The Real Madrid boss stepped into the spotlight ahead of the Sevilla clash.
Carlo Ancelotti, at the helm of Real Madrid, appeared Friday in the build-up to the Saturday La Liga fixture against Sevilla. The remarks came in the wake of comments from Xavi Hernández and FC Barcelona president Joan Laporta, who labeled the idea of “sociological Madridism” as a real talking point in Spanish football today.
Xavi explained that sociological Madridism is tied to certain patterns in the Spanish capital that are used to destabilize teams. He recalled how the term Villarato originated in a Madrid-based newspaper and pointed to past insinuations against Barcelona, including claims of doping during the club’s strongest era. He added that such conversations do surface in football discussions, even if they are typically not aired inside the locker room. He stressed his support for the club president with a firm, hands-on stance.
It’s worth noting that the term “Villarato” was created by journalist Alfredo Relaño to describe alleged favors granted to Real Madrid and Barcelona by the refereeing bodies under then‑RFEF president Ángel María Villar. Over time, the expression has come to symbolize a supposed refereeing bias leaning toward Barcelona in some coverage, especially in outlets sympathetic to Real Madrid.
Ancelotti’s stance on ‘sociological Madridism’
“I heard the talk. That’s exactly the moment we address bigger questions, including racism, which must be tackled with seriousness,” Ancelotti told reporters on Friday. “We shouldn’t let distractions take focus away from the real issues at hand. The judicial process is ongoing, and the proper conclusions must be drawn. That is where attention should stay, not on side debates that can drift into sensationalism.”
What Laporta said about ‘sociological Madridismo’
On Thursday, Laporta claimed that a deliberate campaign is aimed at discrediting Barcelona through the Negreira case. He argued that a “sociological Madridism” operates at the centers of power in the capital and remains a force to be contended with. He asserted that he faced and resisted it, and that its influence lingered as Barcelona faced tough times, hoping that the distinctive success of his first term could eventually inspire confidence in the club’s historical peak.
In the ongoing discourse, the dialogue between these leaders highlights how football politics intertwines with public perception. The exchange underscores the persistent belief—shared by rival fans and some media—that institutions influence on-pitch outcomes. The topic remains a touchstone in debates about fair play, media influence, and the management of large clubs within Spain’s top flight.
Both sides appear intent on framing the narrative around the game, the governance of football, and the reputational battles that occur off the pitch. As Real Madrid and Sevilla prepare for battle on matchday ten, the conversation broadens beyond the 90 minutes to examine how power, heritage, and public opinion shape the sport in contemporary Spain.