Once celebrated around the world for their passion, hospitality and extraordinary travelling support, Celtic fans are now caught in a damaging cycle of boardroom warfare, supporter bans, political controversy and public disorder. So what has happened to the reputation built in Seville in 2003, who is responsible for its deterioration, and what must change before it is too late?
There was a time when Celtic supporters were the envy of football.
In May 2003, an estimated 80,000 Celtic fans travelled to Seville for the UEFA Cup final against Porto. Celtic lost 3–2 after extra time, but the supporters earned something arguably more enduring than a trophy. FIFA awarded them its 2003 Fair Play Award, recognising their exemplary conduct during the team’s European campaign.
The achievement was remarkable. Celtic had taken an enormous travelling support to Spain, creating an unforgettable atmosphere around a European final. The result was heartbreaking, but the supporters’ conduct helped turn the occasion into a lasting symbol of football at its best.
It was a reputation built on passion, loyalty, colour and a sense of community that extended beyond the 90 minutes. Celtic supporters had shown the world that a football crowd could be fiercely committed to its team while contributing positively to the occasion.
Twenty-three years later, that legacy remains. But the question facing Celtic is increasingly uncomfortable.
How did a support celebrated internationally for its conduct come to find itself associated with a seemingly endless succession of controversies? Why are supporters openly fighting the club’s leadership? Why has the Green Brigade become a recurring source of confrontation? And how did a protest against Celtic’s principal shareholder at a golf tournament become another national headline about the club’s reputation?
The answer is not that every Celtic supporter has suddenly become a problem. That would be unfair, simplistic and unsupported by the evidence.
The more difficult truth is that Celtic has allowed several separate problems to become entangled: a breakdown in trust between the board and supporters, disputes over acceptable conduct, political disagreements, safety concerns and a growing inability to resolve conflict before it escalates.
The consequences are now impossible to ignore.
SEVILLE WAS THE STANDARD. NOT A LIFETIME EXEMPTION.
The Seville story matters because it established a benchmark against which Celtic’s support would be judged for years.
FIFA’s Fair Play Award was not an internet poll declaring Celtic fans the best supporters on earth. It was a formal award recognising conduct. That distinction matters, particularly when discussing the popular claim that Celtic supporters were once voted the best in the world.
The award was deserved recognition of a remarkable occasion. But it was never a guarantee that every subsequent generation, every travelling crowd or every individual supporter would uphold the same standards.
Reputations are not permanent possessions. They are earned repeatedly.
For years, Celtic’s identity has drawn strength from its history, its community connections, its charitable activity and the atmosphere created by its supporters. Those remain genuine strengths.
Yet the club’s reputation is not determined solely by its best moments. It is also shaped by what happens when tempers rise, when authority is challenged and when individuals decide that their cause justifies behaviour that would otherwise be unacceptable.
Seville showed what Celtic supporters could achieve together. It cannot be used to excuse everything that has happened since.
The challenge is not to recreate a memory. It is to make the values associated with that memory relevant again.
THE BOARDROOM WAR THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING
The most important development in Celtic’s recent history may not have happened on the pitch at all.
It has happened between the club’s leadership and the people who support it.
For months, supporters have voiced concerns about recruitment, the club’s sporting ambitions, governance and the influence of principal shareholder Dermot Desmond. The failure to qualify for the Champions League in 2025 intensified frustration over the summer transfer window and the direction of the club.
In September 2025, around half of Celtic’s travelling support at Kilmarnock stayed outside the stadium for the opening 12 minutes in a coordinated protest. The message was unmistakable: supporters wanted the board to listen.
Brendan Rodgers, who was manager at the time, said he understood the frustrations that had prompted the protest.
That should have been an opportunity to address the underlying concerns.
Instead, the conflict continued.
On 21 November 2025, Celtic’s annual general meeting was abandoned after repeated disruption from shareholders protesting against the board. Chants of “sack the board”, boos and red cards greeted directors, and chairman Peter Lawwell adjourned the meeting before it was ultimately brought to a halt.
Ross Desmond, speaking on behalf of himself and his father Dermot, criticised the treatment of the club’s leadership and described attempts to vilify directors as shameful. Supporters, meanwhile, remained angry about the club’s management and the perceived lack of meaningful communication.
Think about what that represents.
A major football club, with an enormous support and substantial resources, could not get through its own AGM without the meeting collapsing amid confrontation.
This was no longer merely a disagreement about a transfer target or a disappointing result. It was a public demonstration that the relationship between sections of the support and the people running the club had deteriorated badly.
The board has every right to expect employees and directors to be treated with basic respect. No one should face personal threats or intimidation simply because they work for Celtic.
But supporters also have the right to ask difficult questions about the club they finance through tickets, merchandise, subscriptions and commercial loyalty.
Those questions cannot be dismissed simply because the people asking them are angry.
If the board believes its decisions are correct, it should be able to explain them. If supporters believe the club is failing to meet its ambitions, they should be able to challenge that position through meaningful dialogue and legitimate protest.
Neither side benefits from a relationship in which every disagreement becomes a test of strength.
The board cannot demand trust while treating criticism as an attack. Supporters cannot expect to influence the club if every confrontation makes it easier for the leadership to focus on the behaviour of the protesters rather than the substance of their complaints.
Celtic needs accountability without intimidation, and leadership without contempt.
At present, neither side appears to have found a reliable way to deliver both.
THE GREEN BRIGADE: THE HEART OF THE ATMOSPHERE OR A SYMBOL OF THE PROBLEM?
No serious examination of Celtic’s changing reputation can ignore the Green Brigade.
The group has helped create some of the club’s most memorable atmospheres, coordinated displays and visual spectacles. Its members have made a distinctive contribution to the matchday experience and have connected sections of the support to political and humanitarian causes beyond football.
For many Celtic supporters, that is precisely what makes the group important.
Its displays of Palestinian flags, in particular, have generated international attention. Supporters have argued that their message represents solidarity with people suffering in a conflict and reflects the political and cultural traditions that form part of Celtic’s identity.
But the relationship between the group and the club has repeatedly broken down over safety, conduct and the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
In October 2023, Celtic suspended Green Brigade members following concerns about pyrotechnics, turnstile rushing, forced fire exits at Motherwell and unauthorised access to Celtic Park. The club explicitly stated that the suspension was not imposed because of Palestinian flags.
The suspension was lifted in December 2023 after the group agreed to comply with an updated rail-seating safety code.
The dispute returned in 2025.
Celtic imposed a new ban after an incident at a home match against Falkirk on 29 October. The club said footage showed supporters verbally abusing and assaulting a steward and two police officers. The Green Brigade disputed the club’s account, denied the allegations and argued that the sanction was unfair.
Celtic extended the suspension in December, citing further safety incidents and alleged threats against its head of security. The group continued to challenge the club’s justification.
The suspension was lifted in April 2026, subject to conditions concerning compliance with stadium policies and safety procedures, together with match-by-match reporting to the relevant safety advisory group.
That should have offered a route towards rebuilding the relationship.
Instead, the wider conflict continued.
On 9 October 2026, the Green Brigade announced that it would withdraw from the Home Cup Ticket Scheme, stop attending the remaining Europa League home matches and boycott Scottish Cup ties. It said it would continue attending Scottish Premiership fixtures and cited the treatment of supporters, restrictions on displays and a lack of meaningful engagement with the club.
This is a serious situation for a club whose atmosphere has long been one of its defining characteristics.
But the debate must be conducted honestly.
The Green Brigade cannot be reduced to troublemakers simply because it challenges the board or expresses political views that some people dislike. Nor should political expression automatically shield a group from scrutiny over safety or alleged violence.
These are different issues, and they deserve to be treated differently.
Peaceful political expression is not the same as dangerous use of pyrotechnics. Criticising the board is not the same as threatening a member of staff. A safety sanction should be supported by evidence and applied proportionately, while supporters should be expected to comply with legitimate rules designed to protect everyone in the stadium.
The club must explain its decisions clearly. Supporters must take responsibility for their conduct.
Without those two principles, the Green Brigade dispute will remain trapped in the same cycle: a confrontation, a suspension, accusations of unfair treatment, a protest and another breakdown in trust.
The wider support is left caught between defending the group’s right to challenge the club and worrying about the consequences of continued conflict.
That is not a healthy position for Celtic to occupy.
THE HARD TRUTH: SOME CONDUCT IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE
It is tempting to blame the deterioration in Celtic’s reputation entirely on the board, the media or rival supporters.
That would be a mistake.
The club’s own 2024–25 fan survey identified away-supporter conduct as an issue for some respondents. Among approximately 1,019 responses to an open-ended question about what needed to improve, the most common suggestion concerned abusive, sectarian or IRA-related songs. Other responses mentioned flares, drinking, smoking and the Green Brigade.
This was a specific subset of survey respondents, not a representative poll of every Celtic supporter. But it demonstrates that concerns about behaviour exist within Celtic’s own community, rather than being invented exclusively by outsiders.
That deserves serious consideration.
Celtic has a proud history and a distinctive identity. Its Irish roots, community connections and political traditions are part of its story. None of those things requires supporters to engage in sectarian abuse or celebrate violence.
A football club can honour its heritage while rejecting conduct that alienates others.
In fact, a willingness to challenge abusive behaviour would strengthen the argument that Celtic’s identity is rooted in solidarity and inclusion rather than hostility.
The same standard must apply throughout Scottish football. Celtic should not be singled out for conduct that is ignored elsewhere, but neither should the behaviour of other clubs become an excuse for refusing to address its own problems.
The question is simple: what standards does Celtic want its supporters to uphold, and how consistently is it prepared to defend them?
THE TITLE CELEBRATIONS THAT BECAME A POLICE INVESTIGATION
The events following Celtic’s Premiership title win on 16 May 2026 added another difficult chapter.
Police Scotland reported that around 3,000 people gathered in Glasgow’s Trongate area after the match. Officers responding to a medical emergency encountered serious disorder, including missiles thrown at them. Two police officers were seriously injured, three members of the public required hospital treatment, and police made arrests for a range of offences.
Police Scotland also stressed that the majority of those gathered were celebrating responsibly.
By September, the total number of arrests linked to incidents that day had reached 50, with investigations continuing into disorder in both Glasgow and around the stadium.
Those figures are serious, but they must be understood properly.
They do not mean that thousands of Celtic supporters were violent. Nor does the conduct of those arrested establish collective guilt among people who were simply celebrating their team’s success.
However, the fact that officers were seriously injured and members of the public required hospital treatment cannot be brushed aside as an unfortunate consequence of football celebrations.
A title win should be an occasion for joy. It should not leave a city dealing with violence, damaged public infrastructure and a major police investigation.
Celtic cannot control every individual in Glasgow, and it would be unreasonable to expect the club to take responsibility for every act committed by anyone wearing its colours.
But the club, supporter organisations, police and local authorities all have a role in planning safe celebrations and preventing foreseeable disorder.
Supporters have a role too.
No amount of frustration with the board, no rivalry with another club and no celebration of a championship can justify violence against police officers, stewards or members of the public.
If Celtic wants to protect the reputation of its support, this is one area where it must be willing to speak clearly and consistently.
ST ANDREWS: WHEN A PROTEST BECOMES A DISTRACTION
The dispute reached another flashpoint on 3 October 2026.
Dermot Desmond, Celtic’s principal shareholder, was participating in the Alfred Dunhill Links Championship at St Andrews when protesters threw tennis balls bearing images of his face crossed out onto the golf course. Desmond was escorted away by security.
The Celtic Fans Collective subsequently called for change at the top of the club and greater accountability. Celtic condemned the demonstration as a premeditated act of disruption and argued that it had damaged the club’s reputation.
There is a legitimate argument behind the protest.
Supporters have become increasingly frustrated with the club’s direction and with what they perceive as a lack of accountability from its principal shareholder. They have every right to demand answers, organise demonstrations and make their dissatisfaction known.
But there is a difference between a forceful protest and an action that allows the target to become the victim of the story.
The St Andrews demonstration shifted the focus away from the questions supporters wanted answered and towards the disruption itself. It also gave Celtic’s leadership a clear opportunity to condemn the methods used by its critics.
That does not make the underlying grievances disappear. It does, however, make them harder to discuss on their merits.
If the objective is to secure change at Celtic, the methods chosen must persuade people beyond the already-convinced.
A peaceful demonstration outside Celtic Park, a coordinated boycott, a shareholder campaign or a properly organised public meeting can all put pressure on the board. They can also keep the focus on the club’s decisions.
When protest becomes deliberate disruption at an unrelated sporting event, the argument risks being lost.
Supporters who want to hold the board accountable must recognise that their own conduct will be scrutinised too.
IS CELTIC’S REPUTATION REALLY WORSE THAN IT WAS?
This is where the argument needs nuance.
There is a difference between a genuine deterioration in public behaviour and a deterioration in public perception.
The evidence documents several serious incidents and a worsening relationship between the club and sections of its support. It does not establish, through a comparable long-term public-opinion survey, that Celtic fans as a whole are now viewed more negatively than they were in 2003.
The media environment has changed dramatically. Social media distributes footage of confrontations within minutes. Political controversies attract international attention. Statements from clubs and supporter groups are dissected instantly, and rival supporters amplify the most damaging images.
A single incident can now define a news cycle in a way that would have been less immediate two decades ago.
That does not mean the problems are merely media inventions. The police injuries, arrests, abandoned AGM, suspensions and golf-course protest are documented events.
It means that we should not confuse the visibility of controversy with proof that every supporter has changed.
The more defensible conclusion is that Celtic’s reputation is under pressure because several real problems have converged at once, while the club’s ability to resolve them constructively has weakened.
The boardroom dispute supplies the background. The Green Brigade conflict provides a recurring flashpoint. Political expression adds another layer of controversy. Disorder and confrontational protests create damaging images that are easy to circulate and difficult to forget.
Together, these developments have made the club’s relationship with parts of its support a story in its own right.
That is a serious reputational challenge, even without claiming that every Celtic supporter is now regarded negatively.
HOW DOES CELTIC GET ITS REPUTATION BACK?
There is no public-relations campaign capable of repairing this relationship on its own.
The answer requires action from the board, organised supporters and individual fans.
First, the board must rebuild trust.
Supporters need a meaningful and regular forum in which to question the club’s leadership. That means clear explanations of major decisions, transparency about stadium sanctions, structured engagement with supporter representatives and a willingness to address difficult questions about recruitment, governance and long-term ambition.
Engagement cannot begin only after another controversy has erupted.
The board does not have to agree with every demand, but it must demonstrate that it has listened and considered the arguments. Trust will not return through statements alone.
Second, supporter organisations must show that protest can be powerful without becoming intimidating.
Peaceful demonstrations, boycotts, banners and shareholder campaigns are legitimate ways to demand change. They can be organised, sustained and effective without threatening staff or disrupting unrelated public events.
Supporter groups should also be willing to set standards for their own members. That does not mean accepting every accusation made by the club. It means insisting that legitimate protest remains distinct from violence, threats and dangerous conduct.
The stronger the standards, the harder it becomes for the underlying campaign to be dismissed because of the actions of a minority.
Third, Celtic must apply safety rules consistently.
The club should make its expectations on pyrotechnics, political displays, chants and supporter conduct clear. Where sanctions are imposed, they should be evidence-based, proportionate and accompanied by an understandable process for review or appeal.
Supporters should not be left guessing whether a punishment relates to safety, political expression or criticism of the board.
Equally, political or cultural expression should not be treated as a blanket exemption from legitimate stadium rules.
Consistency is essential if the club expects its decisions to command respect.
Fourth, Celtic must confront abusive conduct without hiding behind its heritage.
The club’s history should be a source of pride, not a reason to tolerate behaviour that contradicts its own stated values.
That means challenging sectarian abuse and genuinely offensive conduct, working with supporter organisations on education and making it clear that violence against police, stewards and members of the public is unacceptable.
The same approach should be expected across Scottish football.
Fifth, the club must reconnect with the communities around it.
The response to title-day disorder should include practical planning for future celebrations, clear communication with police and local authorities, and an honest assessment of what went wrong.
The aim should not be to discourage supporters from celebrating. It should be to ensure that success can be enjoyed without putting others at risk.
A great football club should bring its city together. It should not leave residents feeling that the price of success is disorder on their streets.
Finally, Celtic must stop allowing every disagreement to become a contest in which one side has to humiliate the other.
The board has a responsibility to lead. Supporters have a responsibility to behave. Both sides have a responsibility to recognise that the long-term interests of the club are bigger than any individual dispute.
Until that changes, each new controversy will risk becoming another episode in the same exhausting cycle.
FROM SEVILLE TO THE FUTURE
Celtic supporters have not collectively forgotten how to be the best version of themselves.
The club still has the capacity to generate extraordinary atmospheres, mobilise a passionate travelling support and connect football with community, charity and a sense of belonging.
Those strengths remain real. So do the problems.
The board cannot demand loyalty while ignoring legitimate concerns. Supporters cannot demand accountability while refusing to accept responsibility for their own conduct. Organised groups cannot expect their political views to be respected if they allow safety disputes to dominate the relationship. And the club cannot expect its reputation to be protected by issuing a statement every time a crisis erupts.
The Fair Play Award earned in 2003 remains a remarkable part of Celtic’s history. But history cannot do the work of the present.
Seville showed the world what Celtic’s support could represent. The task now is to demonstrate those values again: through responsible celebrations, peaceful protest, consistent standards and a relationship between club and supporters built on mutual respect.
That will take more than one apology, one meeting or one change of personnel. It will require a sustained effort to restore trust and make the club’s stated values visible in everyday behaviour.
Celtic does not need to become less passionate, less distinctive or less proud of its history.
It needs to ensure that those qualities are accompanied by responsibility.
Because the reputation Celtic earned in Seville was built by people, not trophies. And if that reputation is to mean anything in the future, it must be earned again by the way the club and its supporters behave today.
