Luis Rubiales, the former president of the Spanish Football Federation, has faced a three-year suspension from football-related activities following FIFA’s disciplinary ruling. The sanction comes after Rubiales violated FIFA Disciplinary Code provisions during the late stages of the celebratory events at the Women’s World Cup, notably the kiss involving Jenni Hermoso that sparked international controversy on August 20, 2023.
The public response to Rubiales’s case has been intense. In his online statements, Rubiales asserted that the FIFA procedure was marked by decisions he considered unfounded and argued that the process prevented him from mounting a timely defense. He claimed that the initial 90-day provisional suspension did not allow for a full hearing and left him unable to appeal within the allotted time, effectively suspending him for two-thirds of the initial term without a proper opportunity to present his case.
Media coverage of the affair has included commentary from various political figures and cultural commentators, illustrating the broad interest and the political dimension of the case. A notable reference in the public discourse linked Rubiales’s situation to broader questions about fairness, due process, and the balance of power within international football governance.
In a subsequent public statement, Rubiales recounted his experience with the disciplinary process, describing the steps taken by FIFA’s Disciplinary Commission and the contacts made with Jenni Hermoso’s representatives. He claimed that certain communications occurred across jurisdictions, involving Colombia and Paris, and he highlighted what he viewed as procedural gaps and a lack of transparency in the handling of the file FDD-15763. He described the sequence of notifications and actions that led to his provisional suspension, emphasizing that he was not given an opportunity to testify or present further evidence before key decisions were made.
Rubiales also explained that despite resigning from his roles at the Spanish Football Federation and later at UEFA, the disciplinary body continued to pursue actions that, in his view, did not rest on a solid evidentiary foundation. He argued that the process appeared to emphasize statements from certain witnesses while omitting other perspectives, a discrepancy he believed compromised the fairness of the proceedings. He cautioned that media and political influence appeared to shape outcomes, challenging the principle of presumption of innocence that should underlie any fair judicial process in sport.
He described his experience as one of what he viewed as disproportionate and unjust measures, calling on supporters to form their own conclusions as the case progressed. Rubiales asserted that the public and political climate, along with media narratives, had created a climate in which institutions could act in ways that seemed detached from the fundamental rights of the parties involved. He maintained that the defense was never afforded the chance to present a full account and that a final hearing to personally present his case had not occurred to date. The narrative he shared stressed the importance of due process and equal opportunity to defend oneself in any disciplinary matter related to football governance.
As the situation evolves, discussions surrounding due process, independence, and the appropriate role of governance bodies in football continue to be widely debated among fans, professionals, and officials. The case underscores ongoing conversations about transparency, accountability, and the standards that drive world football’s disciplinary framework. At its core, the issue centers on how international bodies enforce rules, how hearings are conducted, and how the rights of all parties are protected during investigations that carry significant reputational and professional consequences.
Observers note that the Rubiales matter has amplified scrutiny of how disciplinary procedures are managed in high-profile cases. The evolving narrative highlights the need for clear, accessible procedures that ensure fairness while maintaining the integrity of the sport. Supporters and critics alike are watching closely to see how FIFA and related bodies address concerns about process, evidence, and the balance between public interest and judicial fairness in football governance. For now, the three-year ban stands as a stark reminder of the consequences that can follow violations of conduct at football’s highest levels, and as a catalyst for ongoing discussions about governance, accountability, and justice in the global game.