advertisement
About Advertising Industry

BNET Advertising provides daily industry trends and news coverage with insights for managers and executives about the major agencies in advertising, marketing, and public relations. In addition to detailed company and agency profiles, we bring you detailed industry analysis on new partnerships and acquisitions, ad buying and cost, new investments, inventory issues, and other issues critical to the marketing sector.

Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel Host After He Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

By Jim Edwards | May 15, 2009

Advertisers on Fox Soccer Channel and Sirius in the U.S. have been asked to pull out of shows linked to British presenter Steven Cohen after he made remarks blaming Liverpool F.C. supporters for the death of 96 of their fellow fans at the Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield, England, 20 years ago. The demands to withdraw were triggered when American fans of Liverpool besieged Fox and Sirius’s advertisers with angry emails demanding that they not support shows such as Fox Football Fone-In on which Cohen, a familiar face to American soccer fans, appears.

UPDATE: A recording of Cohen singing “Murderers” about Liverpool fans on his show in 2008 has emerged on Liverpool fan site EmpireoftheKop.com. A YouTube file of the clip is posted below.

Sponsors withdrawing from either Cohen’s Fox or Sirius shows include British magazine FourFourTwo, Fado (a chain of Irish pubs in the United States) and the company that runs the merchandise shop for Cohen’s radio show, World Soccer Daily.

The dispute (which doubtless baffles Americans unfamiliar with soccer) has been aggravated by the fact that Cohen is a self-professed fan of Chelsea F.C., one of the clubs whose fans reserve a special hatred for Liverpool.

The significance

The boycotts are interesting for four reasons:

  1. They indicate that soccer fans are starting to have real economic power in the U.S., even if only at the limited level of pay-cable advertisers.
  2. This is corporate America’s introduction to the strange new power of football in the U.S., and its long memory.
  3. The advertisers seem to understand that referring to certain fans as “the Taliban” (as Cohen did) is a step too far.
  4. It is the first major mark that American fans have made in support of a European club (the boycott has been led by the Liverpool F.C. New York Supporters Club*), indicating that Americans have started to take the world’s game to heart.

Back story: On April 15, 1989, Liverpool played Nottingham Forest F.C. in the semi-final of the F.A. Cup. The game was scheduled at the Hillsborough stadium, home ground of neutral club Sheffield Wednesday F.C. About 10,000 Liverpool fans attempted to enter a section of the stadium which had been divided into a series of pens, rendering them too small for the crowd. Ninety-six fans were crushed to death. The deaths were shown live on TV, as neither broadcasters nor the teams playing on the pitch understood what was going on in the stands.

A government inquiry concluded that the stadium’s design and inadequate policing were to blame.

Since then, the memory of the 96 L.F.C. fans who died at Hillsborough has been fiercely guarded by Liverpool fans across the globe. Cohen’s remarks occured around the 20th anniversary of the fans’ deaths.

Cohen’s remarks

Here’s what Cohen said on the April 13, 2009, episode of World Soccer Daily, a Sirius radio show (Cohen also regularly presents on FSC’s Fox Fotball Fone-In):

“People showing up without ticket, hell bent in getting into somewhere where they shouldn’t be going because they don’t have tickets, is the root cause of [the Hillsborough Disaster].”

“… nobody discusses the 6-8,000 who showed up without tickets and my argument has always been, if those people don’t show up, this never happens.”

That statement infuriated Liverpool fans as the official inquiry into the deaths concluded that very few fans turned up without tickets. The inquiry — which became the “interim” Taylor report (download zip file here) – came out a few weeks after the deaths, but by that time most media reports had wrongly blamed a crush of ticketless Liverpool fans desperate to get into a crucial game. (The “final” Taylor report addressed wider issues in football stadia generally, and led to the end of terraced stands where people stood to watch games. Thus the “interim” report is the official verdict on the deaths.)

Given a chance to back down from his remarks on the April 20 show, Cohen repeated them. Cohen then said this to the L.A. Daily News:

“I’ve seen the Taliban less defensive,” Cohen said. “If this was being done in Afghanistan or Pakistan, we’d call these people terrorists. A lot of them are little cowards hiding behind their computers.

“I feel my life and my livelihood is at stake.”

Needless to say, describing Liverpool fans as “the Taliban” or “terrorists” has made things worse, not better. BNET understands that Cohen has been replying personally and unapologetically to the more than 3,500 emails he has received on the topic. Cohen claims he has received death threats, among other unpleasant protests, from fans.

The history

It is extremely difficult to explain to U.S. residents who are not football fans why a talking-head’s opinion about an event 20 years ago in a foreign country still carries such weight. But here’s my attempt:

The “English” Premier League is a misnomer. No more than 25 percent of players in the league are actually English; the major clubs of “English” football are staffed by the world’s best African, Asian, European and American continental players, drawn by clubs that pay the most and just happen to be in England. (The U.S.’s best striker, Clint Dempsey, plays for Fulham F.C.; its best goalkeeper, Brad Friedel, is an ex-Liverpool player who now appears for Aston Villa.) The EPL is, literally, an international contest of the world’s greatest footballers.

U.S. fans have made themselves part of that. There’s a network of American-Liverpool fans across North America, with supporters clubs in New York, Boston, New Haven and Toronto. Liverpool has an oddly hypnotic effect on Americans, something to do to with the team’s style of play — free-flowing and wildly unpredictable — its bright red uniforms, and the club’s mixture of championship wins and underdog status. These Liverpool fans regard themselves as the spiritual and literal representatives of the world’s most decorated club in the world’s greatest game.

Thousands of their fellow Liverpool fans went to that game in 1989, and 96 of their friends didn’t come back. They were killed in an effort to support their club. For American Liverpool fans, criticising people who “show up” at a cup tie is akin to criticizing Oklahoma City residents who “show up” at the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

The solution

For Liverpool fans, it is probably improper to send death threats to Cohen. It is not helping your case. He’s a journalist who is entitled to his opinion. In the U.S., the First Amendment protects controversial speech, unlike Europe where people are routinely prosecuted for saying unpopular things.

Conversely, it is within Cohen’s power to make the controversy go away. All he needs to do is read the Taylor report and make a brief factual “correction” on air, preferably apologizing for the error as he does so, the way normal journalists do. He’s got the facts wrong and should say so — it really is as simple as that. It’s strange that he hasn’t done so. The fact that Cohen is a Chelsea fan merely tempts his opponents to question his integrity as a broadcaster.

Advertisers would do well to steer clear of Cohen until the controversy is cleared up. Once it is, they should return to the airwaves — a market has passionately demonstrated its existence.

*Disclosure: The author was born in Liverpool, is a Liverpool fan, is a U.S. citizen, and is a card-carrying member of the L.F.C. New York Supporters Club (Hello 11th Street Bar!). He had a friend at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster (he survived — he’s a Notts Forest fan).

Jim Edwards, a former managing editor of Adweek, has covered drug marketing at Brandweek for four years, and is a former Knight-Bagehot fellow at Columbia University's business and journalism schools. Follow him on Twitter or send him an email.

BNET User Analysis

Web Buzz:
  • Chelsea F.C. Disowns Fox Host in Ad Boycott

    BNET Advertising - 120 days 21 hours 50 minutes ago

    Chelsea F.C. has disowned Fox Soccer Channel host Steven Cohen over his remarks about the death of 96 Liverpool F.C. fans in a stadium crush in 1989. It is the latest turn in an increasingly strange fight between Cohen, fans of Liverpool who have urged a boycott of him, and the advertisers who have departed his show. Cohen has repeatedly blamed...

  • Q&A: Fox's Steven Cohen on the Advertiser Boycott Over His Remarks on Soccer Stadium Deaths

    BNET Advertising - 150 days 22 hours 12 minutes ago

    Steven Cohen, the host of Fox Football Fone-In and Sirius XM’s World Soccer Daily, is battling fans of Liverpool F.C. who are urging advertisers to abandon his shows. Cohen offended the fans by blaming them for the deaths of 96 people at Hillsborough stadium in 1989. Those who arrived without tickets, Cohen has argued, contributed to the...

  • Steven Cohen Abandons Sirius Radio Show Following Advertiser Boycott

    BNET Advertising - 87 days 22 hours 36 minutes ago

    Steven Cohen, the Fox Soccer Channel host axed from his show following an advertiser boycott urged by fans of Liverpool F.C., abandoned his Sirius

  • Fox Axes Host Who Triggered Ad Boycott Over Soccer Stadium Deaths

    BNET Advertising - 115 days 19 hours 20 minutes ago

    Steven Cohen, the Fox Soccer Channel personality, has been replaced as a host of Fox Football Fone-In by Eric Wynalda, the former U.S. national team star, according to USA Today’s soccer blog. The move came after a months-long advertising boycott called for by fans of Liverpool F.C. Cohen lost at least four sponsors of his Sirius XM radio...

  • Fox Host Lambasts Sponsors for Abandoning Show After Remarks on Soccer Stadium Deaths

    BNET Advertising - 151 days 22 hours 38 minutes ago

    Fox Soccer Channel host Steven Cohen lambasted advertisers on Sirius Radio Thursday for ending their sponsorships of his show following his comments about a fatal stadium crush that left 96 football fans dead in 1989. Several advertisers have been persuaded to abandon Cohen’s shows by fans of Liverpool F.C. who are angry over Cohen’s...

Links from the Web Buzz:
 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    PujolsBuddy

    05/15/09 | Report as spam

    Michael Duggan


    At last a great article on what is going on with the Cohen and his sponsors.

    Thank-you Jim

  •  
    2

    goul

    05/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel After Host Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

    This source http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfield/?p=661 has a U-Tube clip of one of his shows where he openly claims to be taunting Liverpool fans with chants of "Murderers".

    I want to hear pundits with an admitted bias to a team - its all part of the banter of the game. However uninformed, unrepentant, prejudiced broadcasts, repeating lies that are immensely hurtful to many people throughout the footballing family in the UK have no place in journalism.

    Sounds to me like sponsors should flee away from this twisted individual and the offensive views he is spouting. Association with these view will damage any brand.

  •  
    3

    Jerry McM

    05/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel After Host Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

    As far as the debate over whether Steven?s comments were fair or accurate. There is no debate. If you actually read all the resources freely available online about what really happened at Hillsborough, no reasonable person would conclude otherwise.

    What Steven and his supporters are asserting is not his right to free speech, but rather his right to consequence-free speech. Nobody should have that right. With all rights come responsibilities, and if Steven chooses to abuse his rights, then others have the right to object.

    You should also consider the context of Steven?s remarks. I?ve found it particularly laughable, during this dispute, to hear people praise Steven for daring to raise a controversial topic of debate. Steven made his comments in response to a listener goading him about Liverpool FC?s history of achievements on the pitch. His response was inappropriate and tasteless, but sadly typical of the man as evidenced by his boasting about taunting Liverpool fan?s in a pub with chants of ?Murderers!?.

    Steven talks about not wanting the ?ugly side? of European soccer to make it over here, but he is the living embodiment of one of the ugliest aspects ? using death and tragedy to taunt others. This is a sport for goodness sake. Does the man have no soul?

    Consequences.

    When Steven made his baseless comments about Hillsborough, he deeply offended a large section of his audience. Steven?s audience members are also customers of his sponsors. It is their right to express their distaste to those sponsors and inform them that they will no longer use their goods or services while they are associated with an unrepentant Steven Cohen. It is then up to those sponsors to decide what they want to do.

    A further consequence of these actions is that Steven has managed to plant several one sided articles in the mainstream media and tried to make this about his right to consequence-free speech. There will probably be more consequences to come.

    If the ultimate consequence of this whole sorry affair is that we lose WSD, then quite frankly, Steven himself, in no small measure, has ?shared responsibility? for that.

    Surely Steven, of all people, can understand that concept.

  •  
    4

    BNET's Jim Edwards

    05/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel After Host Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

    @Jerry McM: I agree with some but not all of what you're saying. Here's what I agree with:

    "What Steven and his supporters are asserting is not his right to free speech, but rather his right to consequence-free speech."

    Here's what I disagree with:

    "Nobody should have that right."

    Actually, free speech is only meaningful if it is consequence-free. The whole point of free speech is the implicit agreement of everyone else that they will put up with views they find abhorrent.

    The rest of your note I agree with: Cohen's views are bizarre, fact-free and annoying. If he loses his career over it he will have only himself to blame.

  •  
    5

    Jerry McM

    05/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel After Host Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

    Jim,

    I?m a little confused as to why you would claim that consequence-free speech is a reasonable thing to demand, yet at the same time you agree that the potential consequences I suggested are also reasonable. Those two positions are mutually exclusive.

    Consequence-free speech, by definition, denies others the right to free speech by taking away their right to reply or peacefully protest. The right to reply and protest are two of the most basic consequences of Steven Cohen, or anyone else, opening their mouths.

    Are you seriously suggesting that anyone should have the right to say whatever they like and nobody can voice their opposition? That is the kind of consequence I?m talking about.

  •  
    6

    BNET's Jim Edwards

    05/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel After Host Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

    I think I haven't made myself clear. I'm saying that he should have the right to say what he wants and shouldn't be subjected to death threats or banned from saying them. I'm fine with people boycotting his shows in response.

    Where I disagree with you is the idea that consequence-free speech automatically deprives someone else of free speech -- it doesn't. (I think we're actually saying the same thing.)

  •  
    7

    Jerry McM

    05/28/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Advertisers Abandon Fox Soccer Channel After Host Blames Liverpool Supporters for 96 Deaths in Stadium Crush

    Death threats are unacceptable and nobody is trying to ban him from saying whatever he likes, but boycotting his show is a consequence of that. One thing follows the other.

    His sponsors pay for his ability to publicly broadcast his opinions and they have every right to withdraw that financing if they disagree with him or believe he is damaging their business. That is a consequence of Steven exercising his right to free speech as he has. His sponsors and customers are exercising their freedom of expression in response? as a consequence.

    There are certainly some consequences he should not suffer, including death threats, but the idea that he should not suffer the consequences above, or any other reasonable, legal and peaceful consequence, because he has the right to consequence-free speech, is laughable.

    Consequence-free means no consequences at all Jim. None. Including the consequence of a boycott. A boycott is an exercise in free speech. Ergo?.Consequence-free speech does "automatically deprive someone else of free speech".

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement