Much ado over nothing: Furore over Kanteerava incident shows that banter has to be taken as it is

As Bengaluru FC fought it out with their North Korean opponents April 25 SC amid turbulent weather conditions, their fans were having a gala time of their own, with two former Blues in the stands.

Skipper Sunil Chhetri had mentioned that the members of the four-year-old team had been devastated by their break-up, brought about by Bengaluru’s switch to the Indian Super League and the prevalent Draft conditions.

It was quite possible that other members of the team also felt the same. And so it happened that CK Vineeth and Rino Anto, two ex-Bengaluru players and currently plying their trades for Kerala Blasters, made their way to the stands to cheer along with the West Block Blues, the BFC fan group.

If the players felt a bit despondent due to the break-up, then so did the fans. After all, football fans live vicariously through their players. What happens on the pitch translates to action off it.

Both players were celebrated, were sung about and their current club was also referenced to by the WBB, for whom the Kerala Blasters are now a direct rival.

What followed was a tad unexpected, with Rino claiming that he was “hurt by a section of supporters who sang against my team, Kerala Blasters,” while Vineeth was quick to brush it off. “It is only right that a little bit of banter comes from the stands,” said the ex-Bengaluru forward.

The Manjappada (the Blasters’ fan-base) weren’t too impressed with the chanting, while most of the Blues maintained that it wasn’t intended to hurt the sentiments of the ex-players and fan favourites. With the players themselves split over the nature of the chanting, perhaps it would be unwise to debate over the nature of the banter.

Banter, as defined in Merriam-Webster: “to speak to or address in a witty and teasing manner.”

The definition of banter in footballing terms however, is less uncertain. Is it a mixture of light-hearted repartee and songs of gentle raillery, or shrieks cutting across lines laced with identity and cultural pasts, bordering on the (mildly?) offensive?

Or does it sometimes cross into transgression territory, where celebrating a whooping takes an ugly turn, sparking a whole new debate into the acceptable norms of supporter gamesmanship?

What is not debatable is that banter is an indelible part of footballing folklore, as much a part of the game as any other aspect of fan engagement, for good or for worse.

With the evolution of football, banter has and will inevitably, evolve further. Again, with football in different parts of the world at varying stages of development, it is only natural that banter follow the same pattern.

In India, the Kolkata derby, for a long time the biggest match in the domestic calendar, has been marred with a history of violence and ill-tempered exchanges, far surpassing the realm of playful banter.

Non-physical expression, even when it has been employed, has often centred around slanderous remarks surrounding club origins, extending to the fan base at all. In the modern era, other groups such as Yellow Brigade (Mumbai FC fan club), WBB and Manjapadda have indulged in other forms of banter, perhaps more acceptable to the non-fanatical, casual weekend-game going fan.

The Blasters’ fans, who wore Zidane masks when Marco Materazzi’s Chennaiyin FC, were visiting, in memory of the latter’s infamous headbutt-altercation in the 2006 World Cup final, were later questioned by the Italian, “Did they spend lots of money for it? I would use that money for food instead?”

Newly created Jamshedpur FC have a lot of ex-Blasters personnel in their ranks, including coach Steve Coppell and assistant Ishfaq Ahmed, and the Manjappada didn’t take too kindly to these developments, editing the former’s Wikipedia page – terming the Tata Steel owned club “Curry Leaves of Blasters”.

The nature of banter in various geographical regions is liable to vary depending on the socio-economic strata of the majority of the fanbase. In Europe, football is most widely declared as a working man’s game, seen as an emotional investment rather than a run-of-the-mill season pass.

It is important to note that for the pass-holder, his/her investment is different to that from buying a sofa or a television. With this comes a distinct attribute, to be lived out through the team on the pitch and may also form the basis for regional identity (Scouser, for example), dependant on the fortunes of the local team.

For the fanatic or the ultra, it is the emotional disbursement that dictates that the mini-battle off the pitch and outside the stadium be won, as a sense of allegiance towards the club. Colours are to be declared as openly as possible, with no stone to be left unturned in the wordplay stakes. Banter is as much right as much as it is duty.

Caution has been raised at a level as high as the World Cup in Russia, with authorities worried about racist and homophobic slurs. The same pattern has also been viewed unfavourably in Turkey, Italy and Germany. Though no line is designated between what constitutes banter and offence, racism has to be a strict ‘no-go’ area.

In India, where the game seems to be gaining in popularity as a whole, the need of the hour is to build a conducive environment where crowds may throng to stadiums, as television and online audience depends heavily on the football on the pitch.

Irrespective of the nature of the spectacle surrounding the 22 men, a wholesome getaway for the family audience should be kept in mind, if rapid organic growth of following is to be a key parameter.

With the ever-changing nature of football in the country, the existing banter is susceptible to change. A delicate balance between censorship and unruliness is to be practised because supporter exchange is an integral part of the game, which cannot be eradicated as long as the fan remains central to football.