International competition has the unique ability to unite the world, often even in times of unrest. For some reason, sport is one of the few facets that allows entire nations to forget all of their wars and hardships, even if it’s only for ninety minutes.
A Serbian Player Pulls Down the Albanian Flag
Often this is the case but there are certain circumstances where tensions are too high for even sport to make a difference. Tuesday’s Serbia vs. Albania Euro 2016 qualifying fixture was going relatively well, considering it was Albania’s first visit to Belgrade since 1967, until just before halftime tensions boiled over.
The two countries have had a very tense history centered on a disputed region. The tensions were so high, in fact, that the Albanian federation did not make tickets available to traveling supporters as well as threatened to jail any Albanian supporters that showed up to the game sporting any kind of Albanian symbols. There was no doubt that tensions were high but no one could have guessed what the catalyst would be.
A drone carrying an Albanian flag was all that was needed. The simple sight of the flag brought the crowd into a fury. Players began to brawl and some fans even gained entry onto the pitch wielding makeshift weapons. The players, especially the Albanian players, came out injured both physically and mentally.
A Fan Attacks Players
This incident stands out because many international fixtures have occurred without incident. Despite the power of sports, there are still instances where tensions are too great for even sport to ease. As Eric Dunning points out in “The Dynamics of Modern Sport” (in the anthology Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process, Blackwell, 1986), “Contests such as the Olympics allow the representatives of different nations to compete without killing one another, though the degree to which such contest are transformed from mock-fights into ‘real’ ones is a function, inter alia, of the pre-existing level of tension between the particular nation-states involved.” This qualifying match turning quite literally into a fight is an illustration of just how high tensions were.
Sports have the wonderful ability to bridge tensions between nations and bring a few moments of simple enjoyment but there are times when it becomes dangerous to even try to create that bridge. The staging committee for this fixture took great caution in organizing this game because they were well aware of the tension, but sometimes the stakes are simply too high.
In instances like this there need to be extra precautions that may disappoint fans but are for the safety of all involved. There have been instances where fixtures have been played behind closed doors due to the potential for violent outbreaks.
Riots Ensue
Though it may not have been ideal, it was the necessary thing to do to even have the match played. If nothing can be done then the match must not be played because little good can come from it.
International committees need to be hyperaware of the international climate in relation to their matches in order to prevent situations like Tuesday. Often times these events can be just a game but there are also many cases where there are far more significant issues hanging in the balance.
International competition is important because it allows nations to “battle” without actual bloodshed but when that line is crossed it no longer becomes a game. Often these games serve as a nonviolent release of anger, aggression, and tension, which can be very healthy for the international climate. Other times it can do just the opposite by adding fuel to the already kindled fire.
The Albania vs. Serbia fixture was an opportune time for tensions to be enflamed because there are few higher honors than to represent one’s country in sport. When you represent your country, you do it on and off the pitch.
Players Preparing For Their Anthem
That means any attack towards you or your country you take very personally. Even fans take attacks against their sports teams very seriously, sometimes even more serious than in other areas of the international realm.
Sometimes it isn’t the nature of the sport that causes heightened aggression and violence. Often times players become more aggressive due to underlying or very prevalent tensions. As Dunning points out, the highest levels of self-control are required on the part of the players.
There are times when even the most levelheaded players will not be able to stay in control. Those are the situations that athletes should not be placed in the first place.
Touchdown Theory 
This post also made me think about another one of Dunning’s points: that sometimes the sports become more for the spectators than the athletes themselves. Dunning talks about the polarities of the interests of the spectators and the interests of the players. I’ve seen things like this come up before in sports, where fights break out and whatnot, but the inclusion of the fans always adds a new dimension. Perhaps the interests of the spectators in this match had little to do with the soccer itself, but significantly more with the ridiculing and bashing of the other country. The players likely were more interested in soccer, but unfortunately when tempers are high players of course get involved. I would argue that the spectators took this game more seriously than the players did.
LikeLike
I’ve always pictured soccer as one of the most vicious sports out there. There is no shortage of videos showing riots and what appear to be battles between fans of competing teams. I’ve always thought of these riots as being completely soccer-oriented, that is, I’ve always thought of the violent fans as possessing some form of blind passion for their team, a passion which seems to rid individuals of all their inhibitions, allowing mob mentality to quickly take over. Your post has shown the tension in a new light, as I have put little thought into how political tensions affect contemporary sporting events; I have simply brushed off the fights and riots as “the doings of crazed soccer fans.”
LikeLike
It’s interesting because people always speak of sports and games as something that appeases violence, or like a symbol of peace almost. The story of how during WWI, soldiers from France, Britain and Germany made a truce in the times of Christmas and played soccer together has been referenced to in many readings I have done, and I have even watched the film that’s based on it. I don’t think sports in nature are innately violent; games are still carefree and instrinsic, but when pride and honor becomes involved in it, it gets to the point of violence. This relates to the Melian Dialogue. Where does violence stem from? Not necessarily sports itself, but rather the values that began to become a part of it. Great blog post!
LikeLike
Really interesting blog post. I like that you talked about a topic that doesn’t get mentioned nearly enough–fan violence in sports. We Americans like to think we are the toughest fans in the world, and take pride in that but fans all over the world are devout in their fandom. It’s as if fandom has a religious quality, like it is suggested by in Giamatti’s “Paradise”.
LikeLike
I found your point that the players of the game themselves have to exercise the most restraint in these high intensity situations to be very interesting. Normally one would assume that the players of the game would avoid doing anything violent or against the rules as all the lights and cameras are on them. This situation would make it seem as though the fans have to exercise restraint because no one is watching them and therefore the amount of restraint they will be willing to exhibit might be much less than the players involved and therefore fights would break out when the fans overstep their bounds and therefore the fans should be the one who require more restraint. However, your argument takes into account that the players have the easiest access to escalating tensions because parts of the game are already physical and therefore a single wrong push could lead to a nation versus nation brawl that involves all the fans. I find this viewpoint to be very interesting as i had never before thought of it this way.
LikeLike
I think one of the reasons why sports diplomacy should work is because in a lot of ways it isn’t competitive. Ideally, players from rivaling countries should play a game, not duke it out or wage their war in the sports arena. The goal of sports diplomacy is to make both sides appreciate the simple joys of life, the simple autotelic activities, that unite us all and that make war frivolous. Playing with a rival can make you understand that rival and thus be less willing to fight them and vice versa. Like you say, when that line is crossed, there is a problem. When the sport becomes an instrument of the violent rivalry, the sport is corrupted, play becomes instrumental, and bloodshed resumes, literal or otherwise.
LikeLike
I agree with your argument in this post. Not only have sports brought nations together, but also they have brought people within nations together. For example, South Africa was a divided nation. Nelson Mandela used the sport of Rugby brought people of different races together. I also think that sports can lead to danger as well. In Italy, for example, the violence and racism that takes place during the games is at a all time high. The game of soccer has in some instances pushed people farther apart.
LikeLike
This post made me think about my high school district. The three schools in out district were only allowed to play each other on the weekends due to the fact that several of the games in just my first 2 years of high school ended with players fighting, spectators fighting, or both.
LikeLike