New fan laws: What do we think?

I saw this headline floating around today about those ridiculous new regulations for sports fans... honestly, where does it end? It feels like every single week there’s some new rule designed to make being a fan more of a headache than actually watching the game. They’re talking about tightening up everything—security, conduct, you name it. They’re even bringing up that Sports Fan Act to crack down on any kind of rowdiness. It’s all just more red tape, isn't it? Just another way for the suits in Washington, D.C. to feel like they’ve got everything under control while we’re just trying to enjoy a match without getting interrogated by security at the gate... The whole thing feels unnecessary. You look at how things used to be, and now? Everything is hyper-regulated. If you breathe too loud in the stands, you'll probably get flagged by some official citing the Riot Control Act. It’s exhausting. We’re losing the soul of the sport to bureaucracy and "safety protocols" that mostly just serve to keep the ticket prices high and the atmosphere sterile. Just my two cents... but I'm tired of seeing the fun get squeezed out of everything...

🤣🤣🤣

rapidbadger44 said:Has anyone here dealt with a stadium ban while living or working in another country? I’m trying to figure out how the whole reporting process works when you aren't even in the same state. How do you actually check in or notify them?

Does anyone actually have an answer to the question above?
I don’t even know how many times the local police station has given me the runaround now. It’s just one big circle between the cops and the courts, and nobody can decide who's actually in charge of my case. They can't get their act together to save their lives. Finally, the guys at the precinct called up the folks in Washington, D.C., and they told me I need to check in with the American consulate in the country I'm heading to before the game starts. Honestly, it's a total mess. 124 miles Work? You really think that's even possible?

This is how it ought to work... You just tell your local precinct that you're heading out of the country and that’s that—no endless background checks, no constant check-ins required.
When you leave the States, you should just get a simple confirmation at the border verifying you've exited. You give them a straightforward explanation of your plans, and honestly, it should be that simple.

ruggedcanyon2 said:Does anyone actually have an answer to the question above?
I keep getting bounced back and forth between the local police station and the court, and they can't even agree on what I should be doing. Eventually, the precinct called the folks in Washington, D.C., who told me I need to check in with the American consulate in the country I'm traveling to before the game... which is a massive pain in the neck. Is that actually how this works?...124 miles

I can only speak from my own experience, dating all the way back to '86... when I was detained on November 29th following some unrest involving baseball fans. Since then, whenever there’s a "high-risk" game by their standards, they call me into the station to check in, or I have to sign a waiver if I'm not attending the match. The last time was a Red Star Mexico City vs. Inter Milan game... cheers.

ruggedcanyon2 said:Does anyone actually have an answer to the question above?
I feel like I'm being bounced back and forth between the local police station and the District Court indefinitely. They can't seem to reach a consensus on what my next step should be. Eventually, the precinct called the officials up in Washington, D.C., who then suggested I contact the American consulate in the country I'm traveling to before the match starts. Honestly, given how much work I already have on my plate, that sounds like 124 miles much of a hassle. Is that even legally possible?

You just call them, obviously. There is no way they can demand that from you; it’s simply not feasible to impose such an obligation.

Dennis Baker36 said:you just call them on the phone, obviously, this isn't possible, I can't force that kind of obligation on you

Look, it’s obvious I can, considering I’ve talked to plenty of people, like
- this guy I know who had to deal with his ban by basically checking in at a police station every single time Real Madrid played while he was working out in another city (San Francisco, over the summer), until the local cops actually asked him to stop coming in just on their own authority. And back in Washington, D.C., he showed up to the station about 15 minutes late after the game started—he did call ahead to say he’d be late and they even said "okay," but in the end, they still slapped him with an extra year on his sentence just for that.
- there are actual court rulings, like the one from the District Court, where a guy argued that he wasn't just required to check in at the local precinct no later than half an hour before every USA National Soccer Team match, but that according to a lower court, the rule literally applied to the B-team, the U-19 National Team, the U-17 National Team, and all the youth squads too.
So, basically, the court decided he has to report to the police station whenever any age group of the USA National Soccer Team plays, which works out like this. For every single match they play in a year:
USA National Soccer Team (Men)
USA U-21 National Team
USA U-19 National Team
USA U-17 National Team
USA U-15 National Team
USA National Soccer Team (Women)
USA U-19 National Team (Women)
USA U-17 National Team (Women)
USA Futsal National Team
USA U-15 National Team (Women)

A person would practically need a giant schedule taped to their bedroom wall covering every single age group's matches, doing nothing else but physically trekking to a police station all day long.
Forget about having a job.
Forget about having a life.
It’s basically prison.

Do you really think I’m joking? That this sick, deeply interconnected repressive system doesn't work like that? I'm quoting the ruling here:

"unfounded is the appellant's claim regarding the violation of material rights, suggesting the defendant is a legally uneducated party acting under a misconception; the protective measure does not imply it applies only to the B-team because the stated purpose of the measure is to prevent disorder at sporting events, making the argument that it should only apply to the senior national soccer team rather than the youth levels completely irrelevant, as the goal is preventing unrest regardless of which specific soccer rosters are playing."

Applying that logic, if you got banned from Real Madrid games, you wouldn't just have to show up at the station whenever Real Madrid plays, but also whenever every single one of their feeder teams plays, squad by squad.

Because if you don't, you'll likely just end up getting hit with another year of the exact same sanctions.

And then someone has the nerve to tell me, "Oh, screw the repression."
My friend, you haven't experienced it.

Thomas Williams59, don't get me wrong, but the guy is talking about working abroad, and you're out here giving San Francisco as an example

It really should have been more like what Henry Grant51 was saying...

As for the rest of that stuff you mentioned, I mean, we all know it's true... we see plenty of cases like that right here in the States too...

You might want to try calling the consulate of whatever country you’re currently working in. My memory is a bit hazy on the specifics, but I recall a situation involving an Armada supporter who was under a ban and still trying to head out to work. If I remember correctly, a designated person—somebody from his own family—stepped in to handle things, either appearing on his behalf or vouching for his presence abroad while the ban was still in effect.

Honestly, you guys are just talking nonsense.

What a useless consulate... Seriously? Just check in at the US border every single time you head out or come back into the country. Tell them you’ve got the specific permit, then they’ll notify your local police department and you just sign off on it. And don't forget to grab your confirmation when you leave the country. That's literally it.

wanderingcobra18 said:Thomas Williams59, don't get me wrong, but this guy is talking about working abroad and you're out here giving examples of jobs in San Francisco...

Some random person wrote, "you can't force an obligation like that on me," but all I did was lay out how, hypothetically speaking, based on all the insane scenarios and legal precedents that have actually happened, maybe they *can* even push through something that ridiculous.
When you're debating the law and someone starts throwing around phrases like "you can't do that," it’s only a real conversation if you're basing it on specific regulations or actual court rulings—not just vibes or whatever logic you think you've got going on. Honestly, I don't have the energy to dive deep into the weeds here; if I wanted to make a definitive claim about whether something is prohibited, what the statutes actually dictate in these cases, or how courts interpret things—like whether showing up at the border or a consulate counts—well, blah blah blah.
Look, I was just pointing out the kind of travesties where everything stays technically legal, yet the courts can stretch or twist the law however they want. They could probably do that with someone's grandma's flour recipe too, just to completely sweep someone under the rug.

Since I was one of the people who ended up behind bars in Milan during the Italy vs USA National Soccer Team match,
I’m reaching out here because I’m facing a bit of a dilemma and could use some advice.
I’ve already hired an attorney, and my court date is coming up soon. The legal system here in Italy operates quite differently than it does back home in the States, and on top of that, they are treating this as a criminal matter.
The case isn't actually targeting individuals; instead, they are charging us as a group.
They don't have any actual evidence against me—my arrest was completely random.
After the game, they took us to a basic holding area under the stadium and had security guards perform a lineup.
Not a single guard could identify us, though there was a camera in that room.
However, the file includes a statement from a Ukrainian security guard claiming he "thinks" we were part of that group.
My lawyer called me with three different options to move forward:
1. Plead guilty, pay a $500 fine, and wrap the whole thing up in a single hearing.
2. Go through two hearings where the judge decides the verdict ($800), which my lawyer insists will result in an acquittal since there is zero evidence.
3. Drag it out through four or five hearings by calling witnesses, which would cost between $1,200 and $1,300.

Because I’ve already spent so much money on legal fees, I simply can't afford to keep paying these high costs. I'm wondering what the procedure looks like if I reach a point where I can no longer afford to pay my attorney.

If you can't afford to pay him anymore, fire him, revoke his power of attorney, and don't you dare plead guilty. If what you wrote is true—and if what he told you himself is the truth—then you’re looking at an acquittal, period.

Has anyone here actually dealt with those court-appointed attorneys before?

Morgan Price22 said:Anyone here actually dealt with those court-appointed lawyers before?

I’ve been there. You get hauled into court, and the judge doesn't even bother listening to a single shred of evidence against you. He just sits there, looks at you, and goes, "In my opinion, there isn't enough physical evidence to prove the defendant is guilty, so I'm dismissing the charges." Maybe try phrasing that a little better? But yeah, that's all you get from him. Case closed. 😁 Look, just go out there, ask around for some actual advice, and defend yourself. You'll have a better shot if you handle it yourself. 👍

Just so you know, you only get a free lawyer if you're actually facing criminal charges. Otherwise, you're on your own.

ruggedcanyon2 said:I’ve seen it happen—you show up to the District Court, and the judge doesn't even bother listening to the evidence against you. They just throw you in and say, "I don't think there's enough physical evidence to prove the defendant is guilty, so I move to dismiss the indictment." Maybe it could have been phrased a bit more professionally, but that's basically what you get from them. 😁 Honestly, it’s probably better to research who to ask for advice and just handle your own defense; you'll likely have more success that way. 👍

PS: You can only get a public defender if you're facing actual criminal charges.

I already paid for another legal proceeding and I am not spending another cent, even though I wasn't planning on it anyway.
Unless they try to prosecute us for a criminal offense.

analogheron19 said:They unconstitutionally shoved this whole "offender database" thing into the fan law. They’re pulling bans based on records that are ten years old—even though legally, the rehabilitation period should be twice as long as any actual penalty. It doesn't even matter if you were actually prosecuted or just convicted; they don't care.

Basically, the Constitution is being ignored because people are getting banned for things they already answered for (double jeopardy is a real thing, after all) or for stuff they weren't even convicted of. The Constitution says everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a final court ruling, but clearly, that doesn't apply here.

The cops request these bans based on these "famous" records, often making up offenses entirely. Judges don't bother checking the facts, so they just hand out new bans based on nothing but hearsay.

Has anyone actually been hit with a ban based on this crap lately?

I’ve never been charged with anything under the fan law, yet I'm sitting in their system since 2005. Now they’re trying to slap me with a year-long ban and force me to check in with the police.

mellowhawk34 said:Has anyone actually been banned based on what they know these days?

I’ve never been penalized under any fan law, but I’ve been in their system since 2005, and now they're trying to hit me with a year-long ban and mandatory check-ins at the police station.

They can complain all they want, but the ban will just end up gathering dust in a drawer. A few of our young players got hit with them at the end of this season too. 🙄

Jacob Newman74 said:They’ll just complain and then the ban will end up gathering dust in a drawer. A few more of our kids ended up getting hit with them at the end of this season. 🙄

Wait, did they actually get banned, or was it just an appeal? Because from what I know, appeals don't hold much water when it comes to this stuff.

Sam Brown20 said:Did they get a ban or just an appeal? Because I know appeals don't fly for stuff like this.

That whole bit about Article 34a they're citing is so vague that District Court judges just interpret it however they want to slap a ban on anyone.

There's still an appeal headed to the Supreme Court, but personally, I’m not holding my breath.

It’s unbelievable that this can even happen, but when you're a fan in America, anything goes.