The Daily Gamecock

In Our Opinion: SEC no-alcohol policy should remain unchanged

The current policy for allowing patrons to purchase alcohol within a SEC stadium is up for debate, but this is one issue that can be permanently tabled.

As it stands, no alcohol is allowed in the SEC stadiums except in the premium seats, which at Williams-Brice cost $365 per seat in The Zone, with the price rocketing upwards to $8,760 for a season ticket.

Athletics Director Ray Tanner said in an interview from May 2014 that this hasn’t caused any major incidents. Tanner pointed out that most people in premium seating are of age, which wouldn’t be the case for those who are sitting in the rest of the stadium.

Increase in revenue is the sole item sitting in the “pro” column when considering saying yes to beer being allowed for purchased at or brought into the stadium.

In contrast, the “con” column would stretch the length of the football field itself. Most notably, allowing fans to drink alcohol during a game is nothing less than dangerous.

As has been proven countless times over the years, alcohol lowers inhibitions, which aren’t exactly at an all-time high during sports events. People get passionate about their teams, especially in the South, and especially when it comes to rivalries.

Fan violence at sporting events is more often than not fueled by alcohol. Case in point: In 1984, a fight erupted between the fans of the Atlanta Braves and the San Diego Padres, in which one participant threw a full beer mug at a player on the Padres, hitting him in the head.

This took place at a baseball game, a sport which itself is traditionally nonviolent. Imagine the fans at a Clemson vs. South Carolina game, already amped up at the idea of their beloved team once again becoming victorious.

Things are bound to get heated regardless, but adding alcohol to the mix is tantamount to adding fuel to the fire.

It’s true that alcohol has been introduced to sports games without incident. At the University of Texas basketball games, the experience was cited as “positive,” and that their revenues went up.
Again, though, basketball isn’t as violent a sport as football, and the athletic director at University of Texas, Steve Patterson, didn’t say that they planned to implement the idea at their own football games.

Tanner is against the idea, which should be a red flag to those who support the idea.

Athletic directors have to deal the budget, which means Tanner knows better than anyone what alcohol revenue could do for Williams-Brice. He’s still against the idea, leading one to believe that the revenue either isn’t worth all the trouble that may come — or the extra revenue isn’t that much to begin with.

Even if the revenue brought in by changing the policy was profitable enough to justify it, it would have to first be spent on increasing security at the games and the insurance policy at the stadium to safeguard against injury or death.

If drinking while watching a game is really so important to fans, they have two options: Stay home with a beer and watch the game on TV, or tailgate.


Comments