Sports can bring out the best in people—belonging, pride, shared joy. But they can also trigger the worst: aggression, blind fanaticism, and collective anger that turns a match into a battlefield. Over time, I became convinced that violence in sport is not only a security problem. It is also a communication problem. The way sport is narrated, framed, and emotionally “charged” through media can either calm the stadium or set it on fire. That conviction is what led me to write this research with my colleague: “The Role of the Sports Media in Confrontation of Violence and Hooliganism in Sports.”​

This blog article is written in my own voice, because I do not see this topic as abstract. I see it as a responsibility toward athletes, fans, families, and the entire sports industry. When violence spreads in sport, people get hurt, institutions lose trust, and sport itself loses its social meaning. The paper was my attempt to study the phenomenon systematically—its manifestations, its causes, and the specific responsibilities of sports media in confronting it.​

Why I chose sports media as the entry point

Whenever violence happens around a match, the first reaction is usually to blame the crowd. Sometimes the blame shifts to the referee, the players, the club administration, or even the political context. All of these can matter. But media has a unique power: it reaches millions before, during, and after the match. It shapes expectations, builds tension, legitimizes narratives, and can normalize disrespect.

In our region especially, sports programs can become louder than the match itself. They sometimes present sport as a “war,” and they can unintentionally promote hatred between fans of different clubs. When this happens repeatedly, hooligan behavior becomes culturally acceptable. That is why I wanted to treat sports media not as a neutral observer, but as an actor with influence—and therefore with responsibility.​

What the study set out to do

The research had clear objectives:

• To identify the manifestations of violence and hooliganism expressed by the public (and the broader sporting environment).​

• To identify the causes of violence and hooliganism.​

• To identify the role of sports media in confronting violence and hooliganism.​

This structure matters. If the goal is to reduce violence, you must first define what it looks like, then understand its drivers, then evaluate how the media can reduce escalation instead of feeding it.

My journey writing it: moving from emotion to evidence

Violence in sport is emotional by nature. It is linked to identity, pride, and belonging. But research cannot be built on emotion. That is why we used the descriptive method with a survey approach, suitable for the nature of the study and its need to capture perceptions from multiple stakeholders inside the sports system.​

The sample was selected randomly and included a wide range of participants:

• Board members, technical staff, and players from clubs (80 participants).​

• Board members of some sports federations (43 participants).​

• Sports media professionals (20 participants).​

• Officials of the Ministry of State for Sport (34 participants).​

This brought the total sample to 177 participants. In addition, an exploratory sample of 30 participants from outside the main sample was used to calculate scientific coefficients for the research variables. The survey questionnaire was the primary data collection tool.​

For me, the diversity of the sample was essential. Violence and hooliganism are not produced by one group alone. They emerge from a system—clubs, federations, media, policy, and fan culture. A valid diagnosis requires listening to the system from multiple angles.

What we found: what violence looks like, and why it happens

One of the most important findings is the description of violence and hooliganism manifestations: they can include damage to stands and benches and disruptive behavior around the pitch, as well as some fans encouraging mob-like behavior and using non-educational chants. These are not “small incidents.” They reflect a breakdown of sporting values and a failure of social control inside the stadium environment.​

Regarding causes, the study found that a major driver is excessive enthusiasm and bigotry among some masses, as well as the broader spread of violence manifestations in society. This point is important: the stadium does not exist outside society. When violence becomes normalized socially, sport becomes one of the places where it is performed loudly and publicly.​

This is why confronting hooliganism cannot rely only on stadium security. It must also address cultural narratives, media framing, education, and institutional governance.

The role of sports media: what the paper asks media to do differently

The study’s conclusions about sports media are direct and practical. It emphasizes that media’s role in confronting violence includes:

• Transferring a true and clear picture of game events, especially for the public.​

• Refraining from publishing anything that incites the public or increases hatred between rival publics.​

This is not censorship. It is professional ethics. When media exaggerates conflict, spreads rumors, or frames the match as revenge, it encourages emotional escalation. And when escalation becomes the dominant mood, violence becomes more likely.

Media has the ability to educate without preaching: by choosing language carefully, by refusing to platform incitement, by rewarding fair play narratives, and by presenting athletes and fans as citizens first—not as enemies divided by club colors.

Recommendations: institutions must share the responsibility

One of the most important recommendations is to emphasize the role of sports bodies in providing programs and plans to improve sporting behavior through various media channels. This is a crucial point: the media cannot carry the burden alone. Sports federations, clubs, and ministries must design and support educational campaigns and behavioral programs, using media as a delivery partner rather than treating it as an uncontrolled arena.​

The study also recommends emphasizing the oversight role of legal institutions in determining what is displayed or published in the media when it affects fan behavior and reactions. This is sensitive, but necessary. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to incite hatred or provoke violence. In sport, the cost of irresponsible speech is often paid in real injuries, damaged facilities, and social division.​

Who this research is meant to impact

This paper is aimed at a wide circle of stakeholders:

• Sports media professionals: because their language and framing can either reduce tension or normalize incitement.​

• Clubs and federations: because governance, communication policies, and fan engagement strategies influence behavior.​

• Players and technical staff: because role-model behavior matters, and because athlete actions and statements can trigger crowd reactions.​

• Government and legal institutions: because policy frameworks, enforcement, and oversight shape the media environment and stadium safety.​

• Fans and families: because they deserve stadiums that are safe, respectful, and worthy of the word “sport”.​

The sports industry also benefits when violence decreases: sponsors feel safer, events become more attractive, tourism opportunities grow, and clubs can focus on development rather than crisis control.

A personal closing reflection

I wrote this research because I believe sport is a social classroom. The stadium teaches people—even when no one intends to teach. If media teaches hatred, hatred grows. If media teaches respect, respect spreads. This is not idealism; it is social psychology and public influence.

The core message of the paper is that confronting violence and hooliganism requires truthfulness, responsibility, and ethical boundaries in sports media—alongside institutional programs and legal oversight that protect sport as a space for competition without destruction.​

Because at the end of the day, the words said about a match can be as powerful as what happens inside it.