Recently, the chant “musulmán el que no bote” (Muslim, don't jump) triggered immediate condemnation from institutions, media, and political representatives, who labeled it discriminatory and activated legal mechanisms to eradicate racism in sports. The forcefulness of the reaction was notable.
However, this football context presents examples that invite reflection. In cities like Sevilla, it is common to hear similar expressions such as “sevillista/bético el que no bote” (Sevillista/Bético, don't jump), referring to the fans of professional clubs. These chants, considered part of the folklore of sports rivalry, have never generated accusations of xenophobia or institutional reactions. The difference, according to some, lies in the object of the chant, distinguishing between sports and religious identity.
In parallel, the controversy surrounding chants by Real Sociedad fans in Sevilla, with a controversial reference to ETA, has been perceived differently by certain sectors. While some interpret it as a play on words in Basque, others consider it an unacceptable allusion to a terrorist organization. This disparity in the intensity of public reaction cannot be explained solely by the content of the chants, as both touch on sensitive elements: identity and religion on one hand, and the memory of terrorism on the other.
Consistency in condemning any form of hatred—whether for religious, identity, or political reasons—is a necessary condition for maintaining a credible public discourse, far removed from wokism.
The contrast with sports rivalry chants suggests that not every exclusionary slogan is automatically perceived as discriminatory. Context, the group it targets, and the historical weight of the term are determining factors. Sports rivalry is tolerated as part of the spectacle, while religious or political references, as in the case of ETA, open up a gray area of ambiguity where condemnation is not always forceful.
In this scenario, political language plays a crucial role. Expressions like “our lives are at stake,” used to elevate certain debates to a plane of existential urgency, raise the question of which topics deserve such dramatization. When gravity is unevenly distributed, public discourse risks losing coherence, and the criterion for condemnation may appear selective rather than universal.
