MONTREAL FANS: CÔTE D’IVOIRE Vs DR CONGO | Prediction | Semi-Final | #AFCON2023

In a recording shared on social media, a group of supporters speaks in a mix of chants, applause, and provocative phrases aimed at the opposing team, vividly describing an anticipated domination during the upcoming “Côte d’Ivoire – Congo” match. The tone, alternating between ridicule and triumph, illustrates the fervor — sometimes borderline — that accompanies major sporting events.

“You’re in the semifinals, but the Leopards are waiting for you, the Elephant will be eaten with all humility,” says the main voice, using animal symbols to mock the opponent and glorify his own side. The message, chanted between snippets of music and cheers, mixes verbal threats with fan humor: “We are the Leopards, we’ll eat you and humiliate you at home,” they declare, before adding repetitive taunts and insults designed to ignite stadium chants.

Several parts of the recording refer to players or past events — “Lazar… we resurrected him, but he still ended up dying” — and use local expressions and onomatopoeias (“BIM BIM BIM”) that enhance the tribal and rhythmic aspect of the message. The applause and music frame the insults, turning the provocation into a sound performance meant both to energize supporters and provoke the opposing team.

Supporter chants have always played an essential role in the identity of clubs and national teams: they create atmosphere, motivate players, and contribute to the drama of the match. But when the discourse shifts toward threat or targeted humiliation, it raises the question of what is acceptable under the banner of “fan culture.” This audio fragment illustrates that fine line well — humor and bravado sitting right next to language that can easily sound intimidating.

Football’s key stakeholders — clubs, federations, and security authorities — are often called upon to intervene when chants cross into the unacceptable, to prevent violence or incidents during matches. Social media, as a modern amplifier, allows such messages to spread rapidly and increases their impact far beyond the stands.

The use of strong imagery — “leopard,” “elephant,” “king of the savannah” — is no coincidence. These simple, visual metaphors summarize a rivalry, distinguish temperaments and sides, and inject a battle-like narrative into the sporting contest. They also show how private banter can quickly become public speech — a joke among friends can, once recorded and shared, carry a heavier symbolic charge.

This recording captures a snapshot of football’s loud, passionate side: songs, laughter, provocations, and verbal showmanship aimed at overpowering the opponent with words. It remains to be seen whether these remarks will stay as mere pre-match banter or feed broader tensions between fans. In any case, it reminds us that the energy of the stands can be constructive — to encourage — or problematic, when it turns into humiliation or threat.