Video summary

لقاء التراس أهلاوي في قناة الاهلي مع د.ياسر أيوب (كامل)

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The video is a full interview on Al-Ahly TV with members of the Al-Ahly Ultras (mentioned as Ultras الأهلي / Ultras Salawy) following the Port Said stadium disaster. The speakers argue against the public narrative that blames the Ultras for the violence, presenting their perspective as testimony from people who say they traveled and witnessed what happened.

1) Rejecting accusations and “rumors”

The interview opens by stating that the Port Said disaster happened “without fault or crime” other than the Ultras’ loyalty to Al-Ahly.

The speakers claim that attacks and persecution continued through rumors alleging the Ultras were responsible for:

  • Trying to storm the Ministry of Interior
  • Burning the Ministry
  • Burning the Tax Authority

They insist the “truth” is being revealed because some members are appearing on television for the first time, describing what they believe they saw.

2) Defining the Ultras as nationalist and non-political

The group is described as founded in April 2007 to support Al-Ahly.

They portray themselves as non-political, stating they are:

  • Not Islamist
  • Not liberal
  • Not socialist
  • With no political ideology—only nationalist attachment to the club and the people.

3) Claims about how the travel and match entry unfolded

A major part of the testimony is a step-by-step account of the trip from:

  • Booking and organizing travel after the “Contractors” match
  • Warnings on social media that they would be targeted
  • Taking trains because buses did not arrive
  • Arriving in Port Said and being transferred to buses

Key claims include:

  • They say they did not carry weapons and tried to keep younger supporters away from risk.
  • They report stone-throwing even during train travel and while moving at a level crossing, while claiming they remained compliant and orderly.
  • They describe arriving and entering the stadium while claiming forces were present but that failures in crowd control/security leadership occurred.

4) Allegations against stadium security and state handling

They repeatedly argue that what they witnessed indicates security inaction or mismanagement:

  • They say no proper officer leadership was visible during moments of danger.
  • They claim Central Security forces formed a cordon that behaved “normally” until escalation, after which the cordon allegedly opened and chaos began.
  • They allege that government/security personnel stood by while rockets/stones were used against their transport and that additional reinforcement was not provided.

5) The speakers’ described core trigger of the disaster

They describe several mechanisms they believe caused deaths:

  • Crowd surging and people entering in ways that did not match normal crowd-control patterns
  • Flares/rockets/fireworks and violent escalation in the stands
  • Blocking/locking a stadium door that prevented escape, contributing to crushing/pushing deaths
  • A named incident where someone outside tried to break open a barrier; they claim a rescuer sacrificed his life so others could escape

They also mention:

  • Reports of people falling from height
  • Alleged use of live ammunition, alongside claims of weapons carried by individuals in the stadium (presented as eyewitness testimony)

6) Mortalities, legal claims, and demands for accountability

The interview references death counts and morgue releases, with shifting numbers (roughly 74+, later described as higher totals), noting updates from morgues and arrivals.

They emphasize:

  • Victims’ families deserve justice, not “blood for blood”
  • Some victims should not be denied proper burial/rituals due to region or political framing
  • The investigation should be quick, criticizing delays and “distortion of facts”

7) “Conspiracy” framing—who they accuse

They argue the event was not just chaos, but involved a coordinated conspiracy including:

  1. The Supreme/Military Council (or military leadership) orchestrating or enabling outcomes
  2. The Ministry of Interior, including corrupt leadership
  3. Segments of the Egyptian public acting as a “haven for thugs”

They reject labeling all Ultras supporters as perpetrators, insisting that real criminals should be identified and arrested based on evidence they claim to possess (videos/pictures/names/phone numbers).

8) Political consequences and stance on returning to football

They ask whether playing football again would be “wasting” the rights of the dead, arguing that Al-Ahly should not return to football under such circumstances.

They portray the deceased as martyrs, saying grief has made football a secondary priority.

9) Organizational/credibility disputes

They deny a claim that the Ultras are dissolved, saying a dissolution statement was issued by State Security and calling that approach “stupid.”

They also dispute representation:

  • A person named Ammar Fouad is said to be “not one of us”, therefore not speaking on Ultras behalf.

They criticize media figures whom they believe mischaracterize them or reduce the story to superficial anger (mourning imagery rather than accountability).

10) Closing ritual request

The interview ends with a request to recite Fatiha for the Ultras martyrs on live TV.

Presenters / Contributors

  • Dr. Yasser Ayoub (د. ياسر أيوب) — host/interviewer
  • Abdullah Salah (عبد الله صلاح)
  • Karim Adel (كريم عادل)
  • Ali Idris (علي إدريس)
  • Ahmed Idris (أحمد إدريس) — mentioned as contributing (in addition to Ali Idris)
  • Professor Hossam Diab (الدكتور/البروفيسور حسام دياب) — referenced as a previous conversation/guest by one of the interviewees
  • A broadcaster figure — referenced but not clearly identified by name in the subtitles

Original video