Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban at Villa ‘poses risk of violence’ – BBC

Report on Security Measures and Sustainable Development Implications for the Aston Villa vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv Football Fixture

Introduction: Context and Relevance to Global Goals

A decision by the Birmingham Safety Advisory Group (SAG) to prohibit travelling supporters from attending the Aston Villa vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv football match on 6 November has generated significant debate. This report analyzes the situation through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily focusing on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The controversy highlights the complex challenge of balancing security imperatives with the principles of creating peaceful, inclusive, and sustainable societies.

Institutional Actions and Rationale

The Decision by the Birmingham Safety Advisory Group (SAG)

The SAG, an institutional body comprising council representatives, police, and safety experts, implemented a ban on away fans for the fixture. This action was taken with the stated aim of upholding public safety, a core tenet of SDG 11. The rationale provided by the authorities included:

• A “high risk” classification for the match issued by West Midlands Police based on current intelligence.
• Precedent from a November 2024 match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam, which involved violent clashes, hate crime offences, and racist chanting.

While intended to prevent violence and thereby support SDG 16.1 (Significantly reduce all forms of violence), the effectiveness and broader consequences of this institutional decision have been questioned by multiple stakeholders.

Stakeholder Analysis and SDG Implications

Expert and Academic Commentary

Expert analysis suggests the prohibition may inadvertently undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve.

1. Professor Ellis Cashmore (Aston University): Warned that the high-profile ban could attract third-party agitators with no connection to football, thereby increasing the potential for violence and making the work of law enforcement more difficult. This challenges the effectiveness of the institutional approach (SDG 16.6) and could negatively impact Birmingham’s reputation as a sustainable host for international events (SDG 11).
2. Chris Phillips (Former Head of NaCTSO): Questioned the transparency of the intelligence used by the SAG and suggested the decision may have been influenced by political factors rather than purely operational security concerns. This raises concerns about the accountability and effectiveness of local institutions, a key target within SDG 16.

Responses from Involved Parties and Government

• Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: The club announced it would not accept any ticket allocation, even if the decision were reversed, citing the creation of a “toxic atmosphere” that jeopardizes fan safety. This outcome signifies a failure to ensure an inclusive and safe environment for all participants, contrary to the aims of SDG 10 and SDG 11.
• UK Government: Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy described the SAG’s decision as “wrong” and linked the matter to the broader context of rising antisemitism, directly invoking the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The government’s pledge to provide resources for policing highlights a conflict between local and national institutions, indicating a potential breakdown in the partnerships required to achieve the SDGs (SDG 17).
• Aston Villa FC: The host club has responded by restricting ticket sales to supporters with a prior booking history, an administrative measure to mitigate risks of ticket misuse.

Conclusion: A Conflict of Sustainable Development Principles

The situation surrounding the Aston Villa vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv match presents a critical case study in the application of sustainable development principles to event management. The core conflict lies between a localized, exclusionary security measure and the broader goals of fostering peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.

Key Findings in Relation to SDGs:

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The decision to ban fans, while intended to ensure peace, has been criticized as a potentially counterproductive measure that reflects a lack of institutional capacity to manage complex security challenges inclusively.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The controversy threatens Birmingham’s international standing as a safe and welcoming city, potentially impacting its future sustainability as a hub for major cultural and sporting events.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The prohibition on a specific group of fans, coupled with governmental concerns about antisemitism, frames the issue as one of inclusion and equal participation in public life.

The incident underscores the need for security strategies that are not only effective but also transparent, accountable, and aligned with the fundamental principles of equality and inclusion that underpin the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article’s central theme is the prevention of violence and the maintenance of public order surrounding a football match. It discusses the roles of institutions like the Birmingham Safety Advisory Group (SAG) and West Midlands Police in ensuring safety, dealing with “high risk” situations, and responding to potential “violent clashes and hate crime offences.” The debate over the decision-making process and the capacity of these institutions to manage the event directly relates to promoting peaceful societies and building effective, accountable institutions.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The issue of banning fans from a specific club (Maccabi Tel Aviv) touches upon themes of discrimination and inclusion. The article explicitly mentions concerns over “rising antisemitism” and fans chanting “racist slogans.” The UK government’s stated principle that “football fans should be able to enjoy a game without fear of intimidation or violence” advocates for equal opportunity and non-discriminatory practices, which are core to SDG 10.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article addresses the safety and inclusivity of public spaces within a city, specifically a major sports venue. The controversy and the potential for violence impact the city’s ability to host international events safely. Professor Cashmore’s prediction that the row could “‘put the kibosh’ on Birmingham hosting international sporting events in the future” highlights the connection between managing public safety and maintaining a city’s reputation and sustainability as a global host.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The entire premise of the SAG’s decision is to prevent potential violence. The article cites past incidents, such as “violent clashes and hate crime offences” during a match in Amsterdam and a derby in Tel Aviv being cancelled due to “public disorder and violent riots,” as the basis for classifying the fixture as “high risk.”
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat… crime. The article scrutinizes the capacity and effectiveness of local institutions. The question posed by a security expert, “What does this say for future matches at Villa Park, that West Midlands Police can’t deal with any fans that may cause big issues?”, directly challenges the perceived capability of the police force to prevent violence.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social… inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity, origin, religion or other status. The decision to ban an entire group of travelling fans, while for safety reasons, raises questions of inclusion. The context provided by the Culture Secretary, who links the issue to “rising antisemitism,” frames the debate around ensuring religious and ethnic groups are not excluded from public life due to fear or discrimination.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices. The SAG’s decision is a specific policy being contested. The UK government’s intervention to “find the resources” to police the match and allow fans to attend is an action aimed at reversing a policy that results in an unequal outcome for Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible… public spaces. A football stadium is a significant public space. The core conflict discussed in the article is how to make this space “safe” and “inclusive” for all. The Maccabi club cited a “toxic atmosphere” that put the “safety of our fans… in doubt,” indicating a failure to provide a safe and inclusive environment for this specific event.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  The article implies several indicators for measuring violence and institutional effectiveness.

  • Incidence of violence and hate crimes: The article explicitly mentions “violent clashes and hate crime offences,” “public disorder and violent riots,” fans who “attacked a taxi and set a Palestinian flag on fire,” and “hit and run attacks.” The number and frequency of such events are direct indicators for Target 16.1.
  • Public perception of safety: Maccabi Tel Aviv’s statement that a “toxic atmosphere has been created which makes the safety of our fans wishing to attend very much in doubt” serves as a qualitative indicator of the feeling of safety among a specific group, relevant to measuring progress towards a peaceful society.

• Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  The article points to indicators related to discrimination.

  • Reports of discrimination and harassment: The mention of “rising antisemitism” and fans chanting “racist slogans about Arabs” are direct references to discriminatory acts. The number of reported incidents of antisemitism or racism at sporting events would be a key indicator for Target 10.3.
  • Existence of exclusionary policies: The policy to ban travelling fans is itself an indicator of an exclusionary practice, regardless of its intent. Tracking the implementation or reversal of such policies measures progress towards inclusion.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.co.uk