Hooliganism for Political Means

Hi everyone!

Soccer hooliganism has always existed on the fringes of the world's beautiful game. A little healthy fan rivalry is an inherent part of any sport, sometimes it gets a little out of hand. Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets a lot out of hand. Over the past 30 years a handful of situations have erupted into something worse than good-natured ribbing, the deadliest of which was a stampede in which 78 people died during a soccer match in Guatemala City in 1996.

That dubious distinction was awarded anew last night in Port Said, Egypt. A match between two soccer clubs with an historic and deep-seated rivalry--El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo--spun violently out of control after El Masry came from behind to win the match 3-1. The winning goal was scored in the final seconds of play and then, as if on cue, El Masry's fans stormed the pitch, purportedly armed with knives, rocks, and clubs, and began attacking Al Ahly's team members and fans, chasing them on the field, killing indiscriminately. In the chaos, many others were trampled to death, some were suffocated, and apparently according to some reports, still others were pushed or thrown off the stands.

Where was security when all this was going on? Well, that's the question being asked by many, including the authorities. Video of the riot shows security merely standing around looking helpless, or at worst, passively complicit in the stampede. One of Al Ahly's top players, Mohammed Abu Trika, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "People here are dying and no one is doing a thing. It's like a war."

Exactly. There's more to this than yet another example of soccer fans behaving badly. What happened last night in Port Said is an example of soccer fans behaving badly out of political motivation. In this part of the world, die-hard soccer fans are called Ultras. The Ultras are actually a fairly organized lot and were among the first to take to the streets when the protests against the Mubarak regime ignited last year. Last night was the eve of the first anniversary of what came to be known as the Battle of the Camels when pro-Mubarak forces attacked peaceful protesters in Tahrir Square with rocks, gasoline bombs, whips, knives, and clubs.

The ruling military council (SCAF) recently agreed (albeit reluctantly) to dismantle parts of the emergency laws that have been in place since Mubarak took over upon the assassination of Anwar Sadat. There's chatter that what took place last night was planned ahead of time and that the police were indeed complicit, hence their lack of involvement in doing anything to stop the massacre. Why? The military council is asserting its control and is using the riot as justification for maintaining its draconian laws as a means of further cracking down on the protesters. It's all rather obvious.

Egypt's acting head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, phoned Al Ahly's satellite TV channel to offer his condolences and to assure all parties involved that the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with accordingly and that the victims would see justice done. How convenient for him. Now all he and his military cronies have to do is point to what happened last night in Port Said as evidence that without a strong military presence, anarchy will reign.

Who are the real hooligans here?

Ciao.