A History of Violence, Part II

So, what happens now?

There has been a lot of speculation about what will happen with the Independiente/U. de Chile matchup, after Wednesday’s events. Those events were described here, by the way: https://gonzalonj.substack.com/p/a-history-of-violence

Now, everyone’s questions point toward what punishments will be handed down in the sporting realm, as well as the legal (criminal) realm. Personally, I want to focus on the former, for the purposes of this post. In my view, and that of everyone that can read and write, there should be criminal charges for assault; assault with a deadly weapon; assault and battery; sexual assault; attempted rape; attempted murder and possibly even murder, if God forbid there are deaths that emanate from those la U stragglers that were seen to fling themselves off the stadium.

To top it off, also racketeering could be thrown in there as a bonus, but that is not our remit here at CFM. Also, here in NJ there is a charge for endangering the welfare of a child if you act inappropriately in said child’s presence. I would argue deliberately undressing a minor (he is 14) amounts to that.

The speculation to the sporting question even led to the issuance of a fake-news post, purported to come from CONMEBOL, which a number of outlets went on to report. Said press release claimed that both clubs would be eliminated from the competition, with immediate effect. Thus, Alianza Lima would have qualified directly to the semifinals: the Peruvian side are to face the winner of Independiente/La U. I use the present tense, because as of now, there is still no official word from CONMEBOL’s head honchos on what will happen, if anything.

This scenario, which is one of a couple of options, by all accounts is unlikely. First, because it just means less revenue for CONMEBOL. Two, it would entail fewer matches, which equates to less eyeballs on television watching games, which means less sponsorship money, or rather, that CONMEBOL – as the organizer – would not have met its contractual obligations. From what I have read and heard, TV contracts are very strict in this regard and if there is one thing that CONMEBOL has a lot of time for is ensuring the monetary aspect of games gets taken care of.

Furthermore, there is no precedent for it. Also, if you go back to my first post on this story, Colo Colo’s match against Fortaleza earlier this year was only stopped once fans ran onto the field. CONMEBOL officials, security delegate inclusive (who happened to be the same individual at Independiente/la U) knew of the deaths of the two fans prior to the start of the match, however, the game was played regardless. In other words, what happens outside the stadium and certainly before the match outside the stadium is irrelevant to CONMEBOL. Only once CONMEBOL officials realized that the players were at risk, as the hooligans invaded the field, did they decide to stop the match. Otherwise, CONMEBOL’s mantra is ‘’the show must go on’’. Hence, if two deaths did not result in the elimination of one team, never mind both teams, it is unlikely no deaths (for the time being, thank God) will lead to both sides being eliminated.

Another scenario involves Independiente’s elimination, which would thus grant la U passage onto the quarters. That said, both teams would be punished for the foreseeable future, in terms of both teams getting punished by having their matches played behind closed doors: this was the case for Colo Colo, after the Fortaleza match, once they faced Racing at the Monumental, in Santiago. This would happen should Independiente and la U qualify for next year’s competitions. For the Chilean side, that is still a distinct possibility. There should definitely be monetary fines. And if they are forced to play a few matches behind closed doors, it stands to reason that neither team will be allowed to have fans at away matches. One would imagine these sanctions will encompass at least one season.

A 3^rd and unlikely scenario would be to punish la U exclusively. In other words, la U get eliminated and Independiente would face Alianza. This would be incredibly unfair, however, this is CONMEBOL, though, after all. I have seen stranger things: namely that the team with the most influential backing, or stronger pedigree gets a favorable ruling. For now, we do not know and it is just a wait-and-see approach.

There is a meeting scheduled tomorrow, in which CONMEBOL, la U and Independiente officials will be present. This will be last opportunity for both sides to lay out their positions, before a ruling is issued. Let us keep in mind, Sudamericana action will resume on Tuesday, September 16^th. Ergo, CONMEBOL will have time to consider the positions of all sides.

Now, going back to last week, out of curiosity, I wanted to check what CONMEBOL requires in terms of security personnel and or police presence for a CLA or CS match. The answer may surprise you (maybe not) and it is…nothing. Well, not nothing, technically. One requirement in terms of security standards involves a meeting the day before at the HQ of the home team. In said meeting, there are to be representatives (one of each) for the local police department, private security hired by the home team (if any), local fire department, and a few other individuals. There is a requirement as to how the meeting should be set up, in terms of the seating arrangements. Also, there should be a projector at said meeting.

There is a list of forbidden items at matches, which includes smoke bombs and flash bangs. A flash-bang-like device was used by a la U fan at the beginning of the awful chain of events that I described last Friday. By the way, if it is forbidden, how did he get it into the stadium? A number of witness accounts say that security was lax as fans approached the stadium. Food for thought there.

Having said all that, there is no requirement for a specific amount of police officers or security. Therefore, if I were in charge of Flamengo’s front office, I could very well host matches at the Maracana, which can seat almost up to 80,000 people, and not have a single police officer there. Who would have thought? But, CONMEBOL does require high-speed Wi-Fi in the area of the locker rooms for both players and match officials (refs, delegates, VAR staff, etc.).

It is Tuesday, August 26, 2025 right now, and since CONMEBOL issued a statement Thursday morning, in which they condemned the events of Wednesday night, there has been no other official word from them.

As a partying thought, I would say that in a way I can somewhat understand why CONMEBOL cannot require a city or a country’s government to have specific police-presence requirements in place. That to me would seem like external over-reach. In other words, why would I as the mayor of a city let a private and foreign entity dictate what I do or do not do with my police? I would counter there are many arguments to be made against this, one being the embarrassment of dealing with a catastrophe. But I am trying to play devil’s advocate and therefore speculate a bit.

By the same token, if Shakira holds a concert in Buenos Aires, does she (or her team) require a specific amount of police officers for the concert to take place? Just by way of example. Someone eventually will have to draw the line somewhere and do something about this, so we do not see these awful scenes again.