A pitch celebration follows a Sheffield Wednesday goal at Crewe in December 2021 (Source: Sky Sports)
An often-used cliché is that stadiums are places where fans and players come together to celebrate their sense of belonging. However, such “coming together” is increasingly taking on a more literal meaning.
Earlier this month at an EFL League 1 (England’s third tier) a “supporter” ran onto the pitch at Rotherham’s New York Stadium and kicked the ball away as an opposition player was preparing to take a penalty. He then deliberately ran at one of his teammates. The next day a Leicester City supporter ran onto the pitch at Nottingham Forest’s City Ground and aimed a punch at an opposing player. Sadly, these are not isolated incidents and come against a backdrop of supporters crossing the boundary between the stands and pitch area during exuberant goal celebrations. Such celebrations are becoming increasingly common to the extent they are seen, by some, as “fair game” and part of the matchday experience.
And it’s not only a problem in England. At the start of this football season a Ligue 1 match between Nice and Marseille was abandoned following a pitch invasion.
A historical (obstructed) point of view
We like to think that football stadium design and crowd management has come a long way from the days when pitch invasions were deterred by fences at the front of spectator areas. Look at any match footage from the 1980s and you will see the first rows of spectators peering through these fences and often children clinging on to them for a good vantage point.
Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge in 1988 with anti-hooligan fencing (Source: flashbak.com)
The fences were taken down in the UK in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster (97 people lost their lives at an FA Cup semi-final in 1989). The subsequent Taylor Report identified the interaction of high fences and the stewarding of the exit gates as a contributory factor in that tragedy. The report gave specific guidance on the future design and stewarding of such fences, but the mandating of all-seater accommodation which resulted from the report, led to the wide-scale removal of such fences from British football grounds.
The long-held consensus was that the behaviour of supporters in stadiums had significantly improved over the years. Large scale pitch invasions have thankfully been rare and usually limited to one-off circumstances or end-of-season celebrations. Stewarding has also improved both in terms of the management of exit gates and responding to any incursions onto the playing area. Stadiums have been seen to be in control of their own pitch perimeters.
FIFA and UEFA now prohibit any fencing being in place during their major tournament finals and any host venues must remove this fencing for the duration of the tournament. The latest version of the UK SGSA’s Green Guide deals with perimeter barriers in a couple of paragraphs and indicates a maximum height of 1.1m and stresses the need for emergency evacuation routes.
But how should the area between the pitch and the crowd be set out?
Beyond the pitch
The space between the pitch and the crowd has always been a sensitive area for stadium designers and operators. The key considerations are usually the achievement of good spectator sightlines (usually measured by c-values), creating a good atmosphere (by limiting the distance between supporters and pitch), accommodating pitchside advertising boards and good old-fashioned cost control (by limiting space).
Before we explore this in more detail, let’s clarify some terminology. In this context the pitch is bounded by the touchlines and goal lines whilst the grassed area is the pitch plus the further run-off area covered by grass (or often artificial turf). Finally, the overall pitch area is that going up to the demarcation with spectator areas (known as the pitch perimeter) and usually provides for circulation and working space for stewards, TV camera positions and photographers (usually behind advertising boards).
Stadiums in the UK have enjoyed a reputation for intimate atmospheres which has been founded on limiting the distance of the crowd from the players. Former players have talked about (literally) feeling the breath of the crowd. The Chicken Run at the Boleyn Ground, West Ham was a prime example and prior to redevelopment in the 1990s, was barely a metre from the touchline. Even today, Tottenham Hotspur has kept true to these traditions with less than 5m distance between the pitch and stands at the south end of their state-of the art stadium. This is below FIFA and UEFA’s recommended distances although the total pitch area at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is above UEFA’s minimum requirement (see table below).
| Pitch area | Distance pitch to touchline | Distance pitch to goal line |
FIFA/ UEFA recommendation | 125m x 85m | 10m | 8.5m |
UEFA minimum | 120m x 80m | 7.5m | 6m |
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium | c. 121m x 81m | c.8m | c.5m (south)/ c.8m (north) |
The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium combines traditional crowd intimacy with modern design.
Pitch advertising boards are part of this equation, with space for circulation required behind them and sufficient space in front of to mitigate the risk of players colliding with them. Another aspect of player safety that has been under increasing focus in this area is reducing the risk of players losing their footing- either by a change in surface (from grass to artificial, or even running track) and/or changes in levels (steps or slopes).
However, player safety cannot be ensured unless there is effective protection from potential threats from the crowd. Therefore, the separation of players from spectators is a basic security requirement.
It is Ironic that as safe standing is being introduced to top-flight football more than twenty years after the Taylor Report, keeping spectators off the pitch is also returning as a key challenge for stadium authorities.
Possible solutions
So, what can be done?
Whilst stewarding undoubtedly plays its part, a number of recent incidents would have required an extensive line of stewards facing the crowd to prevent or deter spectator encroachment. Not only would that be costly for clubs to implement, it could obstruct sightlines as badly, if not worse than, a physical fence, not to mention creating a confrontational atmosphere. Furthermore, In the UK, it is no longer practical to justify sufficient police resources on a regular basis to prevent such incidents.
Wembley uses mechanisms that slow down anyone entering the pitch area by having to climb over a couple of metres of horizontal rails before being able to move freely along the ground. These aren’t foolproof but do afford valuable reaction time for stewards to identify and respond to offenders. Other benefits include not affecting sightlines or emergency exit routes. However, such mechanisms do require sufficient pitchside space.
Wembley Stadium employs physical measures to delay and deter pitch incursions (Source: Alamy)
Stadium designers should consider changes in height between the stands and the pitch which make any forward crowd movement more manageable for stewards. This also helps to deter invaders by making a return to the stands more complicated- at present they often simply jump or step back into the stands to evade further action from the stadium authorities.
Appropriate space planning around the pitch area is key. We have already identified that player safety in terms of run off and potential collision with advertising boards is an issue. Allowing for sufficient physical infrastructure between crowd and pitch is advisable and some form of low-level physical barrier should be installed. Deterrents such as appropriately designed moats can also work.
The future?
There have been some worrying trends in the behaviour of supporters in and around English football stadiums. These have led to the police counselling caution in relation to the roll-out of safe-standing and the potential relaxation of “drinking-in-view” alcohol restrictions.
Encroachment onto the playing area (and its surroundings) during football matches was made a criminal offence in England and Wales shortly after the Taylor Report. History should view Taylor as a progressive force in terms of stadium design and crowd management. He wanted supporters to receive better treatment in improved facilities. He certainly wasn’t an advocate of fencing in supporters - “I do not suggest that there must be such [2.2m high] fencing or indeed any fencing.”
Whilst a return to the high intrusive fences of the 1980s is highly unlikely, a formal review of the physical separation and crowd management around the pitch area is more predictable in the face of a string of increasingly ugly incidents.
Today’s fans abusing the removal of fences by running directly onto the pitch area would have troubled Lord Justice Taylor. Whilst it might be the right time to move on from his all-seater vision, the dividing line between crowd and pitch needs re-thinking.
Comments