The cabinet is ‘now really’ going to work on the digital notification obligation for stadium bans. The KNVB expects it to help ‘enormously’ against fan violence. Is that right? And why hasn’t that ‘hooligan app’ been promised for years? Five questions about the digital reporting obligation.
How does such a digital reporting obligation work?
Those who have a stadium ban and are subject to a digital reporting obligation must report their location by telephone before, during and after matches. This way the authorities know for sure that someone is not in the stadium. The KNVB has been asking for this digital reporting obligation for years because it still happens too often that people with a stadium ban still go to matches. “If KNVB and clubs write out stadium bans that are not enforced, it will not help,” says KNVB director Marianne van Leeuwen. On Wednesday, she received a promise from Minister Yesilgöz-Zegerius of Justice and Security that the cabinet is now really working on it.
Isn’t it very easy to commit fraud with such a mobile reporting system?
The KNVB came up with the proposal in 2013 and had an app developed that was successfully tested in 2015 at RKC and NEC. This ‘hooligan app’ worked with a fingerprint. “We forwarded the results to the ministry and have not heard anything more about it,” said the spokesman for the KNVB. The Ministry’s Judicial Information Service (Justid) has been working on its own prototype since 2020, which works with facial recognition and accurate location determination. ‘Fraud prevention is crucial here, because there are risks of fraud with facial recognition, for example through deepfake technology, and fraud with the location, for example through VPN or GPS spoofing,’ the minister writes to the House of Representatives.
Why does it take so long?
You have to ask the ministry that, says the KNVB. The ministry says that it mainly has to do with technical feasibility. “It has to be waterproof.” Not only the prevention of fraud, but also privacy, for example, plays a role in this. The Ministry expects to make a decision on progress in the summer, after which a pilot will be started again.
Isn’t that duty to report just physical?
Since the Football Act of 2015, it is possible to also impose a physical reporting obligation on someone with a stadium ban. But that is legally complex, and is often related to an area ban imposed by the mayor. In practice this rarely happens. “We have used the duty to report a number of times,” says spokesman Hans Coenraads of Mayor Schuiling of Groningen. “But not often. Apart from being legally complex, it also encounters practical objections. And it demands a lot from the police capacity.”
Will a digital notification requirement really help?
“It would really help enormously,” says KNVB director Van Leeuwen. Chairman John de Jonge of the supporters association of FC Groningen is in favor of the digital reporting obligation, but does not see it as a conclusive solution. “Part of the incidents are also caused by ‘first offenders’, supporters who do not have a stadium ban.” Coenraads also says that problems at FC Groningen are not currently caused by people with a stadium ban. For the municipality, there are first more important matters that require attention, such as the security and resilience of the organization at FC Groningen.
Listen to our crime podcast Radio Ramraak about supporter violence below. You can also find the podcast at Spotify and apple podcast.