Soccer & Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsas20

Class wars among devoted football supporters.

Hooligan bourgeoisie and non-hooligan proletariat

Mateusz Grodecki & Radosław Kossakowski

To cite this article: Mateusz Grodecki & Radosław Kossakowski (2020): Class wars among
devoted football supporters. Hooligan bourgeoisie and non-hooligan proletariat, Soccer & Society,
DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2020.1828076

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2020.1828076

Published online: 06 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 47

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsas20
SOCCER & SOCIETY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2020.1828076

Class wars among devoted football supporters. Hooligan

bourgeoisie and non-hooligan proletariat
a b
Mateusz Grodecki and Radosław Kossakowski
a
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Warsaw, Poland; bInstitute of
Sociology, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland

ABSTRACT
The paper explores a phenomenon of growing divisions within the Polish
football supporters, namely between the hooligans and the rest of
devoted supporters. There are three primary aims of the paper: 1) to
explain the origin of the more apparent division in the devoted suppor­
ters’ community; 2) to characterize the division, and thus – 3) to analyse its
potential consequences. The paper draws on 96 interviews with football
supporters and a desk research conducted within two different research
projects. The analysis shows that divisions occurred as a result of the
exploitation of supporters’ cultural, symbolic and economic resources by
hooligan groups. What developed as a consequence was a sense of
distinct interests between hooligans and the rest of devoted supporters.
We interpret this arising awareness using Marx’s categories describing
transformation from ‘class in itself’” to “class for itself”.

Introduction
The paper explores a phenomenon of growing divisions within the devoted football supporters in
Poland. The term ‘devoted supporter’ draws on a definition of supporter suggested by Richard
Giulianotti – it refers to an individual who has a ‘long-term personal and emotional investment in
the club’ and is characterized by the impossibility of ‘switching allegiances to a rival club’.1 Devoted
supporters in Poland are organized community of football supporters, divided into formal and/or
informal ‘task groups’ responsible for activity in some areas of the rivalry of the ‘stands culture’2 or
represent a particular district of a club’s city or other smaller towns, where supporters of a particular
club are present (fan clubs). Unlike other countries like Italy, Greece, or Spain, in Poland, there is
a clear ‘division of function’3 between ultras and hooligans. Hooligans and ultras are both organized
fan groups, but the former is focused on the competitive violence,4 while the latter engages in the
rivalry about the choreographies and supporting the team during games. These differences are
rooted in the history of Polish fandom culture. Hooligans were the first subculture at Polish stands
based on the English patterns of support (the first groups were set up in the 1970s) and have gained
the ‘monopoly on violence’5 within the supporters’ community. Ultras groups came about later (in
the turn of the century), following the Italian model of performances (however, over time, polish
groups have created their own aesthetic forms), but due to the hooligans’ ‘monopoly on violence’,
they focused mainly on performative aspects of supporting.6
Despite the division of function, all groups constituted one community of devoted supporters of
a particular club, characterized by common norms and rules and most importantly by strong,

CONTACT Mateusz Grodecki mgrodecki@aps.edu.pl Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, The Maria Grzegorzewska
University, Warsaw 02-353, Poland
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

internal solidarity. In this particular environment, what is becoming more and more apparent is its
dichotomous division into hooligans – a smaller group in terms of quantity, but a dominant one in
terms of significance, control and power – and the rest, the majority of devoted supporters. This is
interesting, since so far, football supporters of one club in Poland have been considered as a rather
homogenous community.7 The community was characterized by enormous solidarity, and there­
fore has not been analysed in terms of internal divisions. What is more, hooligans have been
considered as club’s representatives in a different area of rivalry – as protectors of club’s colours,
and therefore have often been romanticized.8 Over time, however, the hooligans have become
a separate group (in an informal way), having interests that are distinct from those of the rest of
devoted supporters. What unites them is their specific code and behaviour patterns, as well as –
what’s crucial for this analysis – the control over symbolic and economic resources of the devoted
supporters’ community as a whole.
Polish hooligans have become a particular kind of ‘bourgeoisie of the stands’ that have managed
to establish a strong system of subordination over all the other groups of devoted supporters.
Hooligan power in the devoted supporters’ community has been legitimatized by the traditional
ideology which, accounting for all the violence and rivalry culture across the group of supporters,
granted hooligans a dominant position as club’s and other supporters’ protectors. The power made
hooligans the dominant ‘class’ that controls all the major resources of the devoted supporters’
community. Hooligans authorize and approve the content of ultras’ choreographies, decide which
groups of supporters from different clubs are friends/enemies, quite often, they control
a ‘commercial’ dimension of fandom activities, such as sale of gadgets, distribution of tickets
provided by club’s authorities, or make profits from ultras’ fundraisings for choreographies.
In recent years, some hooligan groups have started to take advantage of their dominant position
by taking over resources of the devoted supporters’ community with the aim to make profits,
feeding on the ideology of a club’s supporters’ solidarity. However, in devoted supporters’ com­
munities, critical voices towards hooligans have been growing stronger, which bears witness to the
emergence of divisions in the devoted supporters’ community. The objectives of the paper are 1) to
explain the origin of the more apparent division in the devoted supporters’ community; 2) to
characterize the division, and thus – 3) to analyse its potential consequences. Since the conflict
being subject of this analysis relates to power relations and its main axis is growing separation and
awareness of different economic interests between two groups within one community, we based the
study upon our reconceptualization of Karl Marx’s classic concept of class conflict.
Some works treating on the topic of football supporters have pointed at the negative perception
of hooligans by other fans, as their violent activities (both physical and verbal) were considered as
destructive for match day experience9 and even stroke fears into non-violent fans, which resulted in
some of them deciding not to attend football games.10 A more recent study by Joel Rookwood and
Geoff Pearson has challenged the dominating view of a unanimous, negative assessment of
hooligans by other fans, showing that supporters perceive hooligans as useful for their clubs in
terms of distraction, protection, and reputation.11
This study contributes to the existing literature by approaching the issue of relations between
hooligans and other supporters from a different perspective, which focuses on the relations of
power and control over symbolic and economic resources of the community and the conse­
quences of their exploitation by hooligans. To some extent, a similar process has been observed
among Lazio’s UltraS, where leaders of the group were accused by some other members of
embourgeoisement which was supposedly evinced in a switch of their ideology-driven to
money-driven decisions focused on the merchandising business.12 While the case of Lazio
fans resulted only in schism within Irriducibili, in Argentina the conflict over economic
resources (control of tickets, merchandising, drug trade) of football fans is one of the crucial
factors resulting in violence, division and even death among fans of the same clubs it is the
source of the biggest number of violent incidents, bigger that confrontation with fans of rival
clubs or Police.13 The economical benefits of Argentinian barra bravas (groups of the most
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 3

ardent fans) go beyond fandom and even concern controlling profits from car parking or
players’ transfer fees.14 The case of Boca Juniors barra clearly shows that the main leaders use
their power to force not only other fans but club’s authorities as well.15 This paper, however,
aims to explore the process and consequences of growing divisions not only among one group,
but between different kinds of devoted supporters (hooligans vs. rest) within the nationwide
community.
The paper first introduces the theoretical frame of the study that is based on reconceptualization
of classic Karl Marx’s theory of class conflict. It then goes on to an overview of analyses on football
supporters using Marxist and neo-Marxist concepts. Further on, it describes procedures of data
gathering and analysis. The following sections are concerned with the historical process of hooligan
groups ‘professionalization’ and their distinction from the community of devoted supporters. The
remaining part of the paper presents the results in two subsections: activities of hooligan groups
with regards to their economic interests and class distance of non-hooligan supporters against
hooligan supporters.

Class consciousness and class conflict

According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the history of all hitherto existing society has been
marked by class conflicts.16 In this concept, classes are not stable historical constructs, but rather
products of historical periods. Classes emerge as a result of a conflict of interests between social
groups:
In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life,
their interests and their culture from those of other classes and place them in opposition to them, they
constitute a class.17

One can speak of a class as a notion when there are at least two social formations of different
cultures, modes of life, and, most of all, of different interests resulting from uneven access to
economic resources. The conflict of economic interests generates an antagonism between classes.
Marx and Engels describe the essence of the said antagonism in The Communist Manifesto, where
they outline a class conflict occurring between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The axis of the
conflict is the exploitation stemming from ownership of means of production.18
Although in Marx’s theory, a class is essentially born out of a conflict of interest, it does not mean
that members of a class are aware of this conflict and that they have developed class consciousness.
Becoming conscious of the distinctiveness (from another class) and the community of interests
(with similar individuals) implies – to say it with the words of Marx – the transition from ‘class in
itself’ to ‘class for itself’:
Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The domina­
tion of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already
a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle . . . this mass becomes united and constitutes itself
as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests.19

What explains the lack of direct relation between the emergence of antagonistic interests and the
arousal of class consciousness are mechanisms of a dominant ideology functioning to legitimatize
a given social order. Such a prevailing ideology justifies beliefs on the society, legitimatizes interests
and norms of the ‘ruling class’, as well as their cultural expression.20 The ideology is indispensable,
since the rule of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat is the rule of the minority over the majority, and
it is the ruling class intention to ensure that other classes live in illusion, that their class conscious­
ness remains amorphous.21 Consequently, a class in itself constitutes an aggregate of individuals
deficient in class consciousness.22 A class for itself, on the other hand, does require class-
consciousness arousal related to consciousness of common interests and identification of groups
of common and antagonistic interests.
4 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

In this analysis, a classical theory of Marx is reinterpreted. First of all, we move away from the
analysis of class antagonism at the macro-level (society as a whole). Thereby, we do not consider the
devoted supporters’ community as a mirror of broader social processes, nor as a case representing
particular characteristics of the process of class conflict. Our conceptualization assumes, on the
other hand, that in the devoted supporters’ community we can observe the emergence of two
‘classes’ of antagonistic economic interests: hooligans and rest of the devoted supporters. The main
axis of the conflict is the exploitation (stemming from control over means of production). Certainly,
the said system is not hermetic – it is subject to influences by broader social processes and by other
actors. Nonetheless, the origin of the conflict lies in the exploitation of resources (uneven access to
resources) and devoted supporters’ world is characterized by such distinctive internal dynamics that
it can be treated as a separate area of analysis.
Second of all, we broaden the concept of means of production. In this paper, it does not only
refer to economic relations. The notion is expanded to encompass cultural and social capital, being
products of supporter’s rivalry as part of the ‘stands culture’. Still, in a capitalist system, the cultural
and social capitals translate into economic capital.23 Therefore, in this context, we can still speak of
means of production, since the control over those resources can contribute to the multiplication of
economic capital.
Such reconceptualization, however, does not respond to all criticism against Marx’s concept and
comes up against some of its main postulates. Firstly, although in his theory Marx took into account
the existence of other classes, he emphasized that in every structure two main classes can be
distinguished. Their dialectical relation determines the dynamics of the structure. Over time,
through involvement in a conflict, the structure will reduce to two main classes. Such
a dichotomous character of social structures has become one of the main criticisms of Marxism.
As pointed out by some researchers of the theory,24 the historical description of class conflict
requires a broader analytical approach that, at the macro level, has to take into account the internal
diversification of each class. This study, however, is not based on the concept of class itself but
rather on the usefulness of ‘class in itself’ and ‘class for itself’ dichotomy for creating an analytical
model to explore the process of breaking within the strongly-bond community. It needs to be
emphasized, however, that a community of football supporters of one club can vary internally in
terms of class and gender (although in general it is strongly masculinized community). The
introduced analytical frame does not focus on these issues. It is used here only to analyse the
emerging awareness of the distinction between exploiters and exploited which stems from control
over ‘means of production’ of devoted supporters’ community. This analytical usefulness in
exploring this issue is also the strongest argument to use Marx’s concept as a theoretical frame
for this study.
The later analyses of Marx’s theory have also pointed to some difficulties related to the self-
development of class consciousness among the exploited part of the population. Andrew indicated
that ‘it is perhaps questionable whether a class, without a sustained period of social hegemony,
could exist for itself, that is, articulate its understanding of the world, legitimate its interests and
aspirations as norms of conduct and forms of cultural expression’.25 In turn, Lukacs26 highlighted
that the emergence of class consciousness among proletarians should be seen as a result of the
intended actions of the Marxist intelligentsia. In this context, the growth of class consciousness of
non-hooligan supporters should result from activities of external actors, or, in a broader take, of
external processes. This paper, however, focuses only on the internal processes of the raising of
‘class consciousness’. Therefore, the examination of the potential influence of external factors (like
policy towards football-related violence or changing norms or discourses) is beyond this paper.

Marx’s theory in the world of football

The previous analyses using the Marxist theory to explain football supporters’ behaviours operated
at macro-social scale.27 Class concepts have been, most prominently, used in the early analyses of
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 5

football-related violence in England.28 Ian Taylor29 argued that violence expresses contestation of
the working class youth, who have become increasingly isolated because of market rules entering
the football world and a redefinition of the traditional relationship of clubs and working class. In
turn, researchers from ‘the Leicester School’30 discussed the formation of a ‘rough working class’,
originating from profound economic changes in the middle of the 20th century and the petrification
of social inequalities that followed. The rough working class was supposed to be associated with
‘uncivilized’ behaviour patterns – as opposed to dominant ones – and football matches were
supposed to become an opportunity for its representatives to publicly contest the authorities.
This opposition was expressed with violence addressed at groups of supporters of other clubs, as
well as at the police.
However, attempts to explain football-related violence based on the class theories have been
subject to massive criticism on the grounds of evidence-based studies.31 A comprehensive ethno­
graphy of hooligan groups showed that their internal structure is not made up solely of representa­
tives of the working class and the problem of violence taking place in and around football stadiums
can not be reduced to economic factors and the frustration resulting therefrom. Although the class
theories as the main theoretical framework failed to explain the causes of football violence (they
proved to be insufficient), this does not indicate that they are of no use in the analysis of the
phenomenon of football fandom.
The Marxist and neo-Marxist perspective has been used in a few studies exploring the commo­
dification of the contemporary fandom culture. The oldest approaches analysing the fans’ behaviour
based on Marx’s theory32 may have suggested that fans were ‘alienated’ groups with no access to
resources growing in the field of football. This statement could have been reasonable to some extent
in 1970s when it was published, at the time when football was not commercialized in such a manner
that it is today. More recently, David M. Webber has implemented Karl Polanyi’s concept of ‘double
movement’ to research on the Against Modern Football movement.33 Double movement refers to
two interplaying processes: the first one concerns the determination of economical system to
establish the self-regulating market, while the second refers to the social ‘counter-attack’ and
attempts to keep market forces subordinated to social values. The commercial transformation of
English and European football from the ‘90s is the first “movement”. The changing nature of the
game due to new TV deals, the growing significance of security measures, high tickets prices, and
opening for new global markets – entailed the incorporation of economic thinking in the structure
of football. The transformations went along with strategies of changing the “old” fans for the “new”
ones. But, just as there is no possibility to imagine the economy operating in separation from the
political and social system, there is also no possibility to separate the commercialized football from
its cultural and moral basis – founded and maintained by “proletarian” actors. The commodifica­
tion of football has not been able to commodify the “class” of traditional fans entirely. In fact, some
new generations of football consumers have been socialized but the proletarian rest either has
attempted to keep the old traditions (usually limited in scope) or undertook the efforts to bring back
the “beautiful game”. As a result, fans’ protests, the Against Modern Football movement, and other
actions have created a multidimensional image of ‘double movement’ in the contemporary history
of football.
Peter and David Kennedy study on football commodification draws on Marxist political econ­
omy approach. They argued that: ‘a Marxist political economy of the football business has the
potential to provide a dialectic account of football more aware that its relations of production and
consumption have never fully developed to the point at which they are commodified’.34 It seems
that features that create a strong fan’s identity – a sense of belonging, feeling of unity, friendship,
togetherness – are the most important ‘obstacles’ preventing the commodification of football to be
fully developed. In other words, the ‘labour’ of the fans can not be reduced to purchasing tickets or
club’s jerseys. Their ‘labour’ is more embedded in the emotional-social space of identity. However,
as P.D. Kennedy argues, the nature of contemporary football is fictitious in a double sense, as it
offers ‘unrealisable commodification’ and ‘mythical tradition’. On the one hand, many fans use
6 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

‘tradition’ (even if it has an ‘invented’ nature and is more mythical than real) to defend football
against commodification, on the other hand, these same fans express a ‘market realism’ in the
conviction that without necessary financial assets, sporting success (e.g. playing in English Premier
League) is not possible. Such motivation guided Portsmouth FC fans to sell their club (rescued by
fans from financial damage and managed by supporters trust) to new American owner.35
As can be seen, the Marxist theory has been used in first football fandom studies to explain
football-related violence (where it proved to be insufficient to explain the causes of violence) and
later some neo-Marxist concepts have been adopted to depict the dialectic relations within the
process of football commodification. This paper, however, aims to revisit the classic class theory in
football fandom studies to explain the inner split within the supporter community.

Methods of data gathering and analysis

Data for this study are drawn from a comprehensive material coming from ethnographic research
carried out independently by both authors, gathered in 2014–2018. It consists of data originating
from 96 interviews with devoted supporters36 (including 9 hooligans37) of 22 Polish football clubs
from top four divisions, as well as of a desk research analysis based on a nationwide Internet forum
(kibice.net), and press reports on the criminal and economic activity of members of hooligan
groups. Both methods have been used in a complementary way in order to expand the range of
empirical material.
Although the studies pursued different research goals, their common focus was on exploring the
community of devoted supporters in Poland. Both research projects brought a considerable amount
of ‘raw’ data which enlarged the possible scope of research questions (not included in primary
research projects). This data was subjected to a ‘goal-free evaluation’38 dedicated to all unplanned
and unanticipated results of gathering empirical data. This strategy has revealed some materials
clearly indicating a growing distance between non-hooligan supporters and hooligan groups. The
reason for this distance was an exploitation of the resources of devoted supporters’ community by
hooligans. The Marxist conception has been implemented as a theoretical frame in order to build an
explanatory model of this phenomenon.
As far as the empirical material is concerned, and with the implementation of Marxist theoretical
frame, the data have allowed us to explore two processes: 1) formation of ‘class in itself’ – that is
a process of the emergence of ‘classes’ of antagonistic economic interests among the community of
devoted supporters to be found in a) data describing economic and criminal activities of some
hooligan groups, b) information allowing to reconstruct successive stages of evolution of hooligan
groups organization and hooligan groups’ economic activities, as well as c) data outlining power
relations and processes of hooligans’ control over resources of supporter community and resources
exploitation; 2) transition of non-hooligan class into ‘class for itself’, the manifestation of which was
to be found in statements that revealed reluctance, criticism or distance towards hooligan groups
(also identity distance, expressed by referring to hooligan groups as ‘them’, as opposed to ‘us’). Such
statements usually involve explanations of such attitudes. Also, the interviews often provided
information on the economic activities of hooligan groups, being subject of such aversions.
We used the data from the interviews and desk research as they included data concerning the
growing division between devoted supporters. The data from the interviews revealed some infor­
mation about the evolution and specifics of hooligans’ activities and the structure and relations of
power within the devoted supporters’ community, while the data from desk research delivered some
specifics of hooligans criminal activities (press reports) and opinions of non-hooligans about
hooligans’ activities. The anonymity of the Internet forum was an important factor contributing
to the appearance of negative opinions, as a non-democratic way of making decisions in devoted
supporters’ community holds non-hooligans back in articulating their dissatisfaction in real life.
The interview data is made anonymous. The comments of the supporters are signed with three
types of variables: club’s name, subsequent letter of the alphabet corresponding to the coding
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 7

method in the original study, one of the ‘classes’ distinguished in the paper – hooligans and the
other supporters (non-hooligans) – of interviewee’s belonging.

Class conflict among Polish devoted football supporters

The analysis of empirical evidence showed two dimensions of ‘class’ conflict in the community of
devoted supporters in Poland. The first dimension is related to football hooligan firms. Some of
these groups have started to take advantage of their activities and position in the community in
order to increase their economic capital. As a consequence, they have started to exploit the
community of devoted supporters and to use these resources to make profits. Common economic
interests have also influenced the changes in hooligans’ identity – intending to increase their profits
they have started to cooperate in traditionally antagonized groups. Such a process can be inter­
preted as the emergence of the bourgeoisie within the community of devoted supporters.
The other dimension is related to non-hooligan-devoted supporters. They define hooligans as
groups having their own, distinct interests, conflicting with those of the communities of their own
club’s supporters. The antagonistic nature of interests is further explained as the focus of these
groups on economic activities (including illegal activities) to the detriment of resources of the
devoted supporters’ community. Therefore, this can be interpreted as a certain indicator of the
existence/the emergence of ‘class consciousness’ among the exploited part of devoted supporters,
and thus the transition from ‘class in self’ to ‘class for itself’. Members of devoted supporters’
‘proletariat’ are aware of the privileged position of the hooligan bourgeoisie; however – at least
currently – they do not have the resources (power, support, group solidarity) to change this
situation.
In order to better understand the origin and the character of the emerging class division among
devoted football supporters, one should get a full insight into the evolution of hooligan groups
themselves and the transformations within that have occurred. The empirical evidence analysis will,
therefore, open with the history of distinctions and origin of hooligan groups’ economic interests.
Further on, it will go on to data on both dimensions of class conflict.

History of Polish hooligans – the emergence of ‘bourgeoisie’

The culture of devoted supporters in Poland dates back to the turn of the 1960s and 1970s. It was
already in the 1970s that the first groups of young supporters, characterized by aggression and
defensive attitudes to protect their ‘territory’ from supporters of other clubs began to emerge. In the
1980s, the hooligan movement started to institutionalize and hooligan supporters gradually took on
organizational characteristics. The 1990s mark the peak of hooligan firms’ development – this is
when violence in and around stadiums came to its climax.39 This is also the time when the
distinction of hooligans from the other supporters’ groups appeared. So far, physical confrontations
rather involved all members of groups of devoted supporters.40 The year of 1997 is considered as
a symbolic starting point of diversification in the fandom structure – this is when presumably the
first prearranged fight (in Polish modern slang known as: ustawka) between supporters of Arka
Gdynia and Lechia Gdansk took place. Another symbolic borderline is 1999, marking the establish­
ment of the first group of ultras. Further on, we can observe a gradual emergence of a division
within the structure of fandom – into more ‘specialized’ hooligan groups (specializing in fights) and
ultras groups (specializing in choreographies). The division takes off at the beginning of the 21st
century, with the ultimate boom of ultras groups.
With the development of a stands culture, Polish-devoted supporters started to divide into
groups specializing in a given type of rivalry. Such divisions are to be interpreted as a certain
division of function or division of labour. Nonetheless, this is the time when hooligan firms started
to acquire a separate (elite) identity, which constitutes a universal stage of development of such
groups (as shown in Ramon Spaaij’s research41). The moment of the hooligan group formation can
8 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

be grasped in the below statement of a supporter of a Polish club Jagiellonia Bialystok, founder of
the first football hooligan firm in the city:
In 2001 it was like all those first prearranged fights, such as Arka-Lechia – big guys showing off fighting,
training, exercising. (. . .) And so, practically all the firms already had their gangs, except for us – so we were
like let’s form one. (. . .) You know, fifteen men gathered, each one was supposed to bring a guy, whoever the
fuck wanted to join, and we would separate, and we would fight. (Jagiellonia A; hooligan)

Two processes contributed to the separation of hooligan groups from the rest of devoted
supporters and to their focus being merely on physical confrontations. First of all, it was
penalization of football-related violence that followed the adoption of the Polish Mass Event
Security Act in 1997. The new regulation distinguished stadium space as requiring separate legal
regulations.42 It also provided some appropriate legislative tools to combat football-related
violence and thus increased the activity of security services in this sector. Consequently,
hooligan formations had to become more hermetic, also to other devoted supporters of their
own club, and better organized. Second of all, violence in and around stands had to professio­
nalize (which was highly influenced by football-related violence penalization). Therefore, in the
first decade of the 21st century, fights between hooligan firms began to move away from the
stadiums and took on a more planned character. Already in the period referred to by the
interviewee – 2001 – hooligans started to develop an interest in martial arts, designate places
intended for training, and, over time, to organize and take part in legal MMA tournaments. It
means that the nature of football-related violence evolved from confrontations of beery hooli­
gans with bellies somewhere in and around stadiums into organized gang fights involving
martial arts fighters. Sports discipline together with martial arts skills, right after tough
character, became the most important requirement of admission to hooligan firms, which
made them even more exclusive. Both processes intensified hooligans’ sense of being ‘the elite
of the stands’, described by Spaaij, as well as a sense of separateness from the remainder of
supporters.
After the separation, hooligan groups became the centres of power in the devoted supporters’
community – informal, but recognizable and universal (present in the community of devoted
supporters of almost every club). The structure of such hooligan centre of power is described by one
of the devoted supporters of GKS Belchatow:
Most of the leaders obviously come from hooligan circles. I’m stronger. I’m in charge. But it would not hurt if
they had any brains. Luckily, usually the power does not only belong to those who are the strongest – it also
takes charisma and brains. But those are very narrow circles. (GKS Bełchatów A; supporter)

This power has been ‘given’ and legitimized in relation to a certain ‘tradition of violence’.43 What
it means is that hooligan groups and their physical confrontations emerged as the first forms of
devoted football supporters rivalry in Poland. As a result, physical violence has been institutiona­
lized as the most ‘elite’ activity. Initially, the hooligan power was used primarily for strategic
decisions, for example – decisions on what club’s supporters to establish an agreement with
(friendly relations, Pol. zgoda), who is considered as an enemy (identification of an enemy group,
Pol. kosa), as well as on choreographies content. Such hooligan power is perfectly reflected in the
statements of supporters of Lech Poznan (regarding relations) and Legia Warszawa (regarding
choreographies), respectively:
It goes without saying that in most Polish clubs these are the hooligans that take decisions (. . .). At least in
Lech, what’s been always the most important was what came out from hooligans. Ultras have had to adapt.
(Lech Poznań A; supporter)

Hooligans rule over every Polish club, nah. A gang says not to do a choreo and they’re not doing it, no way.
There’s only one unity, there’s a hooligan firm, so it’s no surprise it holds the power. And ultras? They’re there,
they’re kind of free, but in some aspects, they need to follow a given direction. (. . .) if there’s any problem with
ultras, hooligans just kick them out, nah. (Legia Warszawa B; supporter)
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 9

‘The tradition of violence’ is also related to ‘the monopoly on violence’ held by hooligans in
devoted supporters’ community. In this context, this is a two-dimensional concept. Firstly, it refers
to decisions about fights between hooligan firms – their time, place, the number of fighters and the
composition of groups. Secondly, it also means that physical force and violence are used as tools to
legitimatize the power, the social control and the position in the devoted supporters’ structure. The
below words of a non-hooligan supporter reflect it directly.
Nobody’s going to stand up against them and enter into discussions, cause they always have superiority of
argument – the power. (Śląsk Wrocław B; supporter)

Due to the fact that hooligan groups separated as centres of power in the devoted supporters’
community, their leaders started to interact more and more often, which, in turn, contributed to the
monopolization of social networks.44 Hooligan leaders ‘seized’ social capital in the form of net­
works. This is especially apparent in decisions regarding the nature of contacts with supporters
groups of other clubs that are made and legitimized solely by designated persons from hooligan
groups, regardless of disapproval of other supporters. This is an important phenomenon to an
extent that it gave rise to the awareness of common interests among hooligan groups of different
clubs. These were foundations for the emergence of the ‘ruling class’ in the community of devoted
supporters – the hooligan bourgeoisie.

Hooligans – their economic interests and control over means of production

At the time that hooligan groups separated from the rest of devoted supporters and focused on
physical confrontations – at the beginning of the process of professionalization of football-related
violence – hooligan groups started also to engage in some economic activities. The below statement
by a Jagiellonia’s supporter describes the beginnings of their hooligan firm:
Here it was like, come on, join us, you’ll be one of us, let’s beat up some asses, let’s be one band. You know,
we’ll gather some more guys, we’ll cover some nightclubs as bouncers – somehow this is how it got going.
(Jagiellonia A; hooligan)

The formation of the group depicted above illustrates at least two processes. Firstly, it points to the
awareness of one’s organizational power, which started to be used for activities other than tradi­
tional hooligans activities (in this case, gaining some control over nightclubs as bouncers).
Secondly, it shows the internalization of capitalist rules. The organizational power and the skills
acquired in the supporters’ world were used in activities aiming at making profits. From that
moment, being a part of a hooligan group entailed not only greater prestige in the devoted
supporters’ community and a sense of belonging to the group holding power, but also the possibility
of accumulating economic capital.
This stage of hooligan groups’ development is crucial for our analysis. From that moment on,
hooligans started a) to adapt their organization and b) to make use of their power over football
stands, both to serve their economic activity. Due to the lack of regular data, we are not able to
reproduce in detail the evolution of this process. However, the empirical material that we gathered
allows us to identify the key dimensions of the current economic activity of the hooligans (both legal
and illegal).
The evolution of the organization of hooligan firms to better serve their economic aims is the
most apparent in their symbiosis with the criminal world. The position in the vertical structure of
hooligan firms not only depends on seniority, esteem and fighting skills, but often also on the level
of involvement in criminal activities. In other words, belonging to a hooligan group also implies
being involved in ‘business’ aimed at serving the economic interests of the group. The process is well
depicted in the below statement made by a police officer:
It starts with a minor offence. Over time, the calibre of groups’ expectations grows bigger. You’re given
promises about a promotion, and, in return, you’re expected to do bigger and more serious jobs. Their nature
10 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

varies – from involvement in fights, robberies, and thefts, up to drug traffic. Gangs of hooligans invest in new
recruits. Young people attend martial arts classes, earn respect in their circles, also they can count on help
from older colleagues in case of any trouble.45

Using the power to achieve economic goals is perfectly illustrated in strategic decisions related to,
for example, a system of friendship and rivalry in the football fandom world. In the past, such
decisions were made based on some regional background and frequent matches, sometimes on
social relations (e.g. drinking bouts), as well as on the power of a given group and possibilities of
cooperation in confrontations with other groups. Currently, it is more and more often based on
business relations (also illegal), that decisions are made. For instance, the alliance between Wisła
Kraków, Śląsk Wrocław, and Lechia Gdańsk, which lasted over 20 years, broke off mainly because
a hooligan firm of Wisła Kraków (‘Sharks’) allied with hooligans of Ruch Chorzów (‘Psychofans’).
The interviewed supporters (interestingly – of various clubs, also of those not involved directly in
this situation) admitted that the new ‘agreement’ on the Polish map of supporters, was motivated by
a common business relation – drug trafficking and smuggling:
I’ve heard that high-profile people from hooligan groups of Wisła and Ruch met in prison while serving
a sentence and came to a ‘business’ agreement. (Lechia Gdansk A, supporter)

The circumstances of the agreement reached between ŁKS Lódź and Lech Poznań are very similar.
One day (. . .) someone got in touch with Lech, or it was Lech who reached out to us (. . .) yes, it is all about
business. It was supposed to be just a hooligan agreement, but for sure Lech intended to develop a certain
network in the centre of Poland, I don’t know, maybe drugs or other resources. (ŁKS Łódź A, supporter)

The hooligan power over the rest of devoted supporters also translates into control and uneven
distribution of resources and ‘income’ coming from devoted supporters’ activities. The statement
made by a former hooligan of Cracovia, who claimed that the ‘money was notoriously taken after
fund-raising’ (Cracovia Kraków A, hooligan) perfectly illustrates the fact of hooligans making
profits from finance raised for devoted supporters’ aims.
Hooligans were also able to control the demand for goods from their illegal economic activity, by
enforcing solidarity through physical violence. A former hooligan of Cracovia is straightforward
about the fact that drugs could only be purchased ‘inside’:
Wisla and Cracovia had their own dealers. As Cracovia supporter, you could only get drugs from selected
dealers. (Cracovia Kraków A, hooligan)

Those two processes, namely the process of adapting the organization, as well as the process of
using the power at the stands – both in order serve economic purposes, further intensify a sense of
common interests among hooligan groups of various clubs, this is among the devoted supporters’
bourgeoisie. This is demonstrated in criminal activities in which hooligans were able to put their
club animosities aside and cooperate. Such cooperation was to be present between some members
of hooligan groups of Ruch Chorzów and GKS Katowice (fierce rivals from Upper Silesia) who
joined efforts in drug trafficking and burglaries.46 Similarly, in Tricity (three neighbour coastal cities
in Poland – Gdańsk, Gdynia, and Sopot), members of two opposing hooligan firms – Lechia Gdańsk
and Arka Gdynia – did drug and pimping business together, as well as they co-managed security of
Tricity’s nightclubs.47 What follows from words of a ŁKS supporter below is that such cooperation
is more and more common and the high position in the hierarchy of these firms is always related to
economic interests:
In big clubs (. . .) like ŁKS, Legia, Wisła, the power, up there, is concentrated in the hands of those who do
business, for example here . . . it’s ŁKS with Widzew (fierce rivals from Łódź – authors) – they must be doing
business (. . .) I mean often it’s just about real big money. And you, being an ordinary soldier, you cannot be
friends with them, be around them, take pictures with them, party if you’re not a hoolie (. . .) these are criminal
organisations, this is serious now. The more money is involved, the less . . . the more the hostility faints at some
point. (ŁKS Łódź A, supporter)
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 11

This confirms what was said earlier about the emergence of an ’elite’ among hooligan groups,
which began to establish ’business’ relations with each other, regardless of the existing norms and
traditions (cooperation with enemies). Economic interests played a vital role in the process of
arousal of solidarity among hooligans of various clubs and of awareness of having interests that are
separate from those of non-hooligan-devoted supporters. However, their overt contradiction to the
values of devoted supporters’ community (common interests with the enemy), and thus to the
ideology, which traditionally legitimatized the power of hooligans, at the same time requiring
conformism among non-hooligan-devoted supporters (‘you, as an ordinary soldier, cannot be
friends with him’), gave rise to a sense of the latter being exploited.

Class distance – awareness of being exploited

Despite the described divisions, the growing distinction of hooligan groups from the rest of devoted
supporters, the power over ‘the politics of the stands’ being centralized in the hands of hooligans,
‘monopolization of violence’, as well as the underground economy operations, at first it was difficult
to talk about the erosion of solidarity in the devoted supporters’ community. Hooligans were
perceived, with a dose of sympathy, as an armed hand of the club, cheered by other supporters
during prestigious physical confrontations with hooligan firms of other clubs.48 Such
a romanticizing approach is expressed in the statement of a supporter of Wisła Płock, who talks
about hooligans in terms of chivalric ethos:
I see hooliganism as chivalry, okay? Club colours, capturing an enemy flag. This is like the wars in the Middle
Ages – if there was a flag and someone got it, everyone would go to the king, cause there’s a flag. Hooliganism
is a kind of derivative. This is how I see it. (Wisła Płock A; supporter)

Currently, however, divisions between hooligans and the rest of devoted supporters are more and
more visible. The romantic perception of hooligans as ‘defenders of club colours’, as well as the
solidarity between various supporters’ groups of one club transformed into critical attitudes and the
awareness of being exploited. The consciousness of being dominated can be grasped in anonymous
supporters’ forum posts:
This whole whoring shit that is still sometimes called supporting or hooliganism, has long nothing to do with
those two concepts, since it’s long just been gangs, wars of pseudo-mafia that does not have balls to act like real
mafia, they hide at the stadiums instead and take advantage of the few with fanaticism in the heart! (kibice.net
201749)

Don’t be surprised that you’re charged for everything like you were stupid, they encircle you with must-have
match gadgets, just for the sake of money, and you’ll go nowhere if you don’t buy an exorbitantly overpriced
ticked for a special bus to the away match. A generation of fucking clones, wearing the same thing, brainlessly
repeating everything after the present mafia that took over the stands and is rolling in money, not respecting
those who are really in ultras part and rip their throats out for the club, but using them to make 1. laugh 2.
cabbage. Go on like this and if you don’t think independently, they will fuck you every week, regardless of
what’s your club, cause now it’s all in the hands of the underworld and their business. (kibice.net 201750)

The consciousness of being exploited is based on the awareness of: 1) dominance of economic
interests of hooligans over the interests of the devoted supporters’ community of a club; 2) instru­
mental use of devoted supporters’ values (sale of t-shirts, extorting money from contributions,
taking advantage of relationships with other supporter groups) with the aim to increase hooligan
profits; 3) legitimization of hooligan economic activities by ‘the tradition of violence’; 4) coopera­
tion of hooligan groups with the criminal world.
The awareness of being exploited consequently transformed into a certain identity and definition
distance. The identity distance is particularly visible in referring to hooligan groups as to strangers.
Hooligans are ‘them’:
They have their spots. At matches they usually wear black or wear pieces with no relevance to the club, and this
is quite bad cause they seem to consider themselves as better than supporters, so they do not involve in all
12 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

those basic things that we claim are important during matches, both home and away. Simply, they just care to
be popular, recognizable among supporters, to be respected, sometimes to arise fear, and it’s probably that
they feel they are the most savvy in this environment, that’s why they claim rights to be, let’s say, better suited
to be at the stands, that they are more savvy, they know more. (Śląsk Wrocław B; supporter)

In this perception, ‘they’ do not identify with the other devoted supporters either. ‘They’ consider
themselves as the ‘elite’ of the stands, as mentioned by Spaaij. ‘They’ stand at sides of sectors, wear
distinctive clothes. Because ‘they’ fight for the club, ‘they’ no longer have to take part in other forms
of devoted supporters’ activities at the stands. In other words, non-hooligans perceive the attitude of
hooligans as patronizing. This is characteristic to how the inferior class perceives the ‘bourgeoisie’.
The definition distance, in turn, puts hooligans outside the definition scope. It is visible in two
dimensions. Firstly, non-hooligans accuse hooligans of abandoning the ethos of devoted
supporters:
I mean, I just keep myself at a distance from all those hooligan groups. I find they do not entirely represent
a model, a supporter role model that is right, in my view. (Śląsk Wrocław B; supporter)

Secondly, the definition distance towards hooligans is apparent in all the statements, when referring
to those groups one deliberately omits terms associated with football fandom (‘firms’ or ‘hooli­
gans’). Non-hooligans are starting to realize that hooligan firms do instrumentalize the devoted
supporters’ ideology to use it to cover up and legitimatize their illegal operations. Therefore, they
rather refer to those groups as ‘mafia that took over the stands’, ‘underworld and their business’ or
‘gangs, wars of pseudo-mafia’. There is a boundary set between the world of criminal activities,
based on economic exploitation, and the world of devoted supporters. Qualifying hooligan groups
as criminal groups by other devoted supporters perfectly depicts non-hooligans’ awareness of being
economically exploited.

Conclusions: class consciousness and class wars

The results of this analysis indicate that the growing division in the community of devoted football
supporters results from its excessive exploitation by hooligan groups, which gives rise to ‘class
consciousness’ among non-hooligan-devoted supporters.
What is the key to understanding the process of division in this community is to get to the source
of ‘class consciousness’ among non-hooligans. According to the classic theory of Marx and
Engels,51 class consciousness arises ‘automatically’ as a result of growing inequalities in the access
to resources between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the subsequent deterioration of living
conditions of the latter. Consequently, the proletariat is to overcome inner class conflicts in order to
unite against the bourgeoisie. Staying consistent with these assumptions and interpretations, what is
considered a direct cause of the development of ‘class consciousness’, and, what follows, the
transition from ‘class in itself’ to ‘class for itself’ is the moment of excessive exploitation by the
hooligan groups. Such overexploitation can be interpreted as open attacks on resources of the
community of devoted supporters (control over money coming from choreographies, sale of
gadgets and organized trips, as well as forming coalitions serving interests).
However, the empirical material seems to show that the ‘class consciousness’ of non-hooligans is
a product of not only growing inequalities in the access to resources, but mostly of a tactical error
made by hooligan firms, consisting of overt activities explicitly breaking norms of the ‘stands
culture’ and thus exposing the false character of the dominant ideology that legitimatizes hooligan
power. It seems that so far the activity of hooligan groups – stigmatized by the state for resorting to
violence – has only been possible thanks to the solidarity of the devoted supporters’ community.
The solidarity has been reproduced because of the existing of ‘romantic’ idea of a hooligan among
other devoted supporters – turning to violence, indeed, but always in the name of traditional values
of community and club colours. Because of this tradition and the solidarity associated therewith,
every public attack, every preventive action or legislative initiative targeted at the hooligan firms (at
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 13

least in principle) have been interpreted as targeting the stands culture as a whole. With the
development of hooligan firms’ economic activities – including illegal – and so the more and
more frequent cooperation with hooligans of other clubs, the antagonistic nature of interests began
to break the basic rules and traditions of the stands culture.
It needs to be emphasized that this study is limited to giving visibility to the emerging process of
breakdown within community of devoted supporters and analysing its genesis and dynamics. It
does not assess how big the scale of the division is, how many hooligan groups are involved in their
economic interest-driven exploitation of other supporters, and to what extent this exploitation
reaches. Most probably this process differs depending on the local context. Nevertheless, this study
delivered evidence that it occurs among hooligan groups of different clubs and is recognized among
devoted supporters from various cities. This proves a breakdown in the devoted supporters’
solidarity and shows that ‘class consciousness’ of the exploited part of community is under
development.
Moreover, it needs to be stressed that our analysis focused only on internal processes that
contributed to a visible breakdown in the devoted supporters’ community. Taking into account the
criticism concerning the ‘self-raising’ of class-consciousness within the exploited part of the
community,52 further analysis should aim to show the potential influence of external processes
and actors. Some tracks lead to the changing public discourse of the stadium-related violence, which
could contribute to breaking the ideology forming the ‘false consciousness’ among non-hooligan
supporters. Until the time when Poland organized EURO 2012, the policy of the state towards
football-related violence attributed the responsibility to the community of devoted supporters as
a whole, even though the physical confrontations arose almost exclusively between the hooligans
groups. Currently, it seems that the discourse shifted and focuses on capturing and defining specific
groups responsible for violence in and around the stadiums, as well as on condemning such
behaviours.
Erosion of solidarity in the devoted supporters’ community and the potential inclusion of non-
hooligans in the camp against hooligans seems to constitute a possible turning point that would
make hooligan groups lose a lot of power. It is difficult to predict if the activity of football club
boards and the modernization in a broader context will result in the disappearance of the hooligan
‘class’. Probably, the violence and the desire of some groups to derive economic benefits are difficult
to eliminate. Perhaps, however, the transformation of the Polish society and of Polish football will
soon lead to a real ‘class’ revolution at the stadiums.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments that have helped improve the article.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The research conducted by Radosław Kossakowski was funded by the National Science Center (Poland), research
Grant number [2013/09/D/HS6/00238].

ORCID
Mateusz Grodecki http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3156-2850
Radosław Kossakowski http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-9730
14 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

Notes
1. Giulianotti, ‘Supporters, followers, fans, and flaneurs: A taxonomy of spectator identities in football’, 35–36.
2. Grodecki, ‘Building social capital’, 8.
3. Kossakowski, ‘From Communist Fan Clubs to Professional Hooligans: A History of Polish Fandom as a Social
Process’.
4. Spaaij, ‘Understanding football hooliganism: A comparison of six Western European football clubs’, 6.
5. Grodecki, ‘Życie po meczu. Formy wykorzystania kapitału społecznego kibiców piłkarskich w Polsce’.
6. Kossakowski, Szlendak, Antonowicz, ‘Polish ultras in the post-socialist transformation’.
7. Antonowicz, Wrzesiński, ‘Kibice jako wspólnota niewidzialnej religii’.
8. Rookwood, Pearson, ‘The Hoolifan: Positive Fan Attitudes To Football “Hooliganism”’.
9. Perryman, ‘The good, the Bad and the Beautiful Game’; Chiweshe, ‘The People’s Game: Football Fandom in
Zimbabwe’.
10. Williams, ‘Who are you calling a hooligan?’.
11. Rookwood, Pearson, ‘The Hoolifan: Positive Fan Attitudes To Football “Hooliganism”’.
12. Testa, Armstrong, ‘Football Fascism and Fandom’, 65.
13. Trejo ‘Violence and Death in Argentinean Soccer in the New Millennium: Who is Involved and What is at
Stake?’, 844.
14. Kelly, ‘The Barra Bravas: The Violent Argentinian Gangs Controlling Football’.
15. Grabia, La Doce, La Verdadera, ‘Historia de la Barra Brava de Boca’.
16. Marx, Engels, ‘The communist manifesto’.
17. Lukacs, ‘Historia i świadomość klasowa: studia o marksistowskiej dialektyce’, 163.
18. Marx, Engels, ‘The Communist Manifesto’.
19. Marx, Engels, Lapides, 'Marx and Engels on Trade Unions', 34.
20. Andrew, ‘Class in Itself and Class against Capital: Karl Marx and His Classifiers, Canadian Journal of Political
Science’, 583.
21. Lukacs, ‘Historia i świadomość klasowa: studia o marksistowskiej dialektyce’, 172.
22. Andrew, ‘Class in Itself and Class against Capital: Karl Marx and His Classifiers, Canadian Journal of Political
Science’, 582.
23. Bourdieu, ‘The Forms of Capital’.
24. Hochfeld, ‘Studia o marksowskiej teorii społeczeństwa’.
25. Andrew, ‘Class in Itself and Class against Capital: Karl Marx and His Classifiers, Canadian Journal of Political
Science’, 583.
26. Lukacs, ‘Historia i świadomość klasowa: studia o marksistowskiej dialektyce’, 172.
27. Kennedy, Kennedy, ‘Football in Neo-Liberal Times: A Marxist Perspective on the European Football
Industry’.
28. Cleland, Cashmore 'Football Fans' Views of Violence in British Football.
29. Taylor, ‘Football Mad: A Speculative Sociology of Football Hooliganism’.
30. Dunning, Murphy, Williams, ‘The Roots of Football Hooliganism’.
31. Giulianotti, ‘Social Identity and Public Order: Political and Academic Discourses on Football Violence’;
Armstrong, Harris, ‘Football Hooligans: Theory and Evidence’.
32. Taylor, ‘Football Mad: A Speculative Sociology of Football Hooliganism’.
33. Webber, ‘Playing on the Break’: Karl Polanyi and the double-movement ‘Against Modern Football’.
34. Kennedy, Kennedy, ‘Towards a Marxist Political Economy of Football Supporters’, 184.
35. BBC, ‘Portsmouth FC: Michael Eisner Completes Takeover of League One Club’.
36. According to the definition of devoted supporter, the interviewees had to meet the two following criteria: (1)
declare an emotional attachment to a football club; (2) be a former or present member of formal or informal
group of football supporters.
37. As hooligans, we define supporters who were members of hooligans groups or admitted during the interview
that they took part in fights between football supporters. A small number of interviews with hooligans is
associated with their distrust of ‘outsiders’. Therefore, it results in reluctance to talk with the researchers.
38. Scriven, ‘Prose and Cons About Goal-free Evaluation’.
39. Kossakowski, ‘Where are the Hooligans? Dimensions of Football Fandom in Poland’.
40. Burski, ‘Od chuligana do prezesa – analiza przemian zachodzących w społecznym świecie polskich kibiców’;
Ruban, ‘Z pamiętnika Galernika. Magia lat 90-tych’, Vol. 1, Vol. 2.
41. Spaaij, ‘Understanding Football Hooliganism: A Comparison of Six Western European Football Clubs’, 316–7.
42. Antonowicz, Grodecki, ‘Missing the Goal. Policy Evolution Towards Football–related Violence in Poland
(1989–2012)’.
43. Grodecki, ‘Życie po meczu. Formy wykorzystania kapitału społecznego kibiców piłkarskich w Polsce’.
44. ibid.
 SOCCER & SOCIETY 15

45. Kłos, Słomczyński, ‘Handel narkotykami w Gdańsku. Grupy przestępcze chcą przeniknąć do środowiska
kibiców Lechii’.
46. Pietraszewski, ‘Mafiosi i kibole Ruchu Chorzów’.
47. Kłos, Słomczyński, ‘Handel narkotykami w Gdańsku. Grupy przestępcze chcą przeniknąć do środowiska
kibiców Lechii’.
48. Similiar as in England, see Rookwood, Pearson, ‘The hoolifan: Positive fan attitudes to football “hooliganism”’.
49. https://www.kibice.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33905&start=200 (accessed 28.9.2020).
50. https://www.kibice.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33730&start=160 (accessed 28.9.2020).
51. Marx, Engels, ‘The Communist Manifesto’.
52. Lukacs, ‘Historia i świadomość klasowa: studia o marksistowskiej dialektyce’, 172.

Bibliography
Andrew, E. ‘Class in Itself and Class against Capital: Karl Marx and His Classifiers’. Canadian Journal of Political
Science 16, no. 3 (1983): 577–584. doi:10.1017/S0008423900023994.
Antonowicz, D., and M. Grodecki. ‘Missing the Goal: Policy Evolution Towards Football-related Violence in Poland
(1989–2012)’. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 53, no. 4 (2018): 490–511. doi:10.1177/
1012690216662011.
Antonowicz, D., and Ł. Wrzesiński. ‘Kibice jako wspólnota niewidzialnej religii’. Studia Socjologiczne 1, no. 192
(2009): 115–142.
Armstrong, G., and R. Harris. ‘Football Hooligans: Theory and Evidence’. The Sociological Review 39, no. 3 (1991):
427–458. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1991.tb00861.x.
BBC. ‘Portsmouth FC: Michael Eisner Completes Takeover of League One Club’. August 3, 2017, www.bbc.com/
sport/football/40789323 (accessed November 19, 2019).
Bourdieu, P. ‘The Forms of Capital’. in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. R. John,
241–248. New York: Greenwood, 1986.
Burski, J. ‘Od chuligana do prezesa – analiza przemian zachodzących w społecznym świecie polskich kibiców’. in
Futbol i cała reszta. Sport w perspektywie nauk społecznych, ed. R. Kossakowski, K. Stachura, A. Strzałkowska, and
M. Żadkowska, 269–286. Pszczółki: Wydawnictwo Orbis Exterior, 2013.
Cleland, J., and E. Cashmore. ‘Football Fans’ Views of Violence in British Football: Evidence of a Sanitized and
Gentrified Culture’. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 40(2), 124–142. doi: 10.1177/0193723515615177.
Chiweshe, M.K. The People’s Game: Football Fandom in Zimbabwe. Bamenda: Langaa RPCIG, 2017.
Dunning, E., P.J. Murphy, and J. Williams. The Roots of Football Hooliganism. London: Routledge, 1988.
Giulianotti, R. ‘Social Identity and Public Order: Political and Academic Discourses on Football Violence’. in
Football, Violence and Social Identity, ed. R. Giulianotti, N. Bonney, and H. Mike, 9–36. London: Routledge, 1994.
Giulianotti, R. ‘Supporters, Followers, Fans, and Flaneurs: A Taxonomy of Spectator Identities in Football’. Journal of
Sport and Social Issues 26, no. 1 (2002): 25–46. doi:10.1177/0193723502261003.
Grabia, G. La Doce: La Verdadera Historia de la Barra Brava de Boca. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana, 2011.
Grodecki, M. Życie po meczu. Formy wykorzystania kapitału społecznego kibiców piłkarskich w polsce. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2018.
Grodecki, M. ‘Building Social Capital: Polish Football Supporters through the Lens of James Coleman’s Conception’.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport 54, no. 4 (2019): 459–478. doi:10.1177/1012690217728728.
Hochfeld, J. Studia o marksowskiej teorii społeczeństwa. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1963.
Kelly, A. ‘The Barra Bravas: The Violent Argentinian Gangs Controlling Football, The Guardian, August 21, 2011,
www.theguardian.com/football/2011/aug/21/argentina-football-gangs-barra-bravas (accessed November 18,
2019).
Kennedy, D., and P. Kennedy. ‘Towards a Marxist Political Economy of Football Supporters’. Capital & Class 34, no.
2 (2010): 181–198. doi:10.1177/0309816810365520.
Kennedy, P., and D. Kennedy. Football in Neo-Liberal Times: A Marxist Perspective on the European Football
Industry. London: Routledge, 2016.
Kłos, Ł., and T. Słomczyński. ‘Handel narkotykami w gdańsku. grupy przestępcze chcą przeniknąć do środowiska
kibiców lechii’, Dziennik Bałtycki, June 30, 2011, www.dziennikbaltycki.pl/artykul/932842,handel-narkotykami
-w-gdansku-grupy-przestepcze-chca-przeniknac-do-srodowiska-kibicow-lechii,2,id,t,sa.html (accessed April 11,
2019).
Kossakowski, R. ‘Where are the Hooligans? Dimensions of Football Fandom in Poland’. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport 52, no. 6 (2017b): 693–711. doi:10.1177/1012690215612458.
Kossakowski, R. ‘From Communist Fan Clubs to Professional Hooligans: A History of Polish Fandom as A Social
Process’. Sociology of Sport Journal 34, no. 3 (2017c): 281–292. doi:10.1123/ssj.2017-0019.
Kossakowski, R., T. Szlendak, and D. Antonowicz. ‘Polish Ultras in the Post-socialist Transformation’. Sport in
Society 21, no. 6 (2018): 854–869. doi:10.1080/17430437.2017.1300387.
16 M. GRODECKI AND R. KOSSAKOWSKI

Lukács, G. historia i świadomość klasowa: Studia o marksistowskiej dialektyce. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, 1988.
Marx, K., F. Engels, and K. Lapides. Marx and Engels on Trade Unions. New York: International Publishers, 1990
Marx, K., and F. Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin, 2002.
Perryman, M. ‘The Good, the Bad and the Beautiful Game’. in Hooligan Wars: Causes and Effects of Football Violence,
ed. M. Perryman, 13–36. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 2001.
Pietraszewski, M. ‘Mafiosi i kibole ruchu chorzów’. Wyborcza.pl Katowice, February 18, 2011, http://wyborcza.pl/
1,76842,9126747,Mafiosi_i_kibole_Ruchu_Chorzow.html (accessed April 11, 2019).
Rookwood, J., and G. Pearson. ‘The Hoolifan: Positive Fan Attitudes to Football ‘Hooliganism’’. International Review
for the Sociology of Sport 47, no. 2 (2012): 149–164. doi:10.1177/1012690210388455.
Ruban, A. Z Pamiętnika Galernika. Magia Lat 90-tych. Vol. 1. Łódź: SPRINT STUDIO, 2014.
Ruban, A. Z pamiętnika galernika. Magia lat 90-tych. Vol. 2. Łódź: SPRINT STUDIO, 2015.
Scriven, M. ‘Prose and Cons about Goal-free Evaluation’. Evaluation Practice 12, no. 1 (1991): 55–62. doi:10.1016/
0886-1633(91)90024-R.
Spaaij, R. Understanding Football Hooliganism: A Comparison of Six Western European Football Clubs. Amsterdam:
University Press, 2006.
Taylor, I. ‘Football Mad: A Speculative Sociology of Football Hooliganism’. in The Sociology of Sport: A Selection of
Reading, ed. E. Dunning, 352–377. London: Frank Cass, 1971.
Testa, A., and G. Armstrong. Football, Fascism and Fandom: The Ultras of Italian Football. London: A&C Black, 2010.
Trejo, F., F.D. Murzi, and B. Nassar. ‘Violence and Death in Argentinean Soccer in the New Millennium: Who Is
Involved and What Is at Stake?’. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 54, no. 7 (2019): 837–854.
doi:10.1177/1012690217748929.
Webber, D.M. ‘Playing on the Break: Karl Polanyi and the Double-movement against Modern Football’. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport 52, no. 7 (2017): 875–893. doi:10.1177/1012690215621025.
Williams, J. ‘Who are You Calling a Hooligan?’. in Hooligan Wars: Causes and Effects of Football Violence, ed.
M. Perryman, 37–53. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 2001.