Recent research has questioned the idea of emotional links between the players on the field, and the fans watching them.  Social Identification Theory is based on how strongly, and to what extent the fan feels psychologically connected to a team; and how individuals define themselves with respect to other people.  The role of the fan is a central component of their identity, and the team’s performance is somehow representing their own self-image.  For example, highly identified spectators’ report low self-esteem and negative feelings when their team is defeated (Wann et al., 1999).  When highly identified fans watch teams compete, they can often become aroused and anxious during the competition, which is directly related to football aggression.  They feel they can influence the outcome of sporting events through the use of aggression.  Highly identifiable fans are not considered to be more aggressive in general unless in the context of football games (Wann et al., 1999).

A common theme among football aggression was the massive crowd congregation.  A crowd is a relatively large collection of people who are physically close enough to influence each other’s behavior, even though there are no particular relationships among these individuals.  A crowd is ideal for collective behavior as it depends on a lack of group structure, and the idea of appropriate norms (Alcock et al., 2001).  For our example, a range of factors, including alcohol consumption, facility designs, and game scores influenced crowd aggression (Wenn, 1989).  To understand crowd aggression, it is important to break down different theories and ideas related to collective behavior and crowding; such as the presence of others, the pressures that they exert and the influence of the environment.  These types of situational factors can significantly affect the crowd’s mentality (Wenn, 1989).

Collective behavior is an unorganized or unplanned action that emerges spontaneously among a collectivity of people resulting from inter-stimulation.  In other words, individuals are collectively influenced by the actions of others.  One model of crowding is sensory overload, which argues that when people are exposed to too much stimulation (e.g., football game), sensory inputs are received at a higher rate than can be easily processed.  Crowding can be described as a crushing overwhelming feeling from the increased stimulation of the many different senses (Alcock et al., 2001).  “When crowds gather, there can be stress caused by the physical proximity of the crowd members.  The regular public distance is 4-12 feet, however, at an average soccer game there is no more than one foot between people for the most part.  This again contributes to this violence” (Coon, 1998, pp. 65).

We explored crowd aggression through Deindividuation (Zimbardo), where individuals come to see themselves more as members of a group than as individuals.  This can lead to a lowered sense of control for normally restrained behavior, as well, as leading the person to feel anonymous and less concerned with the consequences since they are acting as a group (Bartol, 2001).  Deindividuation has been described as “a sense of liberation” because the person tends to live for the moment, taking little responsibility for their actions.  The momentum of a football game is the perfect stimulant to promote this loss of identity and responsibility (Alcock et al, 2001).

Empirical observations of crowds indicate that they are rarely homogeneous.  Some members of a football crowd may experience great hostility towards a target, while others may simply enjoy the excitement.  “A single collectivity of people may manifest a variety of crowd forms; spectators at a football game may form a mob and attack the referee, than panic as squads of police arrive” (Alcock et al., 2001, pp. 395).  There was no one theory dedicated to football aggression; therefore identifying the reasons why crowds act as they do during football games are only answered theoretically.

For the love of the game, Liverpool football fans came to the stadium in droves, ready to defend and support their team.  United, the crowd brought high levels of emotions to the event.  Optimistic and enthusiastic they stood bound together on the terraces.  Shankly's comments glorified the game he, and millions of others, loved so much (Shankly, Life or Death).

Bootle II’s look at Liverpool football aggression in the 1960’s, uncovered a group of fans consumed and devoted to a common sport.  Forty years after the KOP opened to thousands of fans, football hooliganism remains a male phenomenon around the world.  No matter how universal, according to our research it is unlikely that football hooliganism is a psychopathology.  In essence, football aggression is a symptom and pragmatic characteristic among many complex variables.  Over-stimulation of the senses, overcrowding, high levels of emotion, not to mention high identification to the game, fan and player loyalty.  In our conclusion, most fans were very passionate about football, but only a number of men behaved in a very aggressive manner.

The only mention of illness, are the references to the “English or British Disease” label.  They both describe English loyalty and passion, however, most often defining a volatile, angered mob of fanatics seen at football games.  This label was exceedingly promoted, hence given special attention by the media.  People watching the game on television learned to stereotype and expect certain behavior at football matches.  The fights looked quite dangerous, but in reality few serious injuries occurred (Marsh et al., 1996).  The majority of the people in the stadiums were relatively peaceful and law-abiding fans of the games, while hooligans were the minority group (Haley & Johnston).  Between 1960 and 1965, incidents of football violence had doubled when compared to the previous twenty-five years (Marsh et al., 1996).

Liverpool Football was the working-class sport (New Internationalist, 1985).  “Football, the club and the game, allowed expression of courage, fighting skills, group loyalty and control of territory, all qualities highly prized in male, urban working-class culture” (New Internationalist, 1985).  “The traditional blue collar audience saw the team as an extension of themselves, local boys who managed to escape the factory through their skill with the ball” (English Premier).  They followed their local football club as a means of expressing their pride in their town and region (English Premier).

We assert that Liverpool football aggression affected those who participated, as well as those who witnessed it.  Although a significant event, to say that it was a psychopathology would be unjust.  The passionate football fans were guilty of loving the sport, but not pathologically ill.  When asked to comment on our research question, Dr. Richard Stalling from Bradley University supports our findings by saying, “My opinion?  It’s not psychopathology, so I guess that leaves sport.  Violence, hostility, especially between groups, just seems to be part of being human” (email conversation, January 15, 2002).

While the relevance of Deindividuation and Crowd Violence was observed, the researchers now question the application of Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis as an alternative explanation of football aggression.  Furthermore, Frustration-Induced Criminality may also apply to the socioeconomic status and social issues related to crime in Liverpool (Bartol, 2002).  To extend on this research, another group could examine the effects of frustration on Liverpool football fans of the 1960’s.

Part 5: Conclusion