Stone Island: Get the badge in!
Written by Lowri Ashton
Dissecting the complex relationship between Stone Island and a toxically masculine audience.
Stone Island has truly made a name for itself. Their remarkable display of technological innovation landed the brand across terraces globally, from the Liverpool faithful at Anfield to the sprezzatura enthusiasts at the San Siro, Stone Island is a fashion mogul.
While celebrities wear the iconic compass as a sign of status within the fashion world, football fans around the UK wear the compass as a beacon towards toxic masculinity. It is safe to say that the toxic reputation lies not with the brand itself but with a history steeped in violence and hatefulness, which is unfortunately still present today.
In 1982, in the beautiful province of Ravarino, Italy, designer Massimo Osti set out to build a brand that complemented his flagship label, C.P. Company. Named after and inspired by the nautical novels of Joseph Conrad, Stone Island is renowned and applauded for its experimentation with materials and excellence in fabric innovation.
Originally (and still evident today), the brand's designs were inspired by military uniforms, with collections realised with Tela Stella—a fabric that recalls waxed jackets corroded by the sea and sun. Over 40 years on, Stone Island has been responsible for creating thousands of new fabrics, treatments, and dyeing processes, including Nylon Metal—a yarn deriving from nylon trifoliate, with a grey weft and white warp, primed for a garment-dyeing process that involves extra high temperatures. An honourable mention - the thermo-sensitive, ice tech which sees colour-changing finishing on garments. My personal favourite (pictured in the images) is the iconic Glass Cover TC jacket—priced at £2,145 and composed of resin, polyurethane film, and polyester.
There is no denying that Stone Island is an impressive brand with a rich history steeped in innovation. So how has a brand with such strong values become the unofficial partner of toxic masculinity? Before we digress into the history of football violence, it is important to note that toxic masculinity existed long before Otsi picked up his first sewing kit.
youngminds.org tells us that toxic masculinity is a term that describes the "negative aspects of exaggerated masculine traits, which boys and men feel pressured to conform to because of cultural or societal expectations." It is the idea that men have to be providers and should show no signs of weakness while dominating those in society who are deemed lesser, such as women and the LGBTQIA+ community. A perfect example is Andrew Tate, who famously advocates for women being treated as ‘property’.
Michael Floyd, a researcher at The Queensland University and expert in toxic masculinity, helps us understand why young boys are attracted to this idea. He states, "I think it appeals to them because there is some level of anxiety and insecurity among boys and men.” “The gender roles have shifted, and feminism and other social movements have questioned some of the traditional models of masculinity,” says Floyd. “I think some boys and men are struggling with feeling unsure, and Andrew Tate (for example) offers easy answers and comfortable solutions, in some ways, quite an attractive vision.”
There is no denying that toxic masculinity is dangerous. It teaches men to be "in control," inflicting harmful ideologies that make them a risk to society. Unfortunately for Stone Island, toxically masculine men were their secondary audience, wearing the badge as a statement of roughneck allegiance.
The origins of Stone Island’s association with toxic masculinity dates back to the 1980s and the growing dominance of English football teams in European competitions. As diehard supporters followed their clubs across the continent, they were exposed to new cultures and luxury sportswear brands This European influence helped cement the label’s status within football fan culture, blending fashion with the ferocious, tribal identity of the terraces.
The Paninaros, who took their name from the panini bars in their home cities, exuded a strange mix of 50s and 60s Americana while also wearing sporty Italian labels like Sergio Tacchini, Lacoste, Fila, and, of course, Stone Island. It was these Paninaros that inspired British football fans, who then appropriated the style into their own subculture—the Terrace Casual.
Masses of Football Casuals began looting European outlets for these clothes and bringing them back to the UK, with Stone Island's greatest emergence occurring in 1992, after an England vs. Sweden loss. Thousands of disappointed fans looted a Swedish clothing outlet called Genius, allowing them to bring their "Stoneys" home. This cemented the brand's position in the scene.
Stone Island’s iconic logo swiftly became a badge of honour as football casuals turned it into a cultural icon in the UK.
While game-related violence had existed long before the 70s-80s, it became particularly widespread during this time due to economic decline, social unrest, working-class identity and tribalism, lack of policing, and, of course, the rise of the Casuals movement.
Each team had its own ‘firm’, many of which still exist today. Some of the most infamous firms include Millwall’s "Bushwackers," known for their extreme violence and "no fear" reputation, with incidents like the 1985 Luton vs. Millwall clash that led to a full riot. However, it was Liverpool’s "Urchins" that truly brought the violence to a head in the Heysel Disaster of 1985. Liverpool fans attacked Juventus fans before the European Cup final in Brussels, causing a wall to collapse and ultimately killing 39 people. This led to a European ban on any English club, which lasted for years.
Despite extreme rivalry and violence against each other, one thing these firms had in common was their style. Dressed smartly in jeans, a Stone Island jacket/ jumper, and a pair of Adidas Originals, football fans would engage in bare-knuckle brawls while ensuring their clobber remained intact.
Forty years later, football casuals continue to be celebrated as cultural icons in Britain. But are we seeing them through rose-tinted glasses? A generation of hyper-aggressive men whose extreme loyalty to their teams often manifested in senseless violence—targeting women, the LGBTQIA+ community, and ethnic minorities—raises important questions about the legacy they leave behind. This nostalgic admiration risks glossing over the real harm caused by a culture that normalised aggression and unchecked machismo. The camaraderie within this subculture thrives on hostility, reinforcing destructive ideals of toughness, emotional suppression, and dominance over those deemed outsiders. It often manifests in bullying, misogyny, and a pack mentality that enforces rigid and harmful codes of masculinity. Unfortunately, all of this was symbolised by that little black compass on a mans arm.
To some, Stone Island is a brand with incredible fabrics and an urban streetwear aesthetic. However, there is still a proportion of men and "lads" who put on their Stone Island jumper and believe it grants them a free pass to inhabit a personality filled with hatred and aggression.
While many people wear Stone Island for its fashion appeal, its ties to football culture and hooliganism have led to various reputation issues in the UK.
Online, from YouTube to Instagram, you can find satirical videos about the perception of those who wear their "Stoneys". In YouTuber KEON’s satire video, he explains that "if you are seen wearing a Stone Island, you are automatically a racist, alcoholic, and homophobic. You love to stand there and give verbal abuse but not do anything else. You can recite 50 football chants but not remember your mum’s birthday."
Thanks to the "modern lads'" backward logic, hideously heterosexual comments to women, and obsession with rivalry and confrontation, many of the UK’s most infamous clubs have banned the badge from being worn inside. Ministry of Sound, Fabric and The Warehouse Project are among the many institutes that disprove of the baggage that comes with the badge, enforcing a dress code that maintains a less confrontational atmosphere.
That being said, the gear worn by this proportion of Stone Island fans is most likely fake. It’s more Clone Island or Stone Thailand.
There’s no denying that Stone Island has remained a fashion mogul despite its ties to toxic masculinity, violence, and aggression in the UK. This is an interesting concept, considering Burberry faced a massive pitfall in the early 2000s when the brand fell into the wrong hands. However, histories like football hooliganism are massively glorified in the UK due to their impact on subculture.
That being said, Stone Island’s impressive collaborations with high-class celebrities such as the Gallaghers, Drake, and many more have allowed it to appeal on a global scale beyond Britain. This has ensured that the toxically masculine profile relates to only a small percentage of wearers. Their collaboration with American street style powerhouse Supreme truly launched them into the global modern market, and their consistently strong celebrity endorsements continue to elevate the brand.
There is a true passion for Stone Island. The brand has lived many lives and been a part of many different experiences. It allows so many people to express elements of their identity and has truly created a sense of community.
The problem of toxic masculinity does not lie with the brand; it lies with the people who believe pairing it with DSquared2 Jeans and a pint of Stella, is an excuse to be a bad person. Like many fashion houses, Stone Island must remain careful not to let these toxic masculine profiles tarnish the brand’s talent.
While the brand’s technical prowess and fashion credibility are undeniable, its deep-rooted connection to football hooliganism and aggressive subcultures is hard to overlook. Despite its efforts to distance itself from this image through celebrity endorsements and global collaborations, the brand’s history continues to haunt it. Can Stone Island truly escape the baggage of its past, or does its continued popularity among the modern lad suggest that its toxic associations are too ingrained to shake off?
