respondents
Different strategies were employed to try to obtain access to the respondents. The first strategy was assisted by the City of Amsterdam, who provided the names and contact details of football clubs in Amsterdam with some sort of history of violent incidents. An email was written to all eight clubs explaining the research and asking whether they were interested in participating. In order not to scare them off with terms such as ‘on-field violence’ the description of the research was in general terms and the main subject described ‘group-processes’. It was offered to provide a more extensive explanation if they had the interest and time to participate. This approach did not work well, with only two responses, neither of which were interested in providing athletes. The question arose whether the clubs would have reacted differently to a more open and clear exposition of the theme of the research with more specific requirements of what was expected from them as a club and the amount of anonymity. Furthermore, with a more extensive timeframe, a more successful strategy would have been to visit the club on days their teams played at home and approach members of the board personally instead of via email. This could have increased the chances of a positive response. However, clubs who have had some incidents in the past might not be very eager to talk about it. Besides, the football world is not particularly fond of washing dirty linen in public (Romijn, van Kalmthout & Breedveld, 2015).
The second strategy was to approach athletes directly, instead through the board of their club. This took place mostly by personal contact and in this way it was possible to make contact with most of the respondents. However, this tactic only provided a single player with a migrant background (actually two, but one cancelled at the last minute). At this point an approach was made to the organization “West beweegt” which carries out a lot of sports projects with youths and young adults in Amsterdam-West, a part of Amsterdam that has a large number of citizens from migrant
background. They were very interested in the topic and were able to provide contact with three football players from migrant backgrounds.
5.3 Analysis
The interviews took place over a period of five weeks. Transcribing the interviews began over the same period, so it was possible to use important details from earlier interviews in the ones which had not taken place yet. All the interviews were conducted and transcribed in Dutch. Krane, Andersen and Strean (1997:215) describe different techniques to code, or ‘tag’ quotations: “the point is that each of these techniques may be used effectively and will derive a level of data categories that can then be further analysed (…) They are all doing the same thing conceptually”. Specific coding-software was not used, but Microsoft Excel was applied, with three ‘rounds’ to accomplish the coding. The first round of coding was done on a hard copy. Most of the interviews were done immediately and consecutively. This made it easier to see the same patterns in the different interviews and use the same codes, so that the coding list did not become extensive and without overview. These codes were entered into an Excel spreadsheet (see appendix II). The second round of coding involved translating the codes and make them clear and understandable to the English reader. A clarification or extra description was added to some of the codes. This created space between the researcher and the data which made it easier to looking at the data with ‘different glasses’ and in a more objective manner. This was useful for the third round of coding where the codes were subdivided and placed into one of the five dimensions of the socio-ecological model (Spaaij, 2014). This subdivision helped arrange the findings and formed the basis for the next chapter.
6. Findings
In order to answer the question which factors contribute to the rise of unsanctioned violence committed by athletes it is first necessary to explain how the respondents perceive sanctioned and unsanctioned on-field violence. This is related to the first sub-question ‘How do athletes perceive aggression and violence on the sports field? This is followed by investigating the sources of frustration, which are associated with the second sub-question: what situational factors lead some athletes to engage in violence and others not? The third part of the findings describes those processes whereby the focus lies on interactional situations. This part can be considered as a bridge between situational dynamics and structural factors and is connected to the sub-question ‘do interpersonal dynamics play a role in the rise of violence on the sports field?’ The fourth and last part of the findings outlines structural factors, related to the fourth sub-question ‘How do the social environment and the social structural factors of athletes influence their behaviour on the field?’.
The presentation of the findings follows Wolcotts (as cited in Krane, Andersen & Strean, 1997:216) where the respondents are given the floor as much as possible.
Researchers must provide enough information to show how they derived their conclusions. Presentation of few quotations taken out of context make this task extremely difficult. For some studies, it is more elucidating for researchers to provide more primary data and less analysis, allowing the participants to speak for themselves. (Wolcott, 1990)
6.1 Sanctioned & Unsanctioned violence
Being able to talk with the respondents about sanctioned and unsanctioned violence, it was important to discover and understand how they perceive different kinds of violent behaviour taking place on the football field. The respondents all made a similar distinction between sanctioned and unsanctioned violence as referenced by Grange and Kerr (2017:37), whereby “the sanctioned aggressive acts are not intended to injure or harm the opponent”. It is especially the intention of the athlete who is responsible for the foul that makes the difference. T., a 25 year old defender explains “when a foul is made, you notice from the reaction of the person whether it was deliberate or an accident”. ‘The reaction of the person’ means the extent to which the fouling-athlete shows regrets
for his action by making sincere apologies. This means that, although an action can be ruthless and harm an opponent, as long as that was not the intention of the athlete, the respondent does not perceive it as unsanctioned violence, but as a play-violence.
A ruthless tackle, which is a foul, I would not name that ‘violence’. You have to cross some kind of a barrier, deliberately kicking someone, that is violence. And of course this is different on the field than off the field. When you hit somebody on purpose, then you cross this barrier. But a real ruthless tackle? No, you just get a card for that. (K. 25-year-old defender).
Most of the respondents found it difficult to make a clear distinction between sanctioned and unsanctioned violence. Both types of incident cannot be contained within a single description and must be seen in the context of a specific game against a specific opponent, whereby the distinction is based more on feelings of intuition rather than clearly defined circumstances.
Fouls
In the context of on-field violence, it is important for the respondents to describe the different ‘kinds’ of fouls that can take place during a game. Certain fouls are initiated for the sake of the team, and playing in a defensive position is in this case more of a disadvantage then other playing positions. It is especially the last defender (the last person that is between an opposing attacker and the goalkeeper) who has to offer himself up in the interest of the team. ‘Offer’ because he is the person who commits the foul and prevents the opponent from scoring, and maybe receives a card for this. However, this is not a situation of his own doing, but it is the carelessness of his teammates that allows the opponent the chance to break through with the high possibility of scoring, so the last defender is just solving that problem. Those fouls are accepted as legitimate, and receiving a card for such an action is more or less the responsibility of the whole team. 22-Year-old respondent S. is playing in such a position, and therefore he received far more cards last season then his teammates. Although the amount of cards per team is an indication to the KNVB of the extent of violent behaviour in that team, this criterion does not seem to apply to individual players, and here the number of cards received depends chiefly on the playing position.
On the other hand the respondents describe such a thing as ‘stupid fouls’, which are considered unnecessary. These are not caused by the negligence of the team, but because an individual player acts irresponsibly. These acts are generally triggered by emotions such as
