Abstract
This paper reviews the claims about the explanation of violence around football put forward by Armstrong and Harris in the light of more widespread faults in the analysis of ‘hooliganism’. It argues that conceptual, definitional and methodological problems mean that the data Armstrong and Harris supply should not cause anyone to abandon either of the two theoretical positions they think they criticize. In particular their dismissal of the moral panic type of approach to the study of football hooliganism is rebutted. Evidence concerning Scottish football is supplied to support this and to indicate that all English researchers into this issue require to revise their arguments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
