High risk of dying of boredom I guess?
Seriously though, I think this "study" appears to be absolute nonsense designed to mislead and generate clickbait:
A study conducted by Live Football Tickets to find which stadiums were the most dangerous by looking at the number of reported incidences of crime within a one-kilometre radius of the stadium, using data from data.police.uk, compared with the average number of spectators at games across the last three years.
So as I read this, it's looking for the amount of crime within one kilometre of the stadium AT ANY TIME (so not around game time) and without any actual link to football being required, hence:
Across the three-year period, there were 8,835 crime events by the County Ground, with violent and sexual offences being the most common crime, with 2,334 incidents of them, closely followed by 2,241 incidents of anti-social behaviour.
I'm not saying that STFC has no issues, but I don't think there have been 2,334 sexual or violent crimes at the CG in the last three years.
What I'm fairly sure this data is actually reflecting is... that the CG is in the centre of town so a kilometre radius around it contains a lot of housing and people. A kilometre radius around Colchester's ground (for example) is basically just a road.
On the other hand, this just makes the whole thing appear like it's nonsense based on bad data:
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Old Trafford was deemed the safest ground with just four reported incidents of crime around Manchester United games.
Pretty sure I've just spent far too long looking at this when I should have done something more useful.