Juan Luis Rascón, known as Tati, serves as the president of the Madrid Tennis Federation and faces a court appearance as a defendant on June 7 before Fernando Fernández Esteban, head of Madrid Investigation Court number 43. The case centers on alleged irregularities connected to his pay and governance. The court is examining claims related to a monthly salary of 10,530 euros and a public promise to resign and refrain from re election if any accusations prove true. These developments emerged in a mid 2021 letter addressed to all tennis clubs within the Community of Madrid and obtained by a Madrid publication. The document outlines a firm commitment to step down if misconduct is proven and signals a willingness to exit the federation before the next federal elections if required. The communication frames the resignation as irrevocable and stresses that it would bar participation in upcoming elections, presenting it as a direct response to verified allegations. The letter writer asserts a determination to meet this pledge without hesitation while inviting rivals to disclose any alleged irregularities, arguing that without a formal report the campaign amounts to a smear rather than a substantiated charge.
the media and a contested narrative
In the following months opponents of Rascón filed a formal complaint with the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. They highlighted alleged irregularities attributed to the president and other federation officials, including a key executive, Juan Bautista Avendaño. A document in possession of this newsroom indicates that the Public Prosecutor’s Office reviewed accusations that could amount to serious offenses such as mismanagement, embezzlement of public funds, or improper use of subsidies, with estimated diversion of funds reaching at least 568,520 euros. These claims prompted scrutiny from authorities and added tension to the federation’s governance. The prosecutor’s office expressed surprise at how a compensation arrangement for the federation’s president had been approved without an explicit agreement documented by the federation itself, underscoring questions about necessity and compliance with existing rules.
charges, questions, and responses
María Valencia Fernández, a prosecutor involved in the case, formally raised concerns about the absence of a formal corporate resolution backing Rascón’s compensation. Her communication suggested that the payment to the federation’s president occurred without a controlling agreement and without a demonstrable justification in line with regulatory standards. This commentary signals potential gaps in oversight and accountability that could influence how the case is interpreted by the court and by public observers. The Public Ministry representative noted the unusual nature of remunerating the federation’s president in such a way and pointed to the need for a transparent normative basis for executive compensation within the federation’s governance framework.
public discourse and club leadership
Rascón responded in a letter to the leaders of Madrid’s tennis clubs, describing a months long period that overlapped with the federation’s election cycle. He claimed that during this time the federation’s leadership faced a concerted campaign aimed at discrediting them and harassing the federation through media channels. He argued that the management faced negative coverage and that the federation’s executives were subjected to sustained scrutiny by opponents. The narrative conveyed through the letter portrays a pattern of public criticism that the federation’s leadership attributes to activists seeking to undermine their governance and reputation. Officials within the Madrid Tennis Federation subsequently released statements denying the allegations and maintaining that the accusations lacked substantive evidence. These statements, according to Rascón, appeared to be intended to tarnish the federation’s leadership rather than to clarify specific misdeeds.
concluding stance and ongoing scrutiny
The letters and statements from the federation’s leadership emphasize a commitment to address any verified facts while resisting what they describe as a press driven smear campaign. The federation’s leadership maintains that the public discourse fabricates or distorts details related to finances, sports performance, and legal matters, asserting that none of the charges have been proven with concrete evidence. The inquiry continues as Madrid’s tennis administration remains under close examination by the judiciary and by club presidents who stay engaged in the federation’s governance process. The publication involved in these discussions notes that questions were directed to the federation’s manager, Juan Avendaño, who did not provide a response during the inquiry period. Citations to this period come from reporting by a regional publication, which is part of a larger media group, and reference the ongoing legal and administrative dialogues surrounding the federation’s leadership.