Johan Esk: It is time to make pyrotechnics legal

I have never been a pyrotechnology lover but my resistance has mainly been based on the fact that it was illegal and dangerous.

Everyone who goes on all Swedish football knows that it will probably be fired. Still, the audience only continues to increase. It is possible to interpret that the majority of the stands want pyrotechnics in a safe form. And that the law should therefore be modified.

The dangerous, then?

Given how much It should be fired, there should have been more damage from the type of pyrotechnology I think should be allowed if it would pose great danger in the right use.

There have been accidents, there have been injuries. Not least, photographers and officials have been affected. But the most dangerous form of pyrotechnics is the one that must be prohibited in the future and obviously.

Pyrotechnics thrown. Pyrotechnics that are pushed away. And the venerable bangers that can easily create hearing damage.

Think farm sales of alcohol – though with slightly more reality -adapted rules

The pyrotechnics that should be legal is the one most commonly used on the stands today. However, it should be taken under controlled forms and used under regulated forms to avoid damage.

Think farm sales of alcohol – Although with somewhat more reality -adapted rules.

One objection is that the supporter movement does not want to be regulated and controlled and that it could be fired anyway.

Very possible. But with better camera surveillance, hopefully it would be easier to punish those who violate the rules.

It might also/hopefully (there is no direct empirical on it) to be a greater acceptance among the audience when police and order staff act against illegal pyrotechnics on a stand if there is legal.

Anders Hübinette was given a government assignment at the end of 2023 to lead an investigation to create proposals on how sports events will be safer. It came after a development that went in the wrong direction since the stands were filled again with the audience after the pandemic.

When I read the debate article that summarizes the investigation, it seems that proposals are directed in the right direction. Individuals should be punished. Collective penalties do not make the arrangements safer.

The useful self -regulation was shown before last season.

During the course of the investigation work, two supporter tracks have been seen.

1) The useful self -regulation was shown before last season. Supporter groups came together in a call to end with just the kinds of use of pyrotechnics that I and 99 percent of all who go on football want away. Pyro that is thrown, pushed and so the bangers that just create damage.

2) Power still lies with the supporters who want to create chaos when they feel it. It was noticed when Djurgården’s fans made sure that autumn change to Hammarby was broken last year.

Some e -mails don’t like any kind of pyrotechnics.

The email exchange does not have to take many turns before I understand that those who have written rarely go on football. They watch the matches on TV and are cursed that the game is being postponed, interrupted or barely possible to see.

Absolutely adequate opinions.

But the one that should primarily protest Is the seller of the broadcasts? The TV company that paid dearly for the rights. Why is it so quiet from there about the offenses that are going on in every match?

Because pyrotechnology is a selling element in the red hot mansion in football.