October 14, 2026
The management of the Lebanese Al-Hikma Basketball Club decided to suspend the organized collective attendance of the “Ultras” group in the matches hosted by the club, while announcing the opening of a comprehensive investigation into the events that followed the central Jounieh confrontation, which was held on Tuesday evening, October 13, at Ghazir Stadium within the Arab Club Championship. Although Al-Hikma succeeded in deciding the match in its favor with a score of 81-80, the end of the match witnessed noticeable tension after the group chanted slogans demanding the departure of coach Joe Ghattas, followed by an escalation of the dispute and an exchange of accusations of abuse between the two parties.
Following the match, player Ali Mezher expressed his dissatisfaction with the fans’ position, stressing the team’s urgent need for their support, while coach Joe Ghattas described the dispute as “inside one house.” On the other hand, the “Ultras” group issued a different story, noting that a number of its members were subjected to direct insults from the coach, and leveling similar accusations against the player Ali Mezher and the team manager.
For its part, the club’s management strongly condemned the expressions and insults directed at the players and the technical staff, and decided to suspend the group’s organized attendance and withdraw its privileges and banners until investigations are completed. While the administration affirmed its respect for the fans’ legitimate right to criticism, it stressed its categorical rejection of any party’s attempts to monopolize the representation of the fans or impose its will on the club through abuse and insults.
The timing of the protest, which came on the heels of the team’s victory, suggests that the anger is rooted in broader failures; Al-Hikma had previously lost the final of the Lebanon Championship to Al-Riyadi Club, then returned and lost the final of the “Wasl” Championship to them with a score of 75-67. Although the team and its technical staff reaching the two final matches is an achievement to be credited with, the two defeats require a comprehensive review to determine the reasons for the inability to win the title, which requires an in-depth technical discussion about the management of decisive matches, lineup options and distribution of roles, and players’ responsibility and contracts.
In light of these data, passing judgment on coach Joe Ghattas based on the small difference in points against Central is considered hasty, just as being satisfied with reaching the finals does not represent a sufficient response to all criticism. The club leadership – represented by honorary president Jihad Pakradouni, club president Ragheb Haddad, and team manager Khalil Aoun – decided on the technical decision by declaring its full support for the coach. However, this position places an additional responsibility on the administration, which is now required to justify the reasons for its confidence in Ghattas and clarify the development plans expected under his leadership.
On the other hand, players engaging in direct debate with fans may widen the gap. Their dissatisfaction with the insults is justified, and the club’s defense of their dignity is a duty. However, objecting to the performance and demanding a change in the technical staff remains an authentic and legitimate part of the fans’ relationship with their clubs, provided that they do not confuse objective criticism with insults, a confusion that makes it difficult to address matters.
In summary, the latest administrative decision seems capable of controlling discipline in the stands, but resolving the controversy surrounding the performance of coach Joe Ghattas requires clear and transparent technical answers. If treatment is limited to investigating verbal transgressions while postponing the real discussion about the team’s technical level, the reasons for tension and protest will remain with the first next stumble.
