Response to interpellation 2025/26:38 on the police's requirement to stop matches during organized masking

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lars Isacsson has asked me if I have had a dialogue with the police regarding how directives aimed at increasing security are anchored with relevant sports organizers and organizations within sports. The answer to that question is yes. Lars Isacsson has also asked me if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of which measures are reasonable and effective to increase security. The answer to that question is also yes. Finally, Lars Isacsson has asked me what initiatives I intend to take to ensure that the police's work regarding sports and security is built to a greater extent on proven experience, research, and dialogue with relevant actors. The answer is that I have such an intention. Then I shall ask to elaborate on what that means in practice.

To begin with, I would like to thank Lars Isacsson for raising important and pressing issues that affect very many people. Violence and public order disturbances have no place in sports, and the government takes the situation regarding public order very seriously, especially within certain parts of football.

During the 2023 season, several serious public order disturbances occurred in connection with matches in Allsvenskan. This was also the background for the government inviting the police and a number of other central actors in and around football, ranging from federations to supporters, to ensure safety and security at football matches but also to discuss important issues of responsibility. Since then, we have held several follow-up meetings. Even though the development has been positive since this became topical, it is extremely central that the dialogue between football's actors and the continuous security work continues.

To ensure effective measures to increase security, among other things at football matches, the government appointed an inquiry in December 2023. The inquiry was tasked with proposing measures to reduce violence and other public order disturbances at sporting events. The assignment also emphasized the importance of maintaining a close dialogue with organized supporter groups to create long-term perspective and a breadth in the handling of the issues. In the inquiry's report, which we received this spring, it is proposed, among other things, a stricter view on violations of the prohibitions in the Public Order Act, including a stricter view on violations of the mask ban. The inquiry also proposes amendments to the law on access bans at sporting events and other measures for safer sporting events, for example, recommendations regarding bans from the organizer's side. The report has been referred, and we are now preparing it in the usual manner within the Government Offices.

Who is it then who is fundamentally responsible for ensuring that there is good order at, for example, a football match? Well, it is the organizer. But it is also a reality that the police must communicate the conditions needed to maintain order and security at the match. The police are in dialogue with organizers and other actors regarding this. But which measures are required for the maintenance of order and security in the individual case is something that the police ultimately must decide themselves.

At the same time as it is important to safeguard all the positive aspects that football entails, it is extremely central that violence and public order disturbances in connection with events can never be tolerated. We are following this issue very closely, and we also ensure a continued dialogue on these issues. No one should have to feel anxiety for their own or others' safety in connection with a football match or any other sporting event.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer.

I completely agree with the Minister for Justice – we must never accept violence and public order offenses at football matches, and everyone who attends football matches should feel safe. I really do not want anyone to commit crimes.

I think that the police, overall, do a very good job. At the same time, I think there are too few of them across the country, and there may be a lack of local knowledge.

But I also think that the police and politics were heading in the wrong direction and ending up in the wrong place. It felt like we were about to leave a path built on dialogue, cooperation and research and move more towards repressiveness and confrontation.

As the Minister for Justice points out in his answer, the government initiated this investigation in the autumn of 2023. At that time, it was a miserable conclusion in plain Swedish. I agree with that.

One can look at how it looked in Europe after the closed stands of the covid pandemic years. It took a while before the new ones came in, and there were many disturbances of public order. Svensk Elitfotboll has presented an investigation showing that the 2025 season is heading towards new spectator records in Allsvenskan. Seats in the family stands are sold out very quickly. The number of disturbances of public order has been halved during the 2025 season compared to the 2024 season. This should be a testament that the common path works and that there is no reason to change course.

I think the ban on masking is right. But when the police deviated from the exclusion strategy, went further and demanded that matches be stopped in the case of so-called organized masking, they received a lot of criticism for deviating from the strategy and for it not being anchored. No dialogue had taken place with organizers and associations. I think it was wise for the police to back down and show a lack of prestige there. I do not believe that the public order would have become better if it had been introduced. I believe rather that it would have become worse. The goal must nevertheless be that it should become better.

In his written response, the Minister for Justice refers to the Hübinette inquiry and to the police's dialogue with the organizers. We shall see what emerges when the government is to process the inquiry. I can remind you of some of the referral responses. Svea Court of Appeal rejects the tightenings with reference to lack of need and proportionality and speaks of a certain unreasonableness in some of the proposals. Malmö University warns of unclear definitions and incomplete statistics. Enable Sverige, which is an organization that works on a research basis for safer stands, has met both Moderates and Social Democrats and also other party representatives here in the Riksdag and emphasizes the importance of dialogue, camera support, and knowledge-based cooperation.

But many of the proposals are completely uncontroversial, and many of them are based on camera surveillance and exclusion. I want to ask the Minister for Justice: How does the government intend to follow up to ensure that the positive trends in Swedish football, with record crowds and halved disturbances, continue and that this is built on safety and trust and not on collective punishment?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lars Isacsson, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue today!

The investigation we commissioned gave us an excellent basis for continued dialogue between different actors without, for that reason, taking a position on each individual part. It was the first time in a very long time – perhaps ever – that a collective grip was taken on all the questions that different actors have raised as central.

The investigation dealt with issues ranging from how organizer bans are used and followed up, to how prosecutor decisions on access bans are used and followed up, and what the consequences are if they are breached. It also concerned how organizers and clubs can share information in a smoother way, for example from cameras, so that those who organize a match also get a fair chance to take various measures to increase safety and security based on a more initiated basis. I do not anticipate that process, nor do I take a position on individual proposals.

I can state that many have made an effort to answer the investigation properly. I think that provides an excellent basis for continued dialogue in a very concrete way.

There was a shift from what was perceived as, and to some extent also was, a kind of collective punishment model, which the so-called condition ladder largely symbolized. It became a shift from that to the so-called exclusion strategy, which is about targeting the individuals who cause problems without it affecting everyone who behaves well. This strategic shift is fixed for the police. It is fixed as a self-evident starting point even for any potential political reform work in this area.

It is clear that dialogue is desirable. We gain strength in this if different constructive parties pull in the right direction. I think that is a self-evident starting point for our continued work and also for the police.

I also want to include an observation. Many actors – the vast majority – around, for example, football are very constructive and want to move in the right direction. But that does not apply to everyone, at least not to the same extent. This can sometimes manifest in the fact that friction arises between the police and various actors with the possibility to influence. I believe it is extremely important, if we are to do the police's work justly, to have the insight that not everyone wants to cooperate in a more intrusive way to address disturbances.

There are examples of all too close relations between the legitimate structures and the forces around football that want to destroy and that are destructive. We must look at this in a sober way. It must be a dialogue. It must be a straightforward exchange, but everyone must really take their responsibility. This applies, of course, to the police, but it also applies to clubs, arena owners, supporters, and others.

If everyone can step forward and take their responsibility – possibly even confront each other when one perceives that not everyone is doing so in the same way – I believe that we will get even better conditions to achieve concrete, sustainable, positive results through dialogue. But of course, we shall build on the positive development around football during the recent seasons. I think that is the important starting point as we look forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister of Justice for the answer and a constructive dialogue! We agree that the goal is for football to be safe and free from crime.

I am glad that the Minister for Justice confirms that the exclusion strategy is in place and that dialogue is the way forward. I also agree with the observation that not everyone wants to cooperate, contribute, and make the police's work just. I have zero tolerance for such behavior. But I have played football for a long time and, with the right of age, can look back. The Minister for Justice said that one can intervene against each other when things are wrong.

When I started going to matches and traveled down from Dalarna to Stockholm in the 80s, there were like 6,000 at Råsunda. It was organized racism. There were terrace chants that were appalling. There was much more violence in and around the arena than there is today. Today you never hear such things from a standing terrace. People do not tolerate that anymore. One can point out that there is something – peer socialization or whatever you call it – that makes you socialized into a terrace and you learn what is okay and what is not.

I believe that the fact we had empty stands during the pandemic was one of the reasons why 2023 became a much worse year for public order. Such things also draw resources from the police. But I think there are bigger problems within football that deserve more attention from the police. When I pointed this out earlier, I was called a Bengali populist at home on the liberal editorial side. I said that there was too much talk about Bengalis and too little about match-fixing and unregulated agent activity.

Allsvenskan sells players this year for around 800 million. When it comes to selling housing, we have a system with certificates for brokers, but when it comes to trading with young boys and girls, we do not. I believe that is something we could do more of.

For the third time in the debate, I am raising the issue of Italy. Italy has included the economy of football in its anti-mafia work because it involves large economic interests. Organized crime seeks out places where there are few regulations and a lot of money.

I also believe that we need to talk about the elephant in the room, namely order in the gallery and masquerading. I think the ban on masquerading is good. But it is also about pyrotechnics. The main reason that some masquerade is that they are doing pyrotechnics. I also think that it was missed in the investigation. It was included in the investigation mandate from the Minister of Justice and Jakob Forssmed. That is not answered in the investigation.

One could look at other Nordic countries, such as Norway, on how one can work with legal pyrotechnics. Is it possible to find a way forward there? It would remove a large part of the confrontations between certain supporter groups and the police.

I want to conclude with a question. The harsh measures are directed more towards supporters and less towards the unregulated agency activities, match-fixing, and financial flows linked to organized crime. How does the Minister view that?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that there is organized crime which naturally moves to where the money is. This means that it also moves towards sports. There are a number of high-profile examples of this, such as match-fixing and uncertainties linked to agent activities, which Lars Isacsson brings up. It is an interesting reasoning to also, in this respect, draw inspiration from a major football nation like Italy, which also has very long experience of working against organized crime. I gladly take note of that.

I think it is somewhat misleading when all the focus is directed at public order disturbances but other problems linked to sports, which may be more system-threatening, are missed. It is, of course, a development that is not welcome. We must manage both. I gladly take note that we must move forward the positions when it comes to organized crime linked to football and also other sports.

Another thing to take note of is a fundamentally positive development over a long period. There is a lot of positive stuff today, not least regarding the supporters and the supporter culture, and building further on that in close dialogue.

Then, of course, it is a reality that we must also be able to maintain good order and security, and that also requires adjustments in various respects. I mentioned a very concrete issue, namely the ambiguities regarding who should have access to camera footage at an arena. It is often a private actor that owns the arena while another actor in the form of an association, a club, or a company carries out the arrangement itself. There are proposals on this from the commission, and it is very important that we move forward with it.

It is naturally problematic when one rolls out a banner and covers the stands in order to be able to disguise oneself underneath, especially if one then uses the disguise to commit acts of public disorder that can be dangerous for our fellow citizens. This is a problem that we must handle more offensively. It does not, however, detract from the importance of cultivating all that is positive or, for that matter, directing the light towards other crime linked to sports.

Exactly which tools we are to develop or how the model should be developed is something that will need to occur in very close dialogue with those around the sports sector that it affects. I believe that is the next logical step, because we now have an investigation basis that has been referred. Many actors have truly made an effort to submit very well-developed referral responses in a fundamentally constructive spirit. There, we have a good basis for continued discussions going forward. I look forward to this and am also happy to do this in close dialogue with various actors here in the Riksdag.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the debate and take note of the last thing he said about a dialogue in the future. I believe that it is very important.

I will contribute and do my part. The Swedish Football Supporters Union is a very constructive force and an organization that brings together many of the organized supporter groups. They have a seminar next week that I will be hosting together with my parliamentary colleague Ulrika Liljeberg. Many Members of Parliament from different parties, including many Moderates, will be present. I believe we can get many good things out of it.

Sweden has a unique terrace culture, and Allsvenskan is breaking attendance records. The family terraces are full, which is positive. In the standing areas, there are guys and girls who have spent thousands of hours using paintbrushes and sewing machines to make banners. Many young people attend membership meetings. There are testimonies that there are more of them than ever before. Getting in so many young people is something that we within political parties can only wish for. They come to membership meetings and write motions and thereby learn democracy in practice. This is a strength for Swedish football and for Sweden.

At the same time, we must, as the Minister for Justice is pointing out, of course be clear towards those who commit crimes. But we must not fall back into collective punishment but continue with the exclusion strategy. That is what we agree on.

When looking at the development over time, I think that Swedish football and Allsvenskan have shown that it works. Allsvenskan has had spectator records again this year, and the number of public order disturbances has been halved compared to the 2024 season. It is even better if one compares it with the 2023 season.

Let us build further on dialogue, knowledge, and respect between supporters, associations, and the police. But at the same time, we must be rock-hard against what I see as a common external enemy to football, that is, the organized crime and criminality that grows when there is money. It eats its way into the body of football with match-fixing and uncertainties within the agency activities. This risks pushing out the actors who are serious; of course, not all agents have such connections.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us continue the dialogue, both between us here in the Riksdag and in particular with the world out there, all the different actors in and around football and sports in general. Let us do so according to several main lines and take hold of all the positive developments that have occurred around sports and football over many years. There are many actors who want to contribute constructively so that things become even better.

I completely agree that we must unite to mobilize against a real external enemy – organized crime – and that there is more to be done there. We must, above all, move the system as a whole forward against this issue.

We must continue to take public order disturbances and security problems that can be dangerous for fellow citizens very seriously and not do so by returning to a strategy of collective punishment, but instead by focusing on the exclusion strategy that has been adopted in recent years. We must further discuss how it can be strengthened and developed for the better.

From the government's point of view, it is a matter of proceeding from the basis that we have established through the investigation. I want to emphasize that this also applies to all the well-developed referral responses that have been submitted from various sources, not least from the actors in and around sports who are the main shareholders when it comes to the opportunities and challenges surrounding football and sports in general.

I nevertheless look towards the future with great confidence. There are very many good forces that want this to become even better. Let us take that as a starting point for continued dialogue.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)