Espionage claims and new fronts in Rubiales era unsettles Spanish football

No time to read?
Get a summary

Every day there seems to be a fresh front in the Luis Rubiales saga. David Aganzo, president of the Spanish Football Federation, filed a complaint with the Civil Guard alleging espionage in August 2019. The accusation centers on Rubiales hiring a detective agency, Cryptex Europa SL, to monitor Aganzo’s movements for four days in August 2019. The complaint was reported to El Períodico de España and later linked to broader tensions within Spanish football as Aganzo’s union details surfaced through private documents and audio recordings that had been published by El Confidencial the previous month.

The administrative complaint from AFE to the Supreme Sports Council was later set to be forwarded to the Sports Arbitration Court. The new information ties Rubiales to the espionage claim as well as to discussions around a no-confidence motion and the broader power dynamics within the federation.

What appears to be at the center is a concern over a potential attempt to damage Aganzo’s reputation and influence by covert surveillance. The agency Cryptex Europa SL allegedly spied on Aganzo’s movements during a four-day window in August 2019. The disclosures have generated substantial debate about the behavior and motives of Rubiales in relation to the leadership and governance of football in Spain.

Fake interest

In a public response after these details emerged, the AFE condemned what it called a bogus interest in surveilling the federation president. They argued that the aim was not legitimate investigative work but rather an effort to harm the image and reputation of the association and its leadership.

The espionage claim is also connected to a suspicious invoice for 11,674 euros. Rubiales stated during a regular meeting of the RFEF that public funds were not used for espionage, and private funds were not involved either, asserting that the federation had no involvement in the matter.

Aganzo and Rubiales have shown deep hostility since Rubiales was elected head of the RFEF. Rubiales reportedly backed Aganzo as a potential successor at one point, a move that did not endure, and the relationship between the two quickly deteriorated as tensions rose within the governance of football in Spain.

More facades

The situation opens another judicial front for Rubiales, with the national sports authority awaiting a decision from the CSD on whether any of the two complaints against Rubiales should be referred to the Sports Arbitration Court. One complaint comes from AFE, the other from a separate international body. If referred, the court would determine possible sanctions or even disqualification of the RFEF president.

A porte of correspondence has likewise reached UEFA and FIFA, with AFE seeking clarification about potential criminal or disciplinary responsibility connected to Rubiales’s conduct. The federation noted in a brief statement that it had supplied all requested information to the Prosecutor’s Office in recent days.

Another legal path has been pursued by Miguel Angel Galan, the president of the CENAFE coaching school, which has filed a complaint for alleged corruption in business and mismanagement. The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office opened an inquiry on May 19, and the RFEF has affirmed that it provided the information requested by prosecutors. Juan Rubiales, Rubiales’s uncle and former chief of staff, has already appeared as a witness, offering testimony in recent days.

Two courts

Galan has himself filed complaints against Piqué and Rubiales in Majadahonda, while another group known as Clean Hands has lodged complaints against both individuals and other RFEF executives. Lawyers involved include Tomas Gonzalez Cueto and Ramon Caravaca, who will operate from Plaza Castilla in Madrid, where the judicial activity is centered.

The jurisdiction will likely point to Majadahonda, a venue with lighter case load and proximity to the RFEF’s Las Rozas sports city, which is cited by legal sources in discussions about the alleged crimes.

As the newspaper notes, the acceptance of either of these legal actions would trigger a suspension of the case being pursued by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. In that scenario, prosecutors would hand over the investigation and the court would assume control of timing, potentially altering the cadence of proceedings and limiting the initial authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to pursue the case.

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

IEA warns of summer pressures and potential winter supply challenges

Next Article

Final Phase of Spain’s eHealth Zone: Four AI‑Driven Health Digitization Initiatives