The Herald reports


Why should Murrayfield allow alcohol for rugby but not football

NEIL DRYSDALE June 11 2007

The F-word was much in evidence at Murrayfield last Friday, though the expression on the faces of SNP justice minister Kenny MacAskill and SRU chief executive Gordon McKie indicated their frustration that football had been mentioned so often during their press conference.

The occasion was designed to confirm that the long-standing ban on the sale of alcohol at the national rugby stadium has been lifted, allowing fans at this autumn's World Cup to partake of a pint or a glass of wine while they watch the action. But hanging in the air was the feeling that this discriminates in favour of rugby at the expense of football.

It may indeed be an anomaly that Six Nations rugby aficionados have been able to purchase drink at the Millennium Stadium or Twickenham but not at Murrayfield.

advertisementHowever, consider this: when Hearts tackle Barcelona in a pre-season friendly at Murrayfield next month, alcohol will be prohibited. When Scotland meet Ireland in a World Cup warm-up fixture at the same venue a fortnight later, it will be perfectly acceptable for fans to slake their thirsts with beer or lager.

One hesitates to blame the SRU for this inconsistency: they have been lobbying for the restrictions to be relaxed for several years and have lost out on staging major events because of the drinks ban.

But how does MacAskill, a former Tartan Army footsoldier, justify treating the country's two national sports in entirely different ways?

I asked: "How do you explain to decent, intelligent Scotland football supporters, who have won awards throughout Europe for their behaviour, that they are deemed not to be fit to enjoy a drink at their national stadium, yet 50 miles along the road, it's okay?"

His reply was, "I think you should speak to the SFA and ask president George Peat or chief executive Gordon Smith to make representations, because, so far, there are none before me. The football authorities will have to make applications and they will also have to speak to the relevant chief constables, because it would be foolish of me to ignore advice which comes from them."

He added, somewhat ambiguously, that it "was up to football to square the circle with the police", which left the impression that MacAskill does not envisage any rapid change to the status quo.

Cynics might conclude that chief constables are far more likely to be involved in rugby than football, and that the speed of this policy shift - which surprised even McKie - owes not a little to the perception that rugger's Barbourati are civilised chaps and chapettes, who are capable of supping a cold Guinness or cheeky Merlot without losing the plot, whereas the great unwashed who tramp along to Hampden Park present a dire threat to civilisation as we know it, should they be allowed even the merest sniff of a bevvy.

Nobody is defending the sickening rampage between Old Firm supporters at the 1980 Scottish Cup final, which was the original catalyst for a ban on alcohol inside the country's grounds, but that was 27 years ago and attitudes have changed significantly.

Back then, the idea of encouraging family areas was regarded as barking mad. Now, it is a staple feature of 21st-century soccer. There is also nothing like the same level of sectarian baggage and intolerance and, in any case, the Tartan Army, post-1978, has turned self-parody into an art form.

In which light, MacAskill should acknowledge that he has created a discrepancy which actually panders to the neanderthals by treating every supporter as a potential ned.

"Responsible Drinking Set To Make A Welcome Return To Murrayfield", was the headline on Friday's press release, but that begged more questions than answers. Namely: is the Executive arguing that a football audience can't be trusted to drink responsibly? If so, is that not tarring every single fan with the same (negative) brush? And, if the SRU decides to organise another match at Hampden in the future - where alcohol will be available within the stadium - isn't that a blatant case of double standards?

No doubt, there are valid concerns over sanctioning drinks licenses at Ibrox and Celtic Park in the immediate future. But these shouldn't be used as a smokescreen to conceal the fact MacAskill's policy automatically assumes rugby people can be trusted to keep the peace and football folk cannot.

If the justice minister has travelled recently from Murrayfield back to Glasgow on a train packed with kilt-wearing loons in a voluble state of intoxication, he may care to reconsider the virtues of generalisation.

This article was posted on 11-Jun-2007, 08:15 by Hugh Barrow.