The behavior of football fans began to be viewed as a growing social problem in many countries in the 1960s (Davis, 2015). Prior to this period, however, conduct that might now be framed as football violence in England was instead typically portrayed by the British press as “high-spirited” (Dunning, Murphy & Williams, 1988, p. 11). Football crowds were expected to behave in a “rough” manner, and as such any instances reported in the press were not usually perceived to be reflective of a serious social problem. Until the late 1950s, match attendance in English football (and in many other domestic leagues in Europe where “hooliganism” emerged) was primarily confined to relatively localized support (Goldblatt, 2008). Alterations in employment conditions subsequently enabled increasing numbers (primarily working-class males) to travel to matches as “away fans” (Rookwood, 2009). Supporters would travel together, often in “mob-like” groups, their presence helping to alter the dynamics of football spectatorship. Violent football gangs emerged at most English clubs from the 1960s, although the phenomenon was usually confined to professional football. Many of these socially organized or institutionalized groups (which became known as “firms”) began to engage in vandalism and competitive violence, primarily against other football gangs. Some Liverpool and Manchester United supporters were early English examples, with sections of a changing media labeling the respective groups the “Merseyside Maniacs” and the “Red Army” as a consequence (Dunning et al., 1988, p. 142). Various football firms across England and Europe adopted different practices and labels. In European fandom, violent groups often became associated with a name connected to a particular part of the stadium where they congregated to watch matches. In English contexts, some firms have maintained an attachment to a particular label over a number of years. However, many of these groups are small, transitory, and relatively short-lived gangs seeking “hyper-localized notoriety” (Redhead, 2015, p. 336). In his archiving of “hooligan memoirs,” Redhead identifies 400 separate firm names in English football alone. The reflexive subcultural language employed here is an interesting component of the phenomenon itself. Firms of violent supporters have often adopted names to describe connections to given identities or practices (Davis, 2015) or to confuse perceived “enemies,” namely rival firms, the media, the police, and even academics (Redhead, 2015).