*Now let me preface this post by saying this is not a bellyache about a "negative" soccer article appearing in US papers. Heck, this ran in the Washington Post one day after they ran an enormous feature on Man U. I am not crying BIAS at all. And I know that a wire feed isn't going to cover the compexity of an incident* However, I do have a few issues with this report and how it furthers assumptions related to violence in world football (and sports in general). England Fined for Racist, Abusive Fans http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A224-2003May1.html "England's soccer federation was fined a record $111,000 Thursday after some of its fans were racially abusive and surged on the field during a game against Turkey last month." "Police arrested more than 90 English fans during the game. " First, the latter quote... The BBC and other UK news sources have clearly reported (since the day of the match) that there were 105 arrests in total. "There were 105 arrests by police in Sunderland, most of them taking place outside the ground." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/england/2936659.stm) The number is kind of irrelevant, but where they took place is key in trying to consider the causes of the violence and nature of arrests. According to reports from Sunderland that day there were a number of groups hell bent on trouble. First, known England trouble makers - identified by police and taken into custody. Next, Leeds Utd supporters who showed up in Sunderland to keep a long going fued with Turkish fans going. Then, Sunderland and Newcastle firms used the day as an excuse to cause havoc. Listening to radio reports prior to the match it sounded clear that all of this trouble was pre-meditated and spread around the city hours before kickoff. Hence nearly 90 people arrested away from the ground and before the game began. The AP report would have you believe that these incidents all took place inside the stadium - and one can possibly extract from that - England fans were inspired by the actual match to acts of violence. Not exactly the case when you consider that most arrests came before the match began. As for the other quote, "some of its fans were racially abusive and surged on the field". While this is partially true, the disrespect for the Turkish anthem and supporters was appalling - there was never an effort to attack players or fans inside the ground. This "surge" came after the second goal - and was more in a stupid celebratory nature. Although there were reports of Turkish players who got caught up in the crowd. This correction of a media report may seem rather pity, but I think that its a good example of inexact journalism leading to misperceptions by many as to the nature of fan violence. You hear so many columnists and talk show hosts saying things like "how can they care so much about soccer to fight about it" or closer to home "how can they care so much about college hockey to start a riot". But in fact, this idea is completely irrelevant when the violence is pre-determined. There was always going to be trouble in Sunderland - just as there was always going to be trouble in Minneapolis after the Frozen Four. Same thing, different circumstance and slightly different motivation. But knowing that the two have little to do with the actual sporting competition is key to understanding how to prevent, police and report on the trouble.