When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

LA STAMPA

Dissecting Rome's Soccer Riot: What Went Wrong?

Dutch soccer fans smashed and urinated their way through Rome last week. Could Italian authorities have done anything to stop them?

Soccer fans clash with police forces next to Rome's Fontana della Barcaccia
Soccer fans clash with police forces next to Rome's Fontana della Barcaccia
Grazia Longo

ROME — There's no question about who was responsible for last week's riot in Rome: the Feyenoord "ultras." The Dutch soccer team's marauding supporters trashed and pissed all over the Spanish Steps, severely damaged the Fontana della Barcaccia in the piazza (the fountain, sculpted by Pietro Bernini, Gian Lorenzo Bernini's father, had just been restored thanks to a 200,000 euro donation from the Bulgari jewelry company), smashed shop windows and destroyed 15 city buses and a number of cars and scooters.

But while the frenzied fans must clearly be held accountable for their actions, it's also worth asking whether the incident could in any way have been prevented. Were there security shortcomings? Did the Roman mayor's office make the right calls? And what about the Interior Ministry?

With all that in mind, let's look at a handful of things that obviously didn't work:

Banning booze

An order to ban alcohol was issued on Wednesday evening by Prefect Giuseppe Pecoraro. But it seems to have been too little too late — Pecoraro issued the order only after receiving a note from the police superintendent. By then Dutch fans had already arrived in Rome.

That night, urban warfare broke out in the Campo dei Fiori piazza, and police ended up arresting 28 hooligans. Why did it take so long to issue the alcohol ban? And why did it only apply to certain bars but not to grocery stores or illegal street vendors?

Monitoring social media

This was a disaster waiting to happen. On Thursday morning, a tweet was sent telling ultras to rally in the historic center at Piazza di Spagna, instead of the Duca d'Aosta bridge, and then travel to the stadium together. Does nobody among Roman authorities check social networks?

Protecting La Barcaccia

After the riots at Campo dei Fiori the night before, should officials not have put up barriers around fountains? Should the city not have taken all possible precautionary measures? Let's not forget that Rome is basically an open-air museum, which makes it very difficult to imagine "locking away" the monuments.

Pointing fingers

There was no hesitation from Mayor Ignazio Marino in immediately criticizing the prefecture, police forces and the Interior Ministry for what happened. "The orders given to the police were a bad start. Something went wrong, and there weren't enough officers," he said. This week, the mayor will meet with Interior Minister Angelino Alfano, whose resignation is being called for from politicians in the Five Star Movement and far-right Lega Nord.

Sharing notes

It's clear that something didn't work in the communication between Italian and Dutch police. News came from Rotterdam that 100 ultras were coming — as it turned out, more than 500 arrived without tickets, traveling from Belgium to avoid checkpoints. Perhaps this short-circuiting of information contributed to the flippancy of the Dutch club. Neither the official Feyenoord website nor the Dutch press properly condemned the depredation of the Piazza di Spagna.

Footing the bill

Dutch Ambassador Michiel Den Hond apologized to Mayor Marino, saying flatly that those who caused damage "will pay." But he also implied that the Dutch government wouldn't take any financial responsibility. "I asked the ambassador whether he intends to intervene in paying for the damages," said Marino after a conference at City Hall, "and he replied that he doesn't believe the Dutch government will pay for the restoration of La Barcaccia."

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Ideas

"Collateral Benefit": Could Putin's Launching A Failed War Make The World Better?

Consider the inverse of "collateral damage." Envision Russia's defeat and the triumph of a democratic coalition offers reflection on the most weighty sense of costs and benefits.

Photo of a doll representing Russian President Vladimir Putin

Demonstrators holding a doll with a picture of Russian President Putin

Dominique Moïsi

-Analysis-

PARIS — The concept of collateral damage has developed in the course of so-called "asymmetrical” wars, fought between opponents considered unequal.

The U.S. drone which targeted rebel fighters in Afghanistan, and annihilated an entire family gathered for a wedding, appears to be the perfect example of collateral damage: a doubtful military gain, and a certain political cost. One might also consider the American bombing of Normandy towns around June 6, 1944 as collateral damage.

But is it possible to reverse the expression, and speak of "collateral benefits"? When applied to an armed conflict, the expression may seem shocking.

No one benefits from a war, which leaves in its trace a trail of dead, wounded and displaced people, destroyed cities or children brutally torn from their parents.

And yet the notion of "collateral benefits" is particularly applicable to the war that has been raging in Ukraine for almost a year.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest