During the club’s delegate assembly, the Real Madrid president spoke with the force of a man who believes his club stands at a critical crossroads. He did not mince words about LaLiga, its leadership under Javier Tebas, and the structures that shape European football. He also touched on UEFA’s stance on the European Super League, VAR, and the need for government involvement in arbitration. In closing remarks, he addressed the Negreira case and echoed Joan Laporta’s reference to a phenomenon he called sociological Madridism.
These statements stood out for their blunt tone and unambiguous message, revealing the owner’s conviction that Real Madrid must push back against what he sees as systemic moves against the club.
The critique of the League:
He warned that LaLiga’s recent actions against Real Madrid carry consequences that extend beyond the club’s day-to-day operations. He asserted that the league has attempted to seize a portion of the club’s audiovisual rights and change governing rules in a way that would influence who can hold a presidency. He insisted that the National Court already found these sanctions unlawful, underscoring a belief that the League’s maneuvering targets the club’s assets and leadership rather than purely disciplinary concerns. He stressed that the club represents a community of 100,000 members who are enduring financial strain as a result of these measures.
The VAR situation in Spain:
On the refereeing system and the use of VAR, he expressed deep concern about the transparency and accountability of the process. He refrained from criticizing the referees personally, but questioned who designs the VAR lines, which camera angles are chosen, and how decisions are ultimately made. He called for a government-led initiative to restore the arbitration institution’s credibility and argued that clear, consistent governance is essential for the sport’s integrity. He expressed hope that state action would lay the groundwork for a renewed, trustworthy arbitration framework.
The agreement with CVC:
Addressing the CVC agreement, he claimed the deal sought to extract 11% of the clubs’ audiovisual rights for fifty years, a move Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Athletic Bilbao opposed. He said the club learned about the terms through the press and through credible insiders, calling the arrangement highly favorable to managers but damaging to football’s fairness. He accused certain parties of pushing changes that were illegal and noted that the RFEF aligned with the clubs’ concerns, highlighting that previous, promoted teams would retain or receive the 11% share despite others losing it. He labeled the CVC venture a plague and pledged to keep challenging it publicly, asserting his duty to call out what he sees as illegitimate actions.
The lobbying front against the club:
He described a concerted lobby effort intended to expropriate Madrid’s assets and shift them to LaLiga, while also seeking to disqualify the club. He thanked political actors for their late-stage understanding but criticized the threatened strike by club bosses as a theatrical gesture that did not come to fruition. He framed the political debate as an example of how pressure campaigns were used to undermine Real Madrid, and he urged vigilance against similar tactics in the future. The underlying message was clear: the club would not be cowed by political posturing or intimidation tactics.
A message to members and supporters:
He challenged the perception that the club’s funds belong only to the league or governing bodies. He stated outright that the money is the members’ money and urged the supporters to recognize their ownership stake. He argued that the club must bolster its capacity to safeguard Real Madrid’s interests, positioning the owners as stewards who must actively protect the club’s future and assets.
The Negreira case:
In addressing the ongoing investigation, he kept his remarks concise, noting the seriousness of the matter and the need to respect judicial processes. He pointed out that Real Madrid had been admitted as an injured party and argued that the issue damages the reputation of Spanish football. He warned against attempts to justify the conduct by attacking the party that was injured, stressing the importance of fair, lawful scrutiny rather than expedient rebuttals.
The future of football:
Turning to broader trends, he criticized the European Super League for its persistent campaign of influence and argued that such efforts threaten the stability of domestic leagues. He contended that the move would be designed to strengthen European football for the few, sidestepping meritocracy and inclusion. He warned that the proposed Champions League format would be unrecognizable to fans, with an increase in matches and a removal of meaningful home-and-away ties, which he described as an affront to the sport’s spirit.
The next European ruling:
He called for more affordable television rights for football fans, arguing that charging excessively high prices drives away the very audience that sustains the game. He criticized the idea of forcing fans to spend large portions of their income simply to watch matches. He looked ahead to a December ruling on the European football case with cautious hope, expressing confidence in the decision-makers and underscoring that the fate of the sport rests in their hands. He emphasized that the outcome would shape how fans experience football in the years to come.
Against the state clubs:
He described a crisis that requires a collective response from leadership and fans alike. The problem, in his view, lies in managers who forget the supporter base and in a landscape where European football does not belong exclusively to UEFA or to the presidents of LaLiga. He argued that there is a pressing need to enforce financial fair play more strictly, criticizing the lack of consequences for clubs that do not comply. He warned that the current dynamic is unsustainable and demanded reforms that would restore balance and fairness to the sport.