There are certain topics that are nailed down on the fortune wheel of Scottish football. Summer football, for example. Plastic pitches. And this week we have landed on strict liability. Unfortunately, you don’t have the jokes of Nicky Campbell or the soft smile of Jenny Powell to soften the blow, just me, who is covering old ground.
Because during a quick Google search as part of my research for this column, I discovered that there had been a widespread discussion of strict liability on these pages in 2016. And again the following year. And again, you get the picture.
And just as the debate in all those cases reached its inevitable conclusion with the concession that there was simply no strict liability in Scottish football, so it will unfortunately happen this time too.
While Hibs’ intentions to raise the subject again are commendable, with the club looking to address the problem of fan misconduct following their Scottish Cup defeat to Rangers at Easter Road on Sunday, there simply isn’t the appetite of the fans. enough other clubs to vote in favor of its adoption. Or even a mild hunger pang.
READ MORE: Hibs confirm that away fan allocations have been reduced following the Rangers game
Hibs deserve some credit for at least addressing the fact that there is, as has been the case for many years in Scotland, a problem with the behavior of part of the supporter base that attends matches.
Hibs have responded strongly to the sentiments made abundantly clear by their fans at their recent AGM, that they have had enough of the sectarian songbook when Rangers come to town, and have decided to limit the number of away games accordingly in the future.
This being Scotland, we also have to recognize that this sort of thing isn’t just the preserve of Rangers supporters. I have long been a proponent of the theory that most – if not all – clubs have a percentage of idiots whose behavior far exceeds the limits of acceptability and tarnishes the name of their respective clubs.
When Rangers fans saw the news that their ticket allocation was being cut, I’m sure there were a lot of them, given the behavior of some Hibs supporters lately, who thought people shouldn’t be throwing corkscrews in glasshouses.
But in fairness to Hibs, they did recognize that general fan misbehavior is a problem that starts at home, and they are doing what they can to identify, root out and ban those who, for example, throw missiles at opponents. .
But this is where I start to have problems with their punitive measures against away fans. Why is what is good for the goose not good for the goose?
Restricting away tickets is their right in their own stadium. Absolute. But just as I have long argued that such a policy at Old Firm matches is ultimately self-defeating and devalues the spectacle of Scottish football, so too will it be the case here. Furthermore, Hibs will also take a financial hit as the empty seats are unlikely to be sold.
By limiting the number of tickets available to away fans, you will ultimately punish innocent supporters. People who don’t even fly while the crows scream their bile, but just sit next to them.
Well, proponents of strict liability might say: why then are those who tolerate such fans who undermine the reputation of Scottish football – that is, the majority of our clubs – allowed to continue unscathed in their blissful and willful ignorance? Certainly, something has to be done.
I’m not saying clubs can’t do more. And while there isn’t much I agree with SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster on, our views are similar here.
“Strict liability simply does not work, as the repeated fines imposed on specific clubs in UEFA competitions season after season clearly demonstrate,” Doncaster said back in the 2022 annual debate.
“The significant investment by clubs in CCTV technology means it is much easier to spot and respond to incidents caused by the small minority of fans who misbehave. Clubs, football authorities and the vast majority of decent fans abhor the actions of those who engage in criminal acts during matches.
“Only by directly targeting these individuals and punishing them to the full extent of the law can we provide a meaningful and effective deterrent.”
However well-intentioned strict liability may be, its application elsewhere has not led to utopian terraces where racism and cataclysmic chants have been replaced by lustful choruses of Kum-Ba-Yah. There is simply no evidence that the social issues that football not only reflects but acts as a megaphone will be eradicated by strict liability. Or whether the needle will be moved at all.
What I can say with absolute certainty, however, is that the shift in opinion within the Scottish game that was necessary to take over has not occurred.
READ MORE: Hibs 0 Rangers 2: Clement’s men enter the semi-final
In 2019, a survey found that only three of Scotland’s 42 senior clubs were in favor of introducing strict liability. You might add Hibs to that list, but Jenny Powell is more likely to answer the fan letter I wrote to her as a teenager in 1996 asking for a date than there are clubs that ultimately vote for it.
And so in a few weeks’ time, representatives from Hibs will join the Rules Review Working Group at the invitation of the SFA, where they will meet Celtic, Aberdeen and representatives from the SPFL, SWPL and SFA who are currently on it, to discuss the hiring of strict liability. And there they will meet that reality.
That may sound like jaded, pervasive defeatism. That’s because, when it comes to this issue, that’s exactly what it is.
The government will not impose it. The clubs will not vote for it. So we can continue to debate the merits of strict liability and whether it could be a potential panacea for ills like sectarianism and hooliganism, year after year after year ad infinitum.
The fact is that won’t happen.