Soccer riot in Egypt, 73 dead

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/world/africa/egypt-soccer-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

This is the worst since 1996.

 

I blame Liverpool fans.

 

Good stuff from the BBC. Including rumors the police were wanting a shot at the Ultras as retribution for previous attacks during the protests last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16845841

 

When 73 people are dead, hundreds more are injured and the words "worse since ..." are used, that's sad.

 

Serious question: Should the score of the match even be included? It's appropriately buried deep in the story, but it seems like you might lend the slightest bit of credence to this mania by even reporting the outcome of the match.

 

And the "since" is in the last 20 years.

 

It absolutely needs to be included. It's an important detail. Do the riots happen if the outcome of the match is different?

 

It seems most of the trouble at stadiums in recent years has been in African nations where general turmoil is rampant. As pointed out early in the story, it's unclear if this one was really soccer fans or rival political factions. I'm not sure it's fair to call it a soccer riot with hooligans clashing. It seems more appropriate that it was a riot that was going to happen, and the different sides were just given a venue to congregate at a sporting event.