COMMENT
Smiso Msomi|Published
South African football’s social media banter has become an integral part of the game, but recent exchanges involving TS Galaxy, Orlando Pirates, and Kaizer Chiefs raise an important question: when does the joke go too far?
Football has always thrived on rivalry. Supporters tease one another about trophy droughts, painful defeats, and missed opportunities, and social media has given clubs a direct platform to join the conversation.
Golden Arrows have been among the clubs that helped popularise this approach, using humour and cheeky posts to challenge bigger teams while building their own identity online.
Their approach showed that a club does not need the biggest budget or the most decorated squad to command attention. Sometimes, a clever post can generate more conversation than a routine match announcement.
But Arrows have also had their mishaps. Their social media content has attracted backlash when jokes were perceived as personal attacks on people’s conditions, raising questions about the difference between football banter and targeting individuals over circumstances that deserve sensitivity.
That is an important distinction. Being witty and provocative can be part of a club’s personality, but not every joke lands as intended. A post can be entertaining to some while humiliating or offensive to others.
The lesson is not that clubs should abandon banter. It is that they need to understand the line they are playing on.
TS Galaxy have recently found themselves in that conversation after posts aimed at both Chiefs and Pirates attracted widespread attention.
The post featuring a donkey looking in a mirror and seeing a lion, captioned "Sonke sinamaphupho" — meaning "We all have dreams" — was widely interpreted as a dig at Chiefs.
Galaxy chairman Tim Sukazi acknowledged receiving a WhatsApp message from Chiefs marketing director Jessica Motaung containing three question marks, but defended the post as banter that remained "within the boundaries".
The situation became more serious with a separate post aimed at Pirates that was interpreted as implying a brown envelope or bribery.
Sukazi explained that his young social media team had referenced Pirates’ 6–0 win over Galaxy last season and public allegations that Pirates had bribed the club. He said he understood the thinking behind the joke but instructed the team to remove it because it was "overboard".
That decision matters. There is a difference between mocking a team’s result and using a post that can be interpreted as an allegation of wrongdoing. The latter carries implications that go beyond ordinary rivalry, even when the intention is humour.
Pirates subsequently beat Galaxy 3–0 and responded with their own cheeky social media content, showing how quickly these exchanges can become part of the football spectacle.
Chiefs and Pirates have long traded jabs, and there is little reason to believe that will stop. In fact, well-judged banter can make rivalries more engaging and give supporters another reason to participate in the conversation.
However, clubs cannot use humour as a shield against every criticism. Golden Arrows’ experience shows that even established practitioners can misjudge a moment.
Social media teams should be encouraged to be creative, but creativity also requires judgement. Clubs must consider whether a joke targets football performance or crosses into personal circumstances, whether it invites harmless laughter or risks legitimising serious allegations.
Ultimately, the aim should be to entertain supporters, not humiliate people or damage reputations.
Banter belongs in South African football. The challenge is ensuring that the punchline remains about the game.