All clubs in the league, excluding Real Madrid, issued a joint statement about the Negreira case. The message makes clear that Barça is keeping a sharp eye on every development related to the payments alleged to have been made to the team. It was notable that a former Vice President of the Technical Committee of Referees spoke up a few days after the scandal first surfaced. Florentino Pérez, meanwhile, did not react with a public speech or explicit stance, and the club carried on quietly, choosing not to break its silence.
According to Antonio García Ferreras on his program Red Hot, there were three reasons the Madrid club decided not to join the public statement from La Liga. Ferreras, who described his sources as close to Florentino Pérez and the club’s communications director, outlined why Real Madrid chose to stay on the sidelines as the controversy grew. The discussion highlighted how tightly monitored the situation has become and how delicate the timing of any official response appeared to be for the Real Madrid leadership.
First, Ferreras explained that Real Madrid has faced this dispute with substantial evidence amassed over two decades and has yet to receive the level of support some expected from the league or other parties. The club’s supporters and critics alike have watched how the narrative has evolved, with many questioning why a long history of allegations remains unresolved in the public sphere. The sentiment echoed across commentary panels is that the case has lingered longer than many expected and that the club has stood by its account through persistent scrutiny.
Second, there was concern about the potential wording of a La Liga statement. The proposed paragraph stated that the Board of Directors unequivocally supports La Liga’s actions, recognizing the work done over the years to safeguard competition integrity. Critics suggested this could seen as a formal endorsement of the league’s procedures, while others argued it might appear as a shield for the league rather than a neutral assessment. The tension around this wording was captured by commentators who suggested it could blur lines between oversight and accountability, a point of contention for Real Madrid and its supporters.
Third, Real Madrid reportedly did not want its name used as a victim’s defense. The club has repeatedly emphasized its own narrative—defending its reputation while defending its interpretation of the events. By avoiding a public defense that could be construed as self-victimization, Madrid aimed to maintain focus on the broader ethical questions at stake rather than on its own posture in the dispute. This stance has sparked debate about whether a more proactive public explanation might have shifted sentiment or altered the media cycle, and it has drawn reaction from various fans and analysts who see the decision from different angles.
Ferreras closed by pointing to the perceived loneliness of Real Madrid in a case that has drawn wide attention and pressure from many corners. He noted that those who long warned about the implications of the Negreira payments were often the same voices quick to condemn Madrid for its stance. The question remains whether this silence will be seen as prudent restraint or as a missed opportunity to shape the narrative. As the situation unfolds, observers will watch to see who bears responsibility for the ongoing debate and how the clubs, including Real Madrid, respond when new information surfaces and the story continues to evolve. At stake is not only the integrity of the competition but also the broader governance norms that clubs and leagues claim to uphold, a balance that remains under intense public scrutiny.