The Royal Spanish Football Federation and Montse Tomé, along with invited international players, reached a temporary understanding late Tuesday into Wednesday. All but Mapi León and Patri Guijarro agreed to stay in camp ahead of the forthcoming matches against Sweden and Switzerland.
During the talks, mediated by the president of the Supreme Sports Council, Victor Francoshappened an expedited shakeup of several RFEF executives. Names were not disclosed, but many outlets reported that the initial target was the federation’s general secretary. Yet the federation’s charter complicates any immediate dismissal, presenting a legal obstacle that must be navigated before any real changes can occur.
Mapi León and Patri Guijarro leave the camp but avoid sanctions
Within the framework of the ongoing negotiations, it became clear that the federation could not proceed with punitive measures against León and Guijarro without clarifications from federation statutes and governance bodies. The conversation emphasized that disciplinary actions against players still in camp would require careful alignment with the charter and the current leadership structure.
What does the RFEF charter say?
Unlike managers, regional directors, or selectors, the general secretary is defined in depth by the federation statutes. Article 39 explains that the secretary general oversees the federation’s executive direction and administrative management. The person responsible for the executive is appointed and dismissed by the presidency. The second portion of Article 39 notes that the secretary general’s appointment hinges on the preference of the RFEF president. The complication arises from the fact that a vacancy existed in the presidency during a recent period.
In the wake of the presidency vacancy, interim periods did not grant the same authority to appoint a secretary general as a normal presidency would. This has raised questions about who can authorize significant changes in staff and how those changes align with the charter when there is no president in place.
The question of Pedro Rocha comes into focus. During the interval after Rubiales was suspended by FIFA and before the Andalusian leader’s resignation, Rocha functioned as a temporary figurehead. Such a position does not formally exist, yet it summarized the reality that duties and powers set by the charter could be exercised in a limited capacity.
During that gap, Rocha could have issued orders to dismiss Camps or other executives, but once the presidency ended, the authority to appoint and dismiss rested with the parliament. The charter, in turn, requires the board to form a management committee and call for elections to fill the presidency if the term ends prematurely. This created a tension between the letter of the charter and the practical governance needs during a period of vacancy.
Board of directors or management commission?
Rocha reportedly acted with reluctance, and elections were not called. This left the management committee in a state of legal ambiguity because the federation’s charter does not clearly define its powers. To resolve this, the governing framework must be interpreted in light of the ministerial decree that regulates selection processes in sports federations. The decree, last updated in December 2015, states that when a new election is called the boards of directors are dissolved and management commissions begin duties. In other words, the sequence prescribed by the decree would typically place the board first and the elections later, not the other way around.
Moreover, the decree outlines how the manager is created. It notes that the RFEF delegate committee must meet to appoint several members. According to sources connected to the commission, this body was never convened, leaving the executive structure formed outside the typical constitutional process. The question remains whether the federation has a real board of directors or a formal management commission. The statutes and the decree point to neither being fully realized in practice, and both entities struggle to agree on dismissals when there is no president in place.
What can the RFEF do?
Regardless of the situation, it seems unlikely that Rocha can take decisive action at this moment. Dismissing regional managers would be a delicate move, and some reports link potential changes to commitments with international partners. The Spanish Sports Federations statute, within Royal Decree 1835/1991, outlines that management committees are responsible for administration during the electoral process; they can carry out only essential administrative acts and must ensure the process proceeds fairly. This framing constrains what can be done during a transition period and invites careful legal consideration for any bold steps.
Nonetheless, questions persist about whether proposed dismissals can be interpreted as ordinary administrative acts. At first glance, that interpretation may be doubtful. If someone within the federation decides to bypass regulations and dismiss a figure like Camps, the matter could face judicial review. The state’s regulatory framework signals that changes should follow established procedures, and any deviation risks legal challenges. The outcome remains to be seen as the governance situation unfolds.