So, the police have suggested that football clubs pay for the policing of matches. When I heard about this on the news last night I was preparing dinner and so it just seeped around my consciousness without causing any ripples, then they interviewed people, mainly football fans and utensils, plates and saucepans bore the brunt of my anger. These, obviously unbiased members of the public, were saying that the clubs shouldn’t have to pay as it would increase the cost of tickets. In my family there are several footie fans so I do appreciate that following the ‘beautiful’ game is expensive, but hang on a minute, it is not compulsory. People choose to attend a match, it is a pastime, a hobby. Unfortunately some of the attendees at matches cause problems, football is a very sectarian thing, there is huge rivalry and tempers will be lost and aggression shown. I don’t go to matches, it isn’t my hobby, gardening is one of my hobbies. I don’t expect the tax payer to contribute towards, or subsidise my hobby, why should I contribute toward the policing of a football supporter’s hobby? We are not talking here of an exceptional occurrence, Live Aid; the Queens birthday celebrations; a State funeral, we are talking here about something that happens several times a week, over 10 months of the year, countrywide. We are talking about millions of tax-payers money, the majority of whom don’t go to football matches, being spent to ensure that a minority can enjoy their hobby. We are subsidising either the fans, so ticket prices aren’t increased, or the clubs themselves who are paying their players so much that they can’t think of paying to improve the fans safety. There is something very wrong with a ‘game’ where someone playing for a club can earn in a week what it costs to police a clubs matches for the year.
Policing a hobby – who pays?
August 13, 2008 by midwifemuse
We are always happy to discuss how it might be possible to further reduce costs, or indeed how football can help the police tackle youth crime, but we fail to see why football fans should pay twice for policing
Dan Johnson, Premier League
Well, Mr Dan Johnson. I also pay tax and I don’t see why a portion of my tax should go toward policing a hobby where clubs are prepared to pay millions for someone to kick a ball around. Why should I even pay once? Out Mr Johnson comes with the clubs have all paid taxes………yes, so have most of us, it’s the law that if you earn money, live in a house, buy petrol, drive a car, buy non-perishables etc. etc. you pay tax. If you fly you also pay tax, you, the person flying pays tax, I don’t pay tax for other people to go on holiday.
Come on you Premiership clubs, pay for the policing.
Afterthought – What happens on the continent, who pays there?
I agree that the cost of this policing should be passed on to the clubs, whether it’s taken out of their profits, a reduction in players’ wages or an increase in ticket prices.
I’m also one of those that thinks the cost of policing ‘drinking centres’ on Friday and Saturday nights should also be passed on to the drinkers/breweries etc.
Vic – Exactly. If additional police are required for a profit making operation then I don’t believe that all tax-payers should pay or that normal policing should suffer.
I AM a regular football match attendee and even I think the clubs should pay something for policing. This would also make it fairer for thsoe clubs who have particular issues with fan trouble.
However, if this happened, then I also think the Police should lose much of their current power in deciding what time games can be played – we get our kick off times messed about enough as it is for TV, and then the police make changes too. They should also have to do as directed by the people paying the bill – and not treat ALL fans like thugs/idiots by e.g herding them all in one direction away from a stadium when their transport is in entirely the opposite direction.
Perhaps clubs need to pay a contribution – ie cover the extra costs of policing a football match, such as extra manpower required, any overtime, cost of horses etc, but part of the cost is already covered by taxes. Otherwise I foresee a ripple effect and everyone that ever does anything requiring police presence will be having to foot the bill.
I like having the police around at games – and happily at my club’s home matches, they have little trouble and are generally a relaxed and friendly lot. The club could certainly manage to foot part of the bill.
Actually, thinking about it, I’m sure clubs do already pay money towards the policing of games because I remember a hoo-ha last year when a lower league club refused to pay policing costs for some reason – can’t recall what.
Anyway, I ramble – I agree in principle though that also means pubs and clubs should pay extra for policing of all the drunks out on the streets at night (again it’s only a minority but a large amount of police resources are taken up with drunken people) and crowds at concerts should pay for extra policing as music events are also a weekly occurences. Hm, loads of extra revenue to be gaiend here. We tax payers could stop paying for the police at all at this rate 😉
Anji – X
Anji – Yes, some clubs do contribute, but it is only for those police required inside the gates or on the clubs property. I’m not sure how widespread the charges should/could be but I do think it is something which could be reviewed. The football situation caught my attention because I do find the amounts paid to some, if not all, premiership players obscene. When you consider the number of players in a squad it would mean that only a tiny percentage of their wages could be used to recompense the police, and ultimately the tax-payer.
It’d be nice to think players wages would stick/reduce and cover extra policing costs, but in reality, it would be the fans that would be charged – as ever. Sadly, football is headed towards a crisis what with falling gates, TV coverage, players’ wages, transfer windows, management changes and now dubious ownership. It’s not what it used to be and it’s only going to get worse.