the spatial externality fields of football stadiums: the effects of football and non-football uses...

Applied Geography (1991), 11,251-266

The spatial externality fields of football stadiums: the effects of football and non-football uses at Kenilworth Road, Luton

Cohn Mason and Richard Robins

Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH, UK

Abstract

Falling attendances and rising costs have forced English football clubs- especially those in smaller cities and towns and in the lower divisions-to seek additional sources of revenue in order to remain financially viable. One strategy has been to make greater use of their ground by renting it out for other activities. However, this creates additional negative externality effects to those generated by football matches for residents living in the vicinity of the ground. An examination of Luton Town FC, which has installed a synthetic pitch to allow it to make more intensive use of its Kenilworth Road ground, indicates that the negative externalities generated by the use of the ground for non-football activities are both less intense and smaller in extent than those generated by football matches. The decision by the football authorities to ban artificial pitches will eliminate this important source of revenue for clubs such as Luton Town. Their attempts to find alternative income-generating activities through more intensive use of their grounds may involve other non-football activities which generate negative externality effects of greater intensity and spatial extent.

Introduction

With the possible exception of the elite First Division clubs, most English football league clubs are in a parlous financial position. According to a recent survey, only 24 of the 124 English and Scottish clubs for which information was available made a profit in 1988, while a previous survey in 1987 suggested that 80 out of the 92 English league clubs were technically insolvent (Financial Times 1990). The decline in the number of spectators since 1949 (apart from a temporary upsurge in 1966-67) accelerated during the early 198Os, although there has been a slight reversal of this decline in recent seasons. Total attendances at Football League, League Cup and FA Cup matches in 1988-89 were 9.4 million, the highest figure since 1982-83 (Football Trust 1989). At the same time, the wage bill has escalated (Gratton and Taylor 1986). Despite increases in admission prices and a decline in the average number of contract players per club, gate receipts are now often insufficient to cover the wage bill, especially in the lower-division clubs which have experienced the sharpest proportionate increase in salary costs and suffered the most rapid decline in attendances (see Table 1).

The financial plight of the smaller clubs has been exacerbated by the Football League’s decision-under pressure from First Division clubs-to allow gate receipts to be retained by the home team instead of being shared with visiting teams. In addition, more stringent safety requirements introduced after the Bradford and Hillsborough disasters have required increased expenditure on ground improvements. Attempts to combat hooliganism inside grounds have

0143-6228/91/04/0251-16 @ 1991 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

252 The spatial externality fields of football stadiums

Table 1. Players’ salaries and season ticket receipts, 1986-87 (.f million)

Gate and season ticket Players’ Players’ salaries as a percentage receipts (excluding VAT) salaries of match receipts

Division One 29.41 16.6 56.4 Division Two 10.58 8.1 76.6 Division Three 5.07 55 108.5 Division Four 3.50 4.4 125.7

Source: Football Trust (1989)

involved increased expenditure on extra seating, crowd segregation, close-circuit TV and additional policing. The Football Trust, which is funded by the pools companies from their spot-the-ball competitions, reimburses 35 per cent of the policing costs incurred by clubs at league matches. The remaining policing costs represented 4.9 per cent of league gate and season ticket receipts (excluding VAT) in 198849. The corresponding figure in 198.5-86 was 4.2 per cent. The proportions by division are shown in Table 2.

New sources of income have disproportionately benefited the larger clubs. First Division clubs derive the largest share of income from TV coverage, sponsorship of the league and cup competitions and the pools companies. For example, they received 75 per cent of the radio and TV fees available for general distribution in 1988-89. In addition, all but &122000 of the f4.1 million distributed in facility fees (payments to clubs whose matches have been televised) went to first-division clubs. The bigger clubs have also been in the best position to raise additional income from team sponsorship, executive boxes and stadium advertising.

Thus, for the vast majority of clubs, more intensive use of their stadium-their major financial asset-provides one of the few sources of additional income available to them. Football stadiums are a very under-utilized facility, with league and cup matches generally played on no more than 25 occasions throughout the season (late August to early May). A survey in the mid-1980s reported that 15 out of 42 clubs (36 per cent) used their grounds for non-football activities (Oliver 1986). In many cases this involved renting out the stadium for occasional events such as rock concerts, religious events and sporting events. However, because of the risk of damage to the playing surface such events are generally few in number and mainly

Table 2. Policing costs at league matches 1985-86 to 1988-89

198.5-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89

Division One 3.7 3.5 3.6 4.2 Division Two 5.3 4.6 4.3 5.9 Division Three 4.6 4.5 4.4 5.8 Division Four 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.6

Total 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.9

Source: Football Trust (1989)

Colin Mason and Richard Robins 253

restricted to the summer months, although a few clubs share their ground with rugby league teams on a regular basis. Four clubs-Luton Town, Oldham, Preston North End and Queen’s Park Rangers (which has now reverted back to grass)-have replaced their grass playing surface with a synthetic grass pitch, enabling them to make more intensive use of their stadiums by renting them out throughout the year. By the late 1980s at least another ten clubs, mainly from the lower divisions, wished to install artificial pitches. However, in response to growing opposition to artificial pitches from players, managers and club officials, because of the difference that it makes to the character of the game, the Football League imposed a moratorium on any other clubs installing such pitches (Bollen 1987). Other clubs have rented out space in their grandstands as office accommodation or developed sports complexes (such as squash courts, indoor tennis courts or five-a-side football pitches) and health centres which are open to the general public. A further strategy has been to sell off or lease land for housing and supermarket development. For example, Brentford has constructed housing on part of its car park while supermarkets have been built on part of the grounds of Wolverhampton Wanderers, Crystal Palace, Bolton Wanderers and Hull City (Inglis 1987).

Football grounds as a negative externality

Previous research has established that football grounds generate various types of negative externality-or nuisance-effects (Bale 1980, 1990; Humphreys et al. 1983). On match days people living in the vicinity of football grounds encounter nuisances arising from increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, parked cars, noise, and occasional incidents of vandalism and hooliganism. Generally speaking, such ‘nuisance fields’ exhibit a marked distance decay pattern (Pinch 1985; Bale 1989). The nuisances tend to be most intense in the immediate vicinity of the ground and decline in intensity with increasing distance. However, some nuisances exhibit a much more extensive negative externality field; for example, the effect of car parking controls close to the ground is to displace this nuisance to residential areas some distance away (Humphreys et al. 1983; Pinch 1985). Other nuisance fields are extremely dispersed, with nuisance outliers found some considerable distance from the ground; for example, the hooliganism and vandalism nuisance fields have outliers at coach and railway stations and in the city centre (Humphreys et al. 1983; Bale 1989). The tangible costs of such nuisances for those subjected to them are reflected in lower house prices in areas close to football stadiums and in the loss of sales by local traders who close on match days for fear of shoplifting, criminal damage or assault (Bale 1989, 1990; Williams et al. 1989). Furthermore, local taxpayers incur the costs of policing outside the grounds, since clubs pay only the costs of policing inside the ground. Intangible costs include the nervous stress suffered by local residents and the inconvenience created by the need to change their daily routines to minimize the risk of coming into contact with the football crowds.

Most residents are able to live with these nuisances because of their infrequency: clubs typically play at home on alternate weekends and occasionally mid-week. However, as clubs seek to generate additional income by increasing the intensity with which they utilize their grounds it is likely that additional negative externality fields will be generated which, because of the frequency of these other uses, will significantly reduce the quality of life for those residents living ‘in the shadow of the stadium’ (Bale 1990). It is significant that Bale’s (1990) study of the nuisance fields


around 37 English football grounds found that the ground with the largest proportion of local residents who claimed that football generated a nuisance was Selhurst Park, which is currently shared by two clubs, Crystal Palace and Charlton Athletic, and so has twice as many matches as other grounds. Bale (1990) suggests that the effect of clubs using their grounds more intensively may be to tip local residents from ‘the relatively passive acceptance of nuisance . . . to forms of micro-political activism’.

This paper undertakes the first-ever examination of the negative externality effects generated by more intensive use of football grounds. The issue is addressed using a case study of Luton Town’s Kenilworth Road ground, which was the second stadium in the English Football League to install a synthetic playing surface to enable the club to rent it out for other sporting and non-sporting uses in order to raise additional revenue. The study’s objectives are to examine the nature, scale and spatial extent of the nuisances generated by the use of Kenilworth Road for non-football activities.

The spatiai context: Kenilworth Road, Luton

The Kenilworth Road stadium was built in 1905 and, as with other grounds built around this time, it is located within an area which comprises high-density terraced housing and narrow streets. The ground is surrounded on three sides by housing and on the fourth side by a railway and road (Plate 1). It is located l-3 km west of the town centre and 1.2 km from the railway station. The site is extremely cramped, with private gardens backing on to the main stand. The ground is small by First Division standards, with a capacity of around 14000, and no large terraces or stands on any side of the ground (Inglis 1987). The cramped location also limits the scope for redevelopment or modernization. Recently, road improvements deprived the club of part of its car parking facilities and access to one side of the ground (Inglis 1987; Williams et al. 1989).

For these reasons the club has made various attempts to relocate to a greenfield site. However, plans to move to other sites in Luton have been prevented by the

Plate 1. The Kenilworth Road ground, Luton (photograph courtesy of Luton Town FC).


Council’s refusal to grant planning permission after protests from residents, who feared that any new location would be a source of hooliganism, vandalism and other nuisances, while a proposal to move to a multipurpose sports and leisure complex at Milton Keynes, some 20 miles away, fell through as a result both of opposition by supporters wishing the club to stay in Luton and refusal of planning permission by Milton Keynes District Council (Inglis 1987; Williams et al. 1989).

Having been frustrated by their inability to move to a new site, awaiting substantial compensation from the local authority for the effects of the road improvement scheme, and concerned by a serious disturbance at a now infamous cup-tie with Millwall, the management of Luton Town decided in 1985 to initiate a major scheme to improve its Kenilworth Road ground. An important element in this scheme was the installation of a synthetic playing surface. At about the same time the club also introduced its controversial members-only system, which limited attendance to bona fide Luton Town supporters. Although the trigger for this decision was the disturbance at the Millwall cup-tie, for some time senior club officials had been propounding a ‘new vision’ for football which would attract families to matches. Club officials also hoped that a ban on visiting supporters would help the club in its attempt to relocate by placating residents living in the vicinity of any future new site. Of more immediate relevance was the fact that the modernization of the Kenilworth Road stadium removed most of the accommodation used by visiting supporters (Williams et al. 1989).

The ban on visiting supporters has had significant financial implications for Luton Town FC. The cost of installing the computer-controlled members-only scheme was approximately f2.50 000. Furthermore, the introduction of the scheme has been associated with a significant decline in attendances at Kenilworth Road. The first season of the members-only scheme (1986687) saw a 7 per cent decline in average attendances (compared with an overall increase of 1 per cent in First Division attendances), while in the following season average attendances fell by a further 22 per cent (compared with a 2.5 per cent decline in First Divsion attendances), that is, a decline of over 27 per cent on the season prior to the introduction of the visiting supporters ban. However, as a result of price increases the decline in revenue was not as great. Although average attendances rose in the 1988-89 season-at least in part as a result of a relaxation of the ban on visiting fans-they remained below the level of the 1985-86 season. The members-only scheme has therefore been unsuccessful in replacing lost visiting supporters with local fans who had been discouraged from attending in the past by poor facilities and the threat of hooliganism (Williams et al. 1989). Luton Town’s attendances, which have averaged 8000-11000 in recent seasons, thus remain amongst the lowest in the First Division (in 1988-89 only two clubs had lower average attendances). Its total retained match receipts from league matches and season tickets is also one of the lowest in the First Division (only one club had lower receipts in the 1988-89 season), at around 40 per cent of the First Division average in the past three seasons (1986-87 to 1988-89) (Football Trust 1989), and are insufficient to cover its wages bill (Williams et al. 1989). The only offsetting factor is that the introduction of the members-only scheme has resulted in a substantial reduction in the club’s policing costs (Williams et al. 1989).

The small size of the Kenilworth Road stadium, and its cramped site, limit the scope for additional revenue generating possibilities (such as executive boxes). The installation of an artificial playing surface at a cost of f350000 has therefore enabled the club to generate significant additional revenue to offset the losses resulting from running the football activities by enabling the ground to be used for

2.56 The spatial externality fields of football stadiums

other activities when not required for football. It now generates f250000 of revenue annually from a variety of sporting and non-sporting events, such as hockey and lacrosse internationals, American football, local amateur football, concerts and conventions. By enabling the ground to be hired out for community uses, such as local amateur and school matches (often played before First Divsion matches) and various musical events, the installation of the artificial pitch has also strengthened the bonds between the club and the community. The club hopes that this will encourage the local council to take a more supportive view of its search for a new ground (Inglis 1987).

Methods

In order to examine the nature, intensity and spatial extent of the nuisance effects generated by both the football and non-football activities at Kenilworth Road, a random sample of households at varying distances from the ground was generated and interviewed during the summer of 1989, following the approach adopted in previous studies (Bale 1980,199O; Humphreys et al. 1983). A total of 324 interviews were successfully completed, 104 in zone A (within 500m of the ground), 109 in zone B (500-1000 m from the ground) and 111 in zone C (l-2 km from the ground). Only one member of each household was interviewed. Interviews were restricted to residents who had lived in their present house for at least six months. A response rate of 80 per cent was achieved. (Due to language problems, the response rate in some areas around the ground where the Asian community is concentrated was only about 60 per cent.) Each interviewee was asked to place five potential nuisances created by the football ground (noise, traffic congestion, car parking, crowds, vandalism/hooliganism) into one of four categories: not a nuisance; nuisance present but not a problem; nuisance; severe nuisance. Interviewees were then asked to place the non-football uses of the ground into the same categories.

Clearly, as in all such approaches to the study of spatial externalities, the response of individuals will be influenced by their attitude towards football. Respondents who are football fans are likely to be less sensitive to the nuisances generated by the football ground than those who have little or no enthusiasm for the sport (Pinch 1985).

The intensity and extent of the football-generated negative externality field

The highest level of football-generated nuisance is in the immediate vicinity of the ground where it is regarded as a severe problem by over a quarter of residents (Fig. 1). The intensity of the nuisance declines with distance from the ground; none of the sampled residents living more than 1 km from the ground considered it to be a severe nuisance. However, while the spatial extent of the nuisance field is fairly compact, extending in most directions for no more than 1 km, the pattern of distance decay is irregular (Fig. 2). The routes from the city centre and railway station create a nuisance corridor. The nuisance field is also elongated northwards into a middle-class residential area. This might reflect the suggestion by Dear et al. (1980) that middle-class neighbourhoods are more sensitive to negative externality effects than working-class areas.

The noise nuisance has the most spatially restricted externality field (Fig. 3a), extending in a northerly direction across an area which contains the greatest tract of residential land use in the vicinity of the ground. The traffic nuisance is much more extensive, extending to around 1800m to the north, where it follows the main roads


50 percentage of respondents

A B C 0

0 Nwsance IS not present

@$j Nutsance IS present but no problem A -0m to 500m from the ground

m Nutsance IS a problem B --5oom to looom from the ground

m Nutsance IS a severe problem C - 1OOOm to 2000m from the ground

Figure 1. Proportion of residents in each zone who perceived football-generated nuisances.

out of the town, and to the east where it follows the main roads into the town centre. However, the traffic nuisance to the west of Kenilworth Road, which is confined to a major access road to the ground, extends less than 1 km, and only extends about 500 metres to the south (Fig. 3b). Because of match-day car-parking restrictions in the immediate vicinity of the ground, the most intense car-parking nuisance is found at various locations up to 1 km away and in the town centre (Fig. 3~). The pedestrian nuisance field is less extensive than those created by traffic and car parking (Fig. 3d). It is largely concentrated within 1 km of the ground and on the routes to and from the town centre and railway station and is a severe nuisance within 300 m of the ground. However, this nuisance field does contain a number of outliers where it is a severe problem. The spatial extent of the hooliganism and vandalism nuisance field is also limited (Fig. 3e). Apart from an extension to the town centre and railway station this nuisance is limited to within 500m of the ground.

Figure 2. Spatial extent of the football-generated negative externality field.

258 The spatial externality fields of football stadium

I N”E.ance IS not present

Nusance IS present but no problem

Nusance IS a problem

Nusance IS a severe problem

Non res,dentlal areas

Figure 3. The football-generated negative externality fields for (a) noise, (b) traffic

congestion, (c) car parking, (d) pedestrians and (e) hooliganism and vandalism.


The shape of the nuisance fields to the south, southwest and east of the ground are influenced by three aspects of Luton’s urban landscape (see Plate 1). First, the A505 dual carriageway runs in an east-west direction immediately to the south of the ground and parallel to a railway line. There are large embankments on either side. The only access to Kenilworth Road from the south is a bridge from Clifton Road near the southwest corner of the ground. The road and railway are a semi-permeable barrier which limits both the intensity and extent of the nuisance fields (apart from noise) to the south of the ground but channels these nuisances around the bridge and along Clifton Road to the southwest and on the east side of the ground along Hazelbury Crescent towards the town centre. This creates corridors and outliers where football-generated nuisances are regarded by residents as a severe problem. Secondly, some 600m to the south of the ground is Winsdon Hill, a large area of grassland, some 300m in extent, which rises quite steeply. This provides a limit to the southerly extension of the nuisance fields. Thirdly, a major industrial area to the west of Kenilworth Road limits the extension of the nuisance field in this direction. The spatial form and extent of nuisance fields of Derby County and Charlton Athletic are similarly shaped by railway lines and industrial areas (Bale 1980).

The main features of Luton Town’s football-generated spatial externality field are thus broadly similar to those identified for other grounds. However, there are important differences in detail which reflect location, urban topography and the size of crowds. In particular, the spatial extent of the general nuisance field around Kenilworth Road is less extensive than that of The Dell, Southampton (Humphreys et al. 1983) but is of a similar spatial extent to those of Derby County and Charlton Athletic (Bale 1980), with a very minor level of nuisance generated more than 1 km (zone C) from the ground. However, the level of nuisance within the immediate vicinity of Kenilworth Road is greater than that found around The Dell. The spatial externality field of Luton Town’s ground also has fewer nuisance outliers than identified in Southampton. Kenilworth Road’s general nuisance field and the individual nuisances both exhibit a much more consistent distance decay pattern than either The Dell or a number of other grounds (Humphreys et al. 1983; Bale 1990).

The ranking of the various nuisances generated around Kenilworth Road indicates that traffic and pedestrians are the most significant, followed by car parking. This is the same as the ranking reported by Bale (1990) based on aggregate findings from 37 clubs, but contrasts with the evidence from The Dell where parked cars were the second most important nuisance, only marginally less of a nuisance than traffic congestion. Indeed, more than 500m from Kenilworth Road the most significant nuisance is the pedestrian flow, whereas at comparable distances from The Dell car parking was the most important nuisance. A further contrast is that hooliganism and vandalism were perceived to be the least significant nuisance in Luton, and did not register at all more than 1 km from the ground. This contrasts with The Dell, where hooliganism and vandalism were ranked above noise and more than 1 km from the ground were also considered to be a greater nuisance than pedestrian flow.

It would seem valid to ascribe the limited spatial extent and intensity of the hooliganism nuisance field around Kenilworth Road to the effect of Luton Town’s members-only scheme. Williams et al. (1989) report that in its first season of operation (198647) there were no arrests for hooliganism or reports of football-related criminal damage, an almost complete lack of hooligan behaviour outside the ground, residents living within the vicinity of the ground were less


50 percentage of

respondents

A B C

A - Om to 500m from the ground

B - 5OOm to ,OOOm from rhe ground

C - lOOOm to 2OOOm from the ground

Figure 4. Proportion of residents in each zone who perceived nuisances from non-football activities.

apprehensive on match days, traders opened on match days without the fear of their premises being robbed or attacked, and town centre shops experienced increased Saturday takings. Subsequent relaxation of the members-only scheme to allow visiting supporters for cup matches and a more flexible members’ guests policy have resulted in an increase in both ejections from the ground and arrests, although the frequency of such incidents remains well below that of other First Division clubs (Williams et al. 1989).

The intensity and extent of the non-football-generated externality field

The general nuisance field created by the use of Kenilworth Road for non-football uses is both smaller in extent and significantly less intense than the football- generated nuisance field. Less than 10 per cent of residents living within the immediate vicinity of the ground (zone A) consider that non-football activities create a severe nuisance and virtually the entire spillover is restricted to less than 500 m (Figs 4 and 5). The shape of the non-football nuisance field is also distinctive

_-----------

,’ :

8’ -,%

, 1

,

I\ ‘\

l\ -_______---

Figure 5. The spatial extent of non-football-generated negative externality fields.


(Fig. 5), exhibiting a much more regular pattern around all sides of the ground, in contrast to the football-generated nuisance field which is elongated eastwards towards the town centre and northwards (see Fig. 2). A railway line some 400m northeast of the ground is an effective barrier to the spread of various non-football generated nuisances (note in Figs 7 to 9 the tendency for the nuisance field to end in an almost straight diagonal line corresponding with the railway), but because of their greater intensity the football-generated nuisances extend beyond the railway.

Non-football uses of the ground generate very little noise nuisance; indeed, this nuisance is not detectable beyond 300m (Fig. 6). Unlike the noise nuisance from football, which stretches north, the noise nuisance from non-football uses (particularly other sporting uses) extends eastwards. The traffic congestion nuisance from non-football uses (Fig. 7) is mainly confined to within 500m of the ground, although it extends beyond this distance towards the town centre in a similar way to that of the football-generated traffic nuisance field. The traffic nuisance generated by other sporting events (Fig. 7a) is greater than that generated by non-sporting activities (Fig. 7b), reflecting their larger attendances (the Lada International hockey championship, for example, attracted a crowd of 8000 over three days). Moreover, sporting uses generates a severe traffic nuisance on all sides of the ground, whereas the equivalent nuisance from non-sporting events is confined to the northwest corner of the ground. The car-parking nuisance generated by non-football uses is confined to the immediate vicinity of the ground (Fig. 8). This contrasts with the football-generated car-parking nuisance which is most severe in areas further from the ground. The nuisance created by crowds of pedestrians at non-football events (Fig. 9) is also in marked contrast to the

0 Nuisance IS not present

Nusance is present but no problem

Nutsance is a problem

Non residential areas

Figure 6. The noise negative externality field created by the use of Kenilworth Road for (a) other sporting events and (b) non-sporting events.


,,,,,,_ b$--------------- . ...\

Figure 7. The traffic congestion negative externality field created by the use of Kenilworth Road for (a) other sporting events and (b) non-sporting events.

El Nusmce is not present

Nuisance 1s present but no problem

Fa!# Nuisance IS a problem

m Nuisance IS a severe problem


Figure 8. The car-parking negative externality field created by the use of Kenilworth Road for (a) other sporting events and (b) non-sporting events.


3 ____--------____

I’ -. I’ \ ‘x

I Numnce IS not present

Nuisance IS present but no problem

m Nuisance IS a problem

Nuisance 1s a severe problem


Figure 9. The pedestrian negative externality field created by the use of Kenilworth Road for (a) other sporting events and (b) non-sporting events.

‘\ --___-- ‘,

\ ----________---

El Nuisance IS not present

Nusance 1s present but no problem

Fata Nu,sance IS a problem

Nuisance is a severe problem

Non resldentlal areas

Figure 10. The hooliganism and vandalism negative externality field created by the use of Kenilworth Road for (a) other sporting events and (b) non-sporting events.


football-generated pedestrian nuisance. The pedestrian nuisance arising from other sporting events is limited to the western area of the ground (Fig. 9a), while non-sporting events do not even generate a severe nuisance (Fig. 9b). Finally, the use of Kenilworth Road for non-football events generates virtually no hooliganism or vandalism nuisance (Fig. 10).

The use of Kenilworth Road for non-football activities therefore does generate a nuisance effect. The overall ranking of nuisances is the same for both football and non-football uses, with traffic congestion and pedestrians being the main nuisance effects generated by non-football activities. However, the intensity of nuisance generated by non-football events is considerably lower (Fig. 11). Moreover, for every type of nuisance the extent of the negative externality field is at least three times smaller than the comparable football-generated nuisance. The shapes of the

Overatl

0 1 2 3 t 1 I 1

H N C PT

Zone B

A

Zone A

0 1 2 3 I I 1

I

I

HN CP T

0 1 2

I H NC TP HCTP

B Sportmg Uses

Overall

c Non Sportulg Uses

Overall

Zone A Zone A

0 1 2 3 1 2 3 I I

F---b4

I

I IIII

1

H N C PT H NCP T

Zone B

CT 1 2 3 I I I

NP

zone I3

T 0

It--

_-u

P

P Pedestrians No nuisance in either zone C

N Noise

C Car Parking

H Hoahgansm

T Traffz Congestion

Figure 11. Ranking of the negative externalities for (a) football-generated nuisances, (b) other sporting events and (c) non-sporting events.


non-football nuisance fields differ from their football-generated counterparts, with only the traffic nuisance exhibiting similar characteristics. These contrasts reflect differences in the size and composition of the crowds at football and non-football events. The average attendance at football matches in the 1988-89 season was 9500, with the crowds largely being dominated by young males. In contrast, attendances at non-football events rarely exceed 3000 and comprise a more family-oriented crowd.

Conclusion

It is inevitable that attempts by football clubs to use their grounds more intensively in order to raise additional revenue will generate further nuisance effects for local residents. This study of Luton Town FC has confirmed that by laying down an artificial pitch so that the ground could be used for a variety of albeit relatively small-scale sporting and non-sporting events in order to raise additional revenue has created additional negative externality effects for people living within the immediate vicinity of Kenilworth Road. However, both the intensity of these nuisances and their spatial extent are considerably less than those generated by league football. Even more significantly, Luton Town’s strategy of intensifying the use of a football ground-involving a large number of generally small-scale events-creates considerably less nuisance to local residents than the approach of some other clubs which have hired out their ground for occasionaE large-scale events such as rock concerts. For example, the use of Villa Park (home of Aston Villa FC) for a rock concert in 1988 created a severe nuisance for local residents as a result of floodlights, noise, traffic, car parking, a mass of people (which exceeded the size of football crowds) and their anti-social behaviour. Moreover, these nuisances were experienced during the 24 hours preceding and following the concert (Bale 1990).

The football authorities have bowed to criticisms from players and managers that synthetic playing surfaces are an unsuitable surface for top-class football to be played on. Other clubs have been banned from installing artificial pitches and clubs such as Luton must replace their synthetic surfaces with grass pitches from the 1991-92 season. This decision will therefore eliminate an important source of revenue for smaller clubs such as Luton Town, which are trying to compete with the elite big city clubs, and also for clubs in the lower divisions with their precarious finances. The consequence may be that residents living within the vicinity of football grounds will experience increased nuisance effects as clubs are forced to adopt alternative income-generating uses of their grounds which generate negative spatial externality fields of greater intensity and spatial extent than those which this study has demonstrated result from installing an artificial playing surface.

References

Bale, J. (1980) Football clubs as neighbours. Town and Country Planning 49, 93-94. Bale, J. (1989) Sports geography. London: E & F. N. Spon. Bale, J. (1990) In the shadow of the stadium: football grounds as urban nuisances.

Geography 75, 325-344. Bollen, B. (1987) Green, green grass at home. Financial Times (7 March) Dear, M., Taylor, S. M. and Hall, G. (1980) External effects of mental health facilities.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70, 342-352. Financial Times (1990) Profits the goal. (6 Sept.).


Football Trust (1989) Digest of football statistics. Leicester and London: Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research, University of Leicester and the Football Trust.

Gratton, C. and Taylor, P. (1986) The economics of professional football. Leisure Management 6 (8), 13-15.

Humphreys, D. C., Mason, C. M. and Pinch, S. P. (1983) The externality fields of football grounds: a case study of The Dell, Southampton. Geoforum 14, 401-411.

Inglis, S. (1987) The football grounds of Great Britain (2nd ed.). London: Willow Books. Oliver, G. (1986) The location and relocation of Football League clubs in England and

Wales. Unpublished BSc dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Southampton.

Pinch, S. (1985) Cities and services. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Williams, J., Dunning, E. and Murphy, P. (1989) The Luton Town Members Scheme: Final

Report (with new postscript). Leicester: Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research, University of Leicester.

(Manuscript received 8 April 1991)

the spatial externality fields of football stadiums: the effects of football and non-football uses...

Documents