for many spectators and that instead these events may actually engender violent behavior in some spectators.
Violence at sporting events is not something new, though some believe the incidence of such violence has increased. Guttmann (1986) notes some earlier instances of such behavior when he writes,
The 1910 championship bout between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries led, as we have seen, to a national orgy of violence, but post-World-War-II fight fans have apparently learned how to riot without actually killing anyone. One might expect that ice hockey's legitimate (within the rules) and illegitimate (outside them) violence has stimulated mayhem among the spectators, but such disorders as have taken place--e.g., the Montreal Riot of 1955--have seldom if ever resulted in fatalities. Fatalities did occur immediately before a cricket match in calcutta in 1968 when six people were trampled to death by fans fighting for tickets to India versus Australia, but the vast majority of the deaths occurring before, during, or immediately after sports events are associated with soccer football (Guttmann, 1986, 159-160).
Recent instances of violence have led many sports commentators to fear what could happen in the future. Neff (1985) fears that spectator violence in the United States could rise to the level seen in Belgium that year, noting that while American fans are not as fanatical as some European soccer fans, "some among them harbor the same frustrations, grow similarly aggressive at sports events, drink excessively before and during games and succumb to what psychologists call 'deindividualization'--the loss of inhibition and a sense of accountability when part of a large group" (Neff, 1985, 27).
The British experience suggests that it will not be easy to curb this sort of violent behavior. The British government has tried to cope with the issue and has had little impact. The courts have not been effective, and while t...