Hardened fronts: the cascade model divides Swiss football

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Switzerland will introduce the cascade model early next season. While authorities see this as an effective means of curbing fan violence in and around Swiss football stadiums, the Swiss Football League (SFL) and its clubs fear the opposite. For them, it is collective punishment that leads to more risks in the stadiums, to solidarity among fans and – above all – does not solve the problem. Their slogan is: individual prosecution of perpetrators.

Even if the representatives of the different parties in the House of Generations in Bern sit at the same table, there is anything but unity. “The SFL and the clubs unanimously reject the cascade model,” says Claudius Schäfer, CEO of SFL. “It is one-sided, disproportionate and unproductive.”

What makes football representatives particularly angry is that despite ongoing consultation, some measures have already been taken in recent months. Sector closures took place in more than half of Super League stadiums. “This led to more precarious and delicate situations in the stadiums,” Schäfer said.

There is a risk of sector closures and ghost games

In the cascade model that has now been adopted, sector closures are also planned if there is violence or use of weapons, pyrotechnics or objects against people (level 3). What is new, however, is that ticket sales must be stopped at the same time, so that fans cannot switch to other sectors – as happened, for example, in the Zurich vs. Lausanne at the end of January. If this happens again, the clubs risk a ghost game (level 4).

“The fact that the SFL does not want to support this decision is disappointing for us,” said Karin Kayser-Frutschi, co-chair of the KKKPD. Because there were no better suggestions from the other side to tackle the problem. The government councilor of the canton of Nidwalden had hoped that football representatives would also support the adopted cascade model after two years of dialogue. This should be used “if dialogue and de-escalation measures do not achieve their goals”.

In concrete terms, this means: If people are in danger by setting off fireworks or causing serious damage to property, a “mandatory situation briefing” will take place by the authorities, club and fan representatives before and after the next three matches (level 1). In the event of repeated incidents, danger to persons due to pyrotechnics or particularly serious material damage, level 2 is activated. This includes video surveillance at the entrance to identify fans. The clubs bear the additional costs.

Reason is required

Whether the cascade model leads to less violence is more than doubtful, especially because the reactions of clubs and fans to the decisive political measures are violent. In an initial phase, there is even a risk that the cycle of violence will reverse more quickly, as has been shown in recent months.

But one thing is clear: politicians have the upper hand. After years of discussions, she has had enough; the measures are anything but a surprise. The decision is a rejection for the league, the clubs and the fans. They feel misunderstood, even though the forfeit defeats, which were mentioned as the next step in a first version, are off the table.

Both sides must now maintain their sanity. The authorities, so that the cascade model is only used as a “last resort”, the clubs and fans, so that they can keep their blood calm despite the power of politicians. Because if the cascade model fails, everyone loses: politicians, clubs and fans. After all, all parties have the same goal: to curb violence and lock up individual chaotic people who exist not only around football matches, but also in the rest of society.

Source:Blick