The reaction to the SPFL post-split fixtures has swiftly developed into a familiar debate, with Celtic FC once again positioned at the centre of attention despite having no involvement in determining the schedule. Ally McCoist has been at the forefront of that irritation, arguing that the champions are gaining an edge, but the broader reaction paints a contrasting picture.
The fixture announcement confirmed that Celtic will welcome Heart of Midlothian FC on the final day, a detail that instantly attracted scrutiny from across the title race.
McCoist reacted by suggesting Celtic are effectively dominating Scottish football in a heated criticism, highlighting their home advantage and questioning how the closing stretch of the season may play out.
However, former Scotland international Kevin Gallacher was having none of it.
Celtic fixture claims from McCoist do not stand up to scrutiny
The discussion revolves around the suggestion that Celtic have been granted an advantage, although the post-split structure guarantees that every club completes the same number of home and away matches.
The fixture list is determined by results already played, meaning any apparent imbalance stems from sequencing rather than any deliberate favouritism toward a specific side.
Attention then turned to the final-day clash with Hearts, where some have argued the match could favour Celtic in their pursuit of retaining the championship.
Kevin Gallacher’s Celtic response exposes the flaw in McCoist’s argument
Kevin Gallacher dismissed the notion that any team would approach a decisive match without total commitment, emphasising the professional standards within football.
Writing on the issue, he said: “You know there is still plenty of juice left in your season when the SPFL’s publication of the post-split fixture list causes such a furore.
“We had Rangers fans and their former manager Ally McCoist claiming Celtic were running the game because they have three home games out of the five, including the visit of rivals Hearts on the last weekend.
“Then there were Hearts supporters up in arms because the tradition of handing the top side going into the split home advantage had been ignored this time round.
“Some Rangers followers were also unhappy about that choice of final-day fixture for fear that, if Celtic were out of the title running by then, they would roll over to Hearts to prevent their Old Firm rivals becoming champions.
“The last one struck a real chord with me because it reminds me so much of all the chat we heard at Blackburn Rovers when we were battling with Manchester United for the title in 1994-95.
“We led the league for most of the season but United stayed with us and, going into the last game, we needed to avoid a three-point swing to be champions.
“The fixture list sent us to Liverpool for that one and everyone and his dog was telling us that because their hero Kenny Dalglish was our manager there was no way they would trip us up.
“And, of course, they beat us at Anfield 2-1. The good news was that West Ham held Manchester United 1-1, so we won the league.
“That is a perfect example of what you should expect in these situations.
“Players might enjoy a good footballing conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but when they are on the park there is professional pride at stake.
“In fact, the more comments there are about the likelihood of them letting another side beat them on purpose, the more likely they are to go out determined to make a nonsense of the claims through.”
The Blackburn Rovers example illustrates clearly that assumptions about teams easing off rarely withstand the reality of competitive matches, even under intense pressure involving Manchester United and Liverpool FC.
It reinforces the idea that players are motivated to compete fully regardless of external narratives built around fixtures or rivalries.
What began as frustration over scheduling ultimately reflects a broader perception issue, with the debate surrounding Celtic driven more by conjecture than by the realities of how football operates.