Ending Sectarianism – Part Two

YESTERDAY, in part one of my thinking on this serious issue, I brought up the thorny subject of banning the bigots. I repeat what I said then, Rangers know who 86% of their home attendance are – the 43,000-plus season ticket holders.

Celtic, with 52,000 season ticket holders, also have the names of 86% of their fans on-file. So, if unacceptable behaviour starts at either ground, both clubs should be able to identify most of the miscreants.

But, to really be able to enforce “Strict Liability”: holding the clubs responsible for the bad behaviour of their fans – the big stick seen by many as the best means of ending bigotry and sectarianism in football - I believe the clubs (and not just the Big Two, there are pockets of loonies elsewhere) have to come-up with a different relationship with their fan base.

Strict Liability is seen as the golden ticket in ending sectarianism and bigotry. It is certainly a means to this end, but, while I believe it would help, SL is not the only answer. To get rid of sectarianism and bigotry from Scotland, will need government initiative and leadership, which will not be forthcoming in the short term.

I live in hope of Independence and a Scotland, freed from the malign influence of Westminster, becoming an open, outward, more-equal society. I fear, however, we will need to wait for Independence and the inevitable sort-out which will follow this. Ending sectarianism will not, however, be a priority in setting-up this new, Independent Scotland.

Three Hundred Years and more of being treated as an English colony, rather than as an equal partner in the United Kingdom has left a few more-serious problems than eliminating sectarianism to be sorted our first.

We frequently see, cited as something which would help, would be the ending of segregated schooling, whereby, Roman Catholic children are educated separately from Protestant, Muslin, Hindu or other children.

This was certainly a good thing, perhaps, 100 years ago, but, 21^st century Scotland is different from 20^th century Scotland. Perhaps it is time for education to be secularised – ie, religion is not mentioned other than perhaps in the context of History.

If parents wanted their children to have an upbringing, based around a particular religion, then such religious education ought to be done in the home, after school, and paid-for by the parents and their chosen religious organisation.

That might help, but, let's be honest: “bitter orange bastards” and “plastic Paddies” would still exist and still spread their particular religious poison.

So, back to the fitba, and Strict Liability.

We hear a lot about: “Fan Ownership”, or, at the very least, the fans – the people who buy the replica shirts and merchandise, who spend their spare cash following their team around, at home and abroad. But, I often think football pays lip service to this, until the excrement collides with the air circulation apparatus, then, when all other avenues have been explored and dismissed, they (the “blazers” running the clubs) will, with utmost reluctance, turn to the fans for help.

Sport's ultimate example of fan-ownership is the Green Bay Packers of American Football's NFL. The Packers are owned by their fans, in their case, all 360,760 of them,who together own the 5,011,558 shares in the team.

Each share, in reality worth 3 cents, is valued at 250 dollars. They cannot be traded or sold at any price other than face value; no individual share holder can own more than 200,000 shares.

The reality is, there is no value in owning more than one Packers' share.

• You get your share certificate, to hang on your office or living room wall.
  
  
• You get the right to attend the annual stock holders-only Open Day at Lambeau Field at the start of each season.
  
  
• You get access to the “stock holders-only merchandising.
  
  
• You get to participate in the annual election of the governing board
  
  
• You get to ask questions of the Chief Executive Officer, the guy who actually runs the Packers.

But, the reality is, he runs the show and is free to take on-board or ignore your suggestions, and, so-long as the Packers are doing well, his job is safe.

American business and sport is different from business and sport in the UK. Could a Packers-style club work in Scotland? Would it be allowed to work in Scotland?

But, if the real fans, the season ticket-holders and so forth, were able to buy into a team, they could be “persuaded”, by possibly losing their stock holder's privileges to be better behaved. If clubs were to be subject to Strict Liability, it stands to reason, so too should the stock-holding fans.

There is, naturally, deep scepticism if “self-policing” of fans would work under the current situation, but, I reckon, if the fans were stock-holders, subject to being part of the concept of Strict Liability, self-policing would work.

Unless the fan base is brought inside the overall club “tent”, subjecting them to Strict Liability cannot work. Give them benefits, involve them, but, make it clear, these benefits and inclusions come at a price, and it will work.

The Celtic fan base let themselves down at Rugby Park last Sunday. I insist, given the limited number of away fan places available at Rugby Park, Celtic MUST know which of their fans were there. If the club held photograph backed membership details, identification of those who invaded the park, threw that coin at Kris Boyd and tossed that flare onto the park would be simpler.

The club surely also knows which body of fans, or supporters club, had its seats in which part of the stand, so, if particular individual fans could not be easily identified, particular groups of fans could be. These groups could be temporarily banned: pour encourager les autres.

A few bans for groups, and the lunatic fringe would quickly be cut back, because the responsible fans would soon become tired of missing matches, and tell the loonies to get lost.