Violence after Ajax hosted Maccabi Tel Aviv

Timeline

1. 7 November 2024: Police record fireworks thrown at officers near the stadium and later attacks on visiting supporters.
2. 24 December 2024: The district court reports the first five convictions.
3. 27 June 2025: Prosecutors explain two metro case closures after security footage was overwritten.

From the stadium to the city centre

The mayor moved a demonstration opposing Maccabi’s visit from the stadium to Anton de Komplein. Police said part of the group tried to approach the stadium and officers were pelted with heavy fireworks. One officer suffered hearing damage. Police reported that supporters of both teams left the stadium without incident. Later, officers responded to attacks on Maccabi supporters at several locations in the city. Police account of the stadium operation

What investigators pursued

A March 2025 police update described several lines of investigation, including the destruction of a Palestinian flag removed from a building façade, an incident involving a taxi and violence against individuals. Those were investigative leads at the time of publication. The early arrest count covers multiple suspected offences and provides no breakdown by political affiliation. Police investigation update

Convictions and two case closures

Amsterdam District Court convicted the first five defendants on 24 December 2024. Sentences included prison terms of six months, ten weeks and one month, and a 100-hour community service order. The prosecution’s earlier statement concerned charges and requested sentences. Prosecution statement · Court outcomes

In June 2025 the Public Prosecution Service explained why it closed two separate metro complaints around the match. The transport operator’s footage had been overwritten, leaving insufficient evidence. One complaint concerned alleged threats and incitement to discrimination directed at two women wearing headscarves. Official closure explanation

How the evidence differed between cases

The district court reported convictions for conduct before and after the match, both near the stadium and in the city centre. The two metro complaints followed a different path. The prosecutor’s explanation identifies the loss of footage from the public transport operator and the resulting lack of evidence. This accounts for those two decisions. The initial police count of arrests covered a wider set of incidents and cannot be used as the denominator for a conviction or closure rate.