The recent football crush incident in Indonesia sparked widespread concern as nearly 125+ have been reported dead, leaving hundreds of others injured. The incident occurred when hometeam Arema FC lost to Persebaya Surabaya, resulting in violence among supporters on the football pitch. Officials used tear gas to control the massive crowd flooding, which resulted in the world’s worst stadium disasters.

The incident did instill questions and concerns, especially regarding the use of tear gas by police officials. Consequently, Real Research, an online survey platform, launched a survey on Indonesia football stadium crush incident to see what society had to say. Here are the results.


  • 46.24% say the police should have used a less aggressive approach than tear gas
  • 24.47% blame police/security forces for the Indonesia football stadium crush incident
  • 36.79% feel the Indonesia football stadium crush could have definitely been avoidable

Respondents on How Officials Handled the Massive Crowd Invasion

The survey starts by asking respondents if they are aware of the Indonesia football stadium crush incident. 49.08% responded, saying they were fully aware, and 27.28% said yes but without much details. 23.64% are not aware, however.

Fig 1: Respondents on how officials handled the crowd

Next, the survey asks respondents if the police officials could have handled the situation better. 46.24% say yes, the police should’ve used a less aggressive approach than tear gas. On the contrary, 20.43% say no and that the fans would have hurt each other instead. 16.9% say no, the police know to handle the situation. Interestingly enough, 16.01% say the police have always been aggressive.

The Indonesia Football Stadium Crush– Who’s To Blame?

Next, the survey asks respondents who they feel should be blamed for the football stadium tragedy. In response, the majority (24.47%) blame the police/security forces, while others point it to the football fans (17.62%), both fans and the police (16.77%), football fans of the home team (16.1%), and the rest (12.56%) say no one is to blame.

Fig 2: Who’s to blame for the stadium incident?

World’s soccer governing body, FIFA, specifies that no firearms or ‘crowd control gas’ should be carried or used by the stewards or police. As a result, questions about the Indonesian police’s awareness of these regulations were raised. In a poll into the same, the survey revealed that it is likely the police are aware of such regulations (63.21%). Meanwhile, others (36.72%) say it is unlikely that the police were aware.

Read Also: Survey on Qatar’s New Policy to Serve Alcohol at FIFA World Cup

The Indonesian Police’s Use of Tear Gas— Justified?

Accordingly, the survey asks whether the use of tear gas to control the crowd is justified. 31.65% say it is highly justified, 21.2% say it is only justified, and 16.29% say it is somewhat justified. Contrastingly, 17.08% said tear gas use is unjustified, and 13.78% feel it is highly unjustified.

Fig 3: Respondents on whether the use of tear gas is justified

Hooliganism has long been rampant in Indonesian football, where fanaticism often ends in violence. Lastly, when asked whether the Indonesia football stadium crush incident was avoidable, a majority (36.79%) were definite about it, whereas 28.46% said it was only probable. In contrast, 18.24% said probably not, and 16.51% definitely not avoidable.


Survey TitleSurvey on Indonesia Football Stadium Crush
DurationOctober 7 – October 14, 2022
Number of Participants30,000
DemographicsMales and females, aged 21 to 99
Participating Countries Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, China (Hong Kong) China (Macao), China (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greanada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Maldives, Maluritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar [Burma], Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.