Far-right violence erupted across the UK in early August, prompting an alliance of football fans to rally in defence of threatened communities.
In Liverpool, supporters from a group called Fans Supporting Foodbanks (FSF), mobilised to protect the Abdullah Quilliam mosque, which had previously welcomed them for the Euro 2024 final just weeks earlier.
Paul Chadwick and Dave Kelly, two passionate Everton supporters, found themselves amongst 200 antifascists guarding the mosque. ‘Football isn’t the first thing you’d think could bring different communities together’, Chadwick remarked to reporters.
‘But it opens a lot of doors’.
The roots of this unusual alliance traced back to 2015 when FSF was conceived by Kelly, Robbie Daniels, and Ian Byrne (who later became the MP for Liverpool West Derby).
What began as a modest effort of collecting food in wheelie bins outside Everton’s Goodison Park had grown into a substantial operation feeding 2,500 people weekly in Merseyside. The initiative’s success had not gone unnoticed, spreading to other cities across the UK, with Scotland alone boasting 20 food pantries inspired by the FSF model.
This positive engagement stood in stark contrast to football’s historical association with far-right elements. In the 1970s and 1980s, the National Front had actively recruited from fan bases, while more recently, groups like the Democratic Football Lads Alliance had attempted to infiltrate the sport with their divisive ideologies.
Daniels emphasised the importance of presenting a different image of football fans: ‘We are football fans trying to help in our communities, to show fans in a better light’. This sentiment echoed throughout the FSF network, which operated under the inclusive slogan ‘Hunger Doesn’t Wear Club Colours’, transcending the deeply entrenched Everton-Liverpool rivalry.
The Abdullah Quilliam mosque had become a regular contributor to the FSF programme. Mumin Khan, the mosque’s CEO, explained their involvement: ‘We tell the congregation to bring something, and then we’ll send off a van. We care for our neighbours.’
The situation escalated on 7 August when hundreds gathered to protect Asylum Link Merseyside, a charity supporting asylum seekers, after it appeared on a list of potential far-right targets. The mobilisation extended beyond football fans, with trade unions including the RMT, Communication Workers Union, and Fire Brigades Union calling on their branches to support vulnerable groups.
Kelly and Chadwick, both with extensive trade union backgrounds, argued that football had allowed for greater community engagement than traditional union activities. ‘We wouldn’t get where we can get now as trade unionists,’ Kelly explained, advocating for union members to focus on ‘getting out in communities’.
While relieved at the city’s robust response to the far-right threat, both men expressed concerns about building lasting trust. Kelly noted: ‘You can’t turn up to anti-fascist demonstrations, then just walk away.’ This sentiment highlighted the ongoing challenge of translating momentary solidarity into sustained community support.
The day following the successful defence of Asylum Link Merseyside, FSF’s weekly food pantry on Lodge Lane saw lower attendance than usual, despite being located in Liverpool Riverside, England’s most deprived constituency. Volunteers worried that far-right threats had deterred locals from venturing out. ‘People are sitting at home, hungry,’ Daniels suggested. ‘But they’re too afraid to come out.’
The impact of the far-right threat on vulnerable communities became starkly apparent when a pregnant mother and her two children arrived late to the pantry. Living in temporary accommodation with only a kettle, the family couldn’t use many of the standard offerings. Volunteers sprang into action, sourcing a microwave, electric stove, and other necessities to meet their specific needs.
‘We are the community, feeding the community,’ Daniels concluded, encapsulating the ethos that had turned football fans into unexpected champions of social cohesion and community resilience.
As the summer wore on, the immediate threat of far-right violence receded, but the bonds forged in crisis remained. The unlikely alliance of football supporters, community organisers, and local residents stood as a testament to the power of grassroots organising in the face of division and hate.
Local authorities took notice of the FSF model, with discussions beginning about how to support and expand such initiatives. Meanwhile, national media attention brought increased donations and volunteers to the cause, allowing FSF to extend its reach to even more vulnerable individuals and families.
Meanwhile, a 24-year-old Muslim man has been imprisoned for 20 months after hurling objects at far-right demonstrators who had previously thrown alcohol at him. The judge admonished him, stating he should have ‘risen above their simply obnoxious racism.’
Amer Walid, residing in Central Park Towers, Plymouth, was observed on four separate occasions tossing cans back at far-right rioters on Monday 5 August in the south-western city.
For several hours, far-right rioters attempted to confront an anti-racist rally, launching missiles and fireworks. This confrontation was one of many across the nation, as racists targeted mosques and residential areas, erroneously linking the murder of three children in Stockport to a migrant.
Walid, who had no prior convictions, explained that he became enraged after being hit by a bottle or can of alcohol, noting his abstinence from drinking.
The court was informed that Walid shouted ‘Allah Akbar’, in response to racist chants from the far-right rioters.
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Robert Linford acknowledged that Walid had not been ‘looking for trouble’ and that the far-right rioters had been throwing missiles and making ‘deeply offensive racist chants’.
‘What you should have done was rise above their simply obnoxious racism,’ he stated. ‘You were capable of doing that but you didn’t, instead what you did was throw four missiles of one sort or another at the group opposite.’
Walid’s sentencing occurred alongside three far-right rioters.
John Cann, aged 51, received a three-year sentence for launching a firework or flare towards the counter-protesters before falling off his mobility aid. He informed the police that he anticipated the protest would ‘kick off’ because ‘an immigrant had killed some girls’, but maintained he was not racist.
Post-arrest, Cann, who has an extensive criminal record, told police that immigrants were placing an excessive financial burden on the country. During sentencing, Judge Linford remarked on the cost of Cann’s combined 357 months in prison, stating, ‘That, Mr Cann, is what you’ve been costing this country.’
Ryan Bailey, 41, was sentenced to 30 months for throwing missiles at the anti-fascist counter-protest and was heard shouting ‘immigrants not welcome here’.
Gary Harkness, 51, who was abusive towards officers and made a violent threat, received a 12-month sentence.
The government has emphasised ‘strong policing and swift prosecutions’ to quell the rioting. Over 1,000 individuals have been arrested for their involvement in the disorder. Many have now been sentenced, including children as young as 12.
This response mirrors the approach taken during the 2011 riots following the killing of Mark Duggan, an unarmed black man, by police. Under Keir Starmer, then director of public prosecutions, the justice system worked overtime to mete out punishments to suppress the disorder. All-night court sittings were criticised as ‘chaos on stilts’ by one magistrate, while MPs and justice campaigners argued that many sentences handed out to those ‘caught up’ in the disorder were excessively harsh. Starmer stated his belief that the speed with which rioters were brought before the courts was more significant than the length of sentencing.
In the wake of the recent racist rioting, the government has avoided mentioning the toxic anti-migrant rhetoric which contributed to the riots and to which Labour has also contributed. Instead, they have focused on far-right influencers and Elon Musk, the owner of X/Twitter.
Rather than altering the tone of discussion around migration, the government appears set to maintain its current stance. A BBC report suggests that ‘the government has avoided discussing immigration, again for fear of suggesting any of the unrest was justified. But in time they are likely to remind voters that the Prime Minister believes many people do have legitimate concerns about legal and illegal migration.’
