The Spanish international spoke to the press after addressing the topic of Rubiales and Jenni Hermoso, choosing a careful path in public comments.
“I will not comment,” Dani Carvajal stated at the press conference with the national team on Wednesday. Yet he did speak, noting the undeniable weight of media scrutiny. He emphasized that the spotlight brings both praise and criticism and expressed a wish that more attention would be given to the women’s championship triumphs. He added that he would refrain from commenting further, saying that everyone is free to act as they see fit. He also hinted that it is sometimes best to remain silent in moments of intense public interest, especially at his level of responsibility.
The hesitation is palpable: his views are not popular, and voicing them in front of millions could backfire. Some observers describe a so‑called “hunt” around the actions of Luis Rubiales, a sentiment often voiced privately but rarely echoed openly, except perhaps in close circles. While Carvajal maintains neutrality, his public stance is revealing. He initially raised questions in a broadcast from Radio Stadium, and later reiterated them during a media appearance, trying to balance the facts with the duty of innocence that weighs on any probe.
“What I said is clear. I defend the presumption of innocence, a fundamental constitutional right, and I stand by it. I cannot condemn or exonerate anyone without a final verdict,” the Spain international responded to questions about the moment when Rubiales kissed Jenni Hermoso after the Women’s World Cup final. He praised Rubiales’ professional management in other areas, noting Rubiales’ support for families and championships, and clarified that his words do not aim to shape any federation decision. His view of Rubiales is that he has always offered strong, professional guidance, and he does not claim influence over the RFEF singlehandedly.
Carvajal appears weighed down by the association with the federation’s president, choosing not to reveal a personal opinion that could be deemed unpopular. The presumption of innocence remains a contested concept in this case, particularly as the global audience watched the events unfold at the World Cup awards ceremony. The scene, while distressing in any setting, is especially jarring given the positions of respect and influence present, and its impact is difficult to ignore.
Rubiales’ replies on radio and other outlets amplified the controversy, drawing swift commentary and reaction. The public sense of innocence was stretched, and many observers argued that the issue had already moved beyond the need for proof because the footage and timeline were so widely observed. Carvajal’s stance is explicit: what is seen and heard shapes opinions, yet he stops short of declaring a verdict on individuals. He makes a firm point that the matter should be adjudicated by a formal process, not by popular judgment alone. Hermoso’s experience is acknowledged, and the call for solidarity remains important, but the request is for a careful, fair assessment of the facts before any final judgment is reached.
In reiterating his position, Carvajal underscores that the aim is not to label anyone prematurely. He asserts that solidarity should be extended to Hermoso if she faces difficulty, while insisting that the president’s conduct be evaluated through appropriate channels. He recognizes the seriousness of the situation and the consequences that followed, including FIFA’s temporary suspension. The overall message is one of caution, measured language, and a commitment to due process, rather than swift conclusions in a highly publicized case.
The complex dynamic remains: a player associated with the federation’s leadership is navigating a charged landscape where public opinion and legal standards intersect. The incident has sparked ongoing debate about accountability, responsibility, and the boundaries of influence within football’s governing bodies. The careful distinction between judging an act and judging a person underlines the challenge of communicating clearly when the audience includes fans, journalists, teammates, and officials from around the world.
Ultimately, the episode highlights the need for transparency and careful handling in cases that touch on consent, respect, and integrity. While the individual perspectives vary, the emphasis keeps returning to the fundamental principle that every party deserves a fair evaluation based on evidence and due process. The moment serves as a reminder of the heavy burden carried by public figures when issues of sport, ethics, and leadership collide on a global stage, and the importance of maintaining a respectful, fact-driven conversation as events unfold.