WFT was that chant for’ I have never had nonchalant chant in football it’s against football rules, SFA should take immediate action.
The reaction to the chant that echoed around the stadium was immediate and visceral. “WFT was that chant for? I have never heard such a nonchalant chant in football. It’s against football rules, the SFA should take immediate action.” That raw outburst captured exactly how many supporters, pundits and former players felt as the clip spread online. Football has always thrived on noise, colour and passion, but there is a line between fervent support and behaviour that undermines the values the game claims to protect.
Chants are part of football’s cultural fabric. They create atmosphere, intimidate opponents and unite fans behind a common cause. From clever wordplay to songs passed down generations, chanting is often celebrated as one of the sport’s most organic expressions. Yet this incident felt different. The tone was casual, almost dismissive, which is why many described it as “nonchalant.” It was not fuelled by a flashpoint on the pitch or a moment of controversy. Instead, it appeared normalised, delivered without hesitation, and that is what alarmed so many observers.
The issue is not about policing passion or silencing supporters. It is about accountability. Football authorities, including the Scottish FA, have clear regulations on discriminatory, offensive or provocative behaviour. These rules exist precisely because history has shown what happens when governing bodies look the other way. What begins as a chant can quickly become a wider culture, one that alienates sections of the fanbase and damages the reputation of the league as a whole.
What intensified the backlash was the sense that this chant slipped through without immediate consequence. Supporters watching at home heard it clearly. Social media amplified it within minutes. Yet the absence of a swift response from officials created frustration. Fans are not naive. They understand investigations take time. But silence, especially in the early stages, often feels like indifference. That perception can be just as damaging as inaction itself.
There is also the question of consistency. Supporters frequently point out that sanctions appear selective. Some incidents lead to rapid statements and fines, while others drift into obscurity. This fuels cynicism and reinforces the belief that enforcement depends on the club involved or the profile of the fixture. If the SFA wants credibility, it must demonstrate that rules apply equally, regardless of shirt colour or stadium size.
Former players and managers have weighed in, warning that the game risks losing its moral authority if boundaries are not enforced. Many remember eras when harmful chants were commonplace, and they are adamant that progress should not be reversed. Football has spent years promoting inclusivity campaigns, community outreach and respect initiatives. Allowing behaviour that contradicts those messages undermines every poster, armband and pre match video.
Supporters themselves are divided. Some argue that outrage culture is creeping into football, stripping away spontaneity and edge. Others counter that this is not about being offended easily, but about protecting the game from sliding backwards. The strongest voices insist that calling out unacceptable behaviour is not an attack on fandom, but an act of preserving football’s future.
Ultimately, the call for the SFA to take immediate action is about setting a standard. Investigate the incident. Communicate clearly. Apply sanctions if rules were breached. Even a transparent explanation would go a long way toward restoring trust. Football will always be loud, emotional and imperfect. But it must also be responsible.
That chant may have lasted only seconds, but its impact has lingered. It has reopened debates about culture, accountability and leadership within the game. The response now will signal whether lessons have truly been learned, or whether history is at risk of repeating itself.
