Rangers pundit Kris Boyd has ignited a firestorm across Scottish football after delivering one of the most explosive claims ever heard on live television, alleging that Celtic benefited from officiating manipulation in their latest victory.

Boyd stunned viewers when he suggested that the referee had effectively been “invited” to prolong the match until Celtic found a winning goal, claiming the result was secured through influence rather than footballing merit. His comments came shortly after Celtic’s dramatic late triumph, a match already under scrutiny due to extended stoppage time and controversial decisions.

“The referee was invited to keep the game going until Celtic won — here is why,” Boyd said during the broadcast, before doubling down on his accusation. “Celtic wouldn’t have won yesterday on football alone. They found a way again, and it’s not the first time. People need to stop pretending this is normal.”

The former striker escalated the controversy further by alleging he had knowledge of a pre-match conversation that hinted at pressure on officials. Although he did not provide concrete proof on air, Boyd insisted the exchange explained why the referee allowed play to continue deep into stoppage time.

“I’ve seen things, I’ve heard things, and I know exactly why the whistle didn’t come when it should have,” he claimed. “When a game is extended like that without clear justification, questions must be asked.”

The remarks immediately triggered outrage among Celtic supporters, who accused Boyd of spreading conspiracy theories and disrespecting both the club and match officials. Many pointed out that stoppage time decisions are made independently based on delays during the game. Rangers fans, however, amplified Boyd’s comments online, with some calling for a formal investigation into officiating standards.

Scottish football authorities have yet to respond publicly, but insiders suggest such claims could attract disciplinary attention if deemed to bring the game into disrepute. Analysts also warned that accusations of bribery or manipulation without evidence could carry serious consequences.

Meanwhile, the referee team involved in the match has remained silent, as is customary, leaving the controversy to rage in media circles and fan communities. Neutral observers noted that high-profile pundits wield significant influence and that statements of this magnitude can inflame tensions in an already fierce rivalry.

Boyd, however, showed no sign of backing down, insisting he was merely “telling the truth people don’t want to hear.” Whether his allegations lead to formal action or fade into the noise of football debate, one thing is certain — Scottish football has been plunged into another storm, and this one may not subside anytime soon.