The government unveiled on Thursday, December 16 reinforced security measures in the face of repeated incidents in Ligue 1 stadiums. Among these announcements are in particular the permanent interruption of a match if a player or the referee is attacked, the ban plastic bottles or even the installation of protective nets for certain matches, on the recommendation of the prefects. For Ronan Evain, executive director of the Football supporters Europe association, invited to franceinfo, the government’s response “seems relatively proportionate”.
franceinfo: Is the government’s response up to the task?
Ronan Evain : It seems to me to be relatively proportionate, in the sense that it is essentially based on the use of regulatory and legislative tools that already exist. We have a legal arsenal in France which is extremely thorough, despite the many calls to strengthen this arsenal. It didn’t seem necessary in a state, in a democracy like ours. There is no need to go further than what the law already proposed. So, it is a reminder of the existing tools with some avenues for reflection, which are perhaps a little more worrying. But generally speaking, it is a response that seems proportionate to me.
What avenues for reflection do you find worrying?
We see in particular the introduction of a reflection on the nominative ticketing. This is something that already exists in a number of clubs. But making this compulsory raises organizational and logistical questions. This means completely changing the way tickets are marketed. And furthermore, as the government has noted, there is real concern about training, working conditions and the remuneration of stewards. Checking identity documents at the entrance to the stadiums requires a significant deployment of stewards. And today, the vast majority of French clubs absolutely cannot afford it.
The creation of a fixed tort fine is being considered. This penal sanction would be pronounced outside a trial, by a police officer, a gendarme or an authorized public official. This is intended to prevent the introduction, possession and use of rockets or fireworks of any kind in a stadium. What do you think?
Supporters and civil society were not involved in these avenues of work. So I am not in a position to express myself on this. What seems interesting to me is to separate on the one hand the use of smoke without any injuries or anything, which is still the main use of smoke. And in this case, a fine seems to be more than enough. There is no need to systematically legalize the use of smoke. And then there is, on the contrary, to have a strong response when it comes to using smoke or firecrackers, agricultural bombs, especially when they land on the ground. So, there is perhaps too much of a tendency to bulldoze when it comes to smoke, whether it is at the level of stadium bans or at the level of collective sanctions pronounced by the disciplinary committee of the League. If these avenues for reflection could lead to a more graduated and more precise response from both the judicial authority and the League’s disciplinary commission, this would be a significant step forward.
The government has also announced the establishment of a crisis unit in the event of an incident during a match. It will have to decide in 30 minutes maximum on the fate of the meeting. Do you welcome this measure?
That is quite a step forward, with a real process in place that avoids the somewhat embarrassing speeches of certain club presidents that we have seen since the start of the season. I am thinking of Lyon-Marseille in particular. It was word against word between the clubs, the prefecture, the referee. And in the end, no one seemed to really take responsibility for the decision. Today, we have a process that is precise. 30 minutes seems like an acceptable time frame for decision making. So that is indeed progress.