In the call to action, it is believed that ongoing club grievances voiced on social networks amplify the pressure placed on arbitration bodies.
Following the Negreira affair, the arbitration institution faces intensified scrutiny. This environment has left the Technical Committee of Referees notably unsettled. Beyond assessing the occasional decision or error by individual referees, they confront a flood of public protests from clubs. Teams such as Real Betis, Atlético de Madrid, Valencia, and Cádiz CF have publicly expressed concerns, using statements and social media posts to question the work of the referees. The most recent example comes from Club Atlético Osasuna, which issued a statement after a controversial goal involving Chimy Ávila that was disallowed in the match against Celta de Vigo on the latest matchday of the competition.
Osasuna argues in its release that the CTA provided explanations for why the goal was ruled out. The rojillo club states that “the VAR image of Chimy Ávila does not prove the alleged irregular position of the attacker at the moment of participation.”
Referees: the pressure that sometimes intensifies
As GOAL has learned, there is a persistent sense of stress within the arbitration group. The reasons are clear: the constant social pressure faced daily, the ongoing fallout from the Negreira case which has kept the integrity of the process under the spotlight, and the belief that the wave of statements and tweets from clubs could add to the burden on officials and officials-in-training alike. The combination of public scrutiny and high-stakes decisions contributes to a climate where referees feel the weight of every call more acutely than ever.
Open doors of the CTA to the clubs… and discomfort with the statements
From the outset, the refereeing organization has signaled that clubs can request clarification or raise concerns about a specific game by engaging directly with the Technical Committee of Referees. However, there is growing irritation within the CTA when clubs choose to air complaints through social networks, official channels, or formal statements before seeking a formal review. The arbitration body contends that such practices tend to erode trust and undermine the perceived fairness of the officiating process, complicating constructive dialogue and concrete resolution.
The clubs persist in voicing concerns on social media
On the clubs’ side, the stance remains unchanged. If they believe a decision affected the outcome of a match, they intend to defend their position through official channels and through their social networks. This persistence ensures that fans, analysts, and stakeholders continue to observe the arbitration process as a live, evolving narrative rather than a closed, technical procedure. The broader implication is a debate about transparency, accountability, and the best ways to resolve disputes when officiating decisions appear contentious to teams and supporters alike.