The aftermath. Euro 1980 was expected with big hopes. New formula, more teams – it was expected to be exciting tournament. After the end the tone was minor. Menotti was highly critical during the championship, accusing Europeans of boring defensive play. After the last match the European opinion was very similar: the finals produced very few exciting matches. The final was highly entertaining, but hardly any other. Compared to the 1976 finals, 1980 was dismal tournament – back in 1976 all matches of the final stage were enjoyable to watch. Now, with more teams, the number of memorable games shrunk to almost nothing. Tactically, nothing new was discovered. In 1972 there was huge difference between the new total football played by West Germany and the rest of the finalists. The new football was superior to the old and this was the way for the future – in 1980 nothing similar emerged. No innovations. Even commercially the new formula felt short – bigger tournament was much more expensive and required full gates. It was hoped that longer and bigger tournament will bring crowds to the stadiums, but it did not. In fact, only the matches with Italy brought high attendance – the biggest was not the final, but Italy-England – almost 60 000. The final was attended by less than 50 000. Nine of the matches were attended by less than 25 000 – a good 50% of the total! On the lowest side was Czechoslovakia – Greece, attended by less than 5000. Numbers were too small for grand event. And the numbers went along with mediocre football: the public somewhat guessed right – there was no point watching most of the matches. This was recognized by unlikely place: Artemio Franchi and the head of the West German Federation Neuberger both criticized the new formula as entirely ineffective and called for return to the old one of direct elimination with a country hosting only the last stage of semi-finals and finals. Both official said they were against the new formula because it lowered the quality of the game. Teams were putting everything they were capable of because of calculations. Some matches were not even important and at least one side did not care, saving strength for the next stage. That was the general view of the game. This championship had no shine and nothing new. ‘France Press’ evaluated all teams and the conclusion was that:
1. West Germany – might, speed, skill, spirit, two new leaders – Schuster and Briegel.
2. Belgium – fantastic ability to adapt to the style of the opponent and organize its game to a specific opponent. Excellent collective play, great goalkeeper, excellent reader of the game – van Moer, masters of the off-side trap.
3. Czechoslovakia – masters of killing the tempo, very serious approach, needing to change the squad with younger players, masters of penalty shots.
4. Italy – 2 goals in 4 home games was a verdict in itself, old-fashioned attacks, a coach speaking unrealistically – looked like Italy was stuck and nothing new happened and was possible to happen.
5. England – major disappointment. All except Wilkins looked too tired, amazingly old English ‘kick and run’ tactical approach, unfortunately the same for 15 years already.
6. Holland – under the shadow of Cruijff and seemingly unable to get out of there. Speed was lost. Kist did not deliver.
7. Spain – pleasant to watch, but lacking experience and not in good physical condition. Too much individualism, but with some bright promising moments. May be will be different in 1982.
8. Greece – not bad debut at such level, good impression from Mavros and Ardizoglou.
The summary was devastatingly right… Euro 1980 gave very little positive. As for the negative, there was plenty of it and the biggest negative aspect was outside the pitch. Even the best 11 of the finals were not entirely unquestionable:
1. Zoff (Italy) – 2. Gentile (Italy) 3. K-H. Forster (West Germany) 5. Scirea (Italy) 4. Briegel (West Germany) – 6. Tardelli (Italy) 8. Schuster (West Germany) 10. Muller (West Germany) – 7. Rummenigge (West Germany) 9. Hrubesch (West Germany) 11. Ceulemans (Belgium). Understandably, half of the selected players are Germans – champions always are preferred – but the rest are Italians and Italy finished 4th. Only one Belgian player. Somewhat limited selection, but few players shined and many disappointed. If one is looking for alternatives and omitted players, there was little to find: Pfaff instead of Zoff, Gerets instead of Gentile, van Moer instead of Tardelli. May be Antognoni instead of Muller and Krol instead of K-H. Forster. A good number of established stars were either not outstanding (Stielike, Kaltz, Francois van der Elst, Bettega, Wilkins) or bellow average (Keegan, Brooking, van de Kerkhof twins, Rep, Haan). None of the Czechoslovakian players, half of whom were champions in 1976 made strong impression – rather the opposite. Holland and England utterly disappointed. Only two teams impressed and they will be treated separately. Scoring was low and there were almost no memorable matches apart from the final. What was memorable was entirely negative.
Hooliganism. It was not new and was entirely British phenomena. The ugly and dangerous side football culture was getting bigger and more troublesome, but so far was also limited to domestic English games. Europe saw little of it and of short duration too – only when English club played European final. Trouble was limited o a day, even less, by the fact that the final is only one match. The English invaders had little time for massive destruction – a few hours before and after the match, and they were gone home. But long tournament concentrated them in another country for at least a week and damage was not done to a single city, for the English fans moved to where their team was scheduled to play. For the first time championship of national teams was tarnished by outrageous behavior of the English fans and it was a big warning for the future.
One of the most memorable moments of the 1980 European finals was the huge fight started by the English fans in the match against Belgium. It spilled beyond the stadium and was not limited just to day of the match. One man died. Many were wounded. Instead of festive, the new atmosphere at the stadiums was becoming hostile. The image of the 1980s was taking shape: drunk, half naked brutes fighting with heavily armed Police. A picture of war.
The question of security loomed large: nothing new about mounted Police patrolling near stadiums before and after games, but this was changing – now Police had to cover practically the whole city and patrol constantly. And not only patrol, but act, for drunk fans rioted constantly, thrashing everything in their way, looting, attacking bystanders, disrupting the normal life. Bars and restaurants quickly learned to simply close down and refuse to serve the English, if they were in town. Which only infuriated the invaders. Euro 1980 was almost halted when Milan’s Mayor threatened to close down the city stadium because of the violence: it was again a new problem difficult to deal with, for the venue was property of the city and no federation – national or international – had the power to operate it. The possibility of interrupted and even stopped and abandoned championship came as a result of increasing fans violence. And the Mayor had a strong point too: why his city should suffer damage and pay for it? The question of the English fans became huge and urgent. It was debated by UEFA, by English Federation, by the English clubs, by the media, by the Police, by politicians. It concerned larger issues as freedom of movement and individual liberties – it was simply impossible to refuse people their rights. On purely sporting scale the problem was aggravated by the sharp contrast between English on the pitch and English on the streets. English teams were liked for their spirit and behavior – they were gentlemen. Fair and entertaining players. For that, English teams attracted large crowds. Unfortunately, English teams had the largest traveling supporters and they were the problem. Since the problem was still new and in its infant stage, continental Europeans were not very happy with the attitude of English clubs and officials: the clubs almost dismissed the problem with the argument that they cannot be responsible for some fans. Officials and players, even when condemning the hooligans, were quick to add that it is a matter of only few ‘rotten apples’. Often a finger was pointed at the ‘foreign’ Police, which treated English fans harshly and thus provoked them. From the English side, it looked like as self-defense after unjust treatment: after all, what is one to do when a restaurant blankly refuses to serve him a glass of beer? ‘Foreigners’ raised the issue of costs – and here the English were quite stubborn: they were not to be involved with crowd control beyond English borders, but the fans were not to be subjected to ‘foreign’ rules either. The debate was at impasse, for England wanted to host the 1984 European finals and the English argument was that they know how to deal with their fans, so there will be no problem. It sounded as not very well veiled accusation of the ‘continentals’ for the problems – they don’t know how to treat English, thus creating problems. In reality, nobody knew what to do yet – the 1980s were coming with their ugly face and huge, spreading across Europe problems with the new violent fan culture. It needed the tragedy of Heysel Stadium to start really dealing with the problem – which generally lead to massive increase of restrictions and Police presence. As for fans violence… it is very much alive today everywhere. 1980 was the clear mark of huge change – going to football match was never to be simple Saturday peaceful entertainment. It became a dangerous adventure.