Official documents state that the Núñez Club was founded on May 25, 1901, yet multiple signals point to a different origin. The nuance of this story sits at the crossroads of archival records, contemporary newspaper reports, and the memories carried by early members. What appears on the surface as a straightforward founding date hides a more intricate timeline that has invited ongoing scrutiny from researchers and fans alike.
River Plate, widely celebrated for its rich history, marks a birthday that aligns with the inaugural archival entries and institutional records. Still, a substantial body of evidence suggests the club’s actual beginnings lay several years later, around 1904. A thorough inquiry conducted in 2004 by the Center for Research and History of Football (CIHF) uncovered a chain of publications pointing to May 15, 1904 as the genuine inception date. This finding challenges the traditional date and invites a reexamination of the club’s early formation and the social context in which it emerged.
The origin narrative commonly cited the club’s birth as the outcome of a merger between La Rosales and Santa Rosa, two teams that operated in close proximity to La Boca. This aspect of the story appears consistent across sources. A notable contemporary account described a new sports organization formed from elements of La Rosales and Santa Rosa, with preparations for participation in a broad slate of competitions. However, the reliability of that account hinges on the timing of the report, which appears in a May 22, 1904 publication, prompting questions about whether the merger occurred earlier or later than officially recorded.
Archival tone supports the ambiguity. During the period from 1901 through 1904, periodicals and match reports document activities of La Rosales and Santa Rosa but show no formal mentions of River Plate until the latter date. The club’s own historical records, such as the 1909 Memory and Balance, reference a “sixth exercise,” implying the first formal year of activity began in 1904 rather than 1901. This discrepancy has persisted as researchers compare clippings, minutes, and administrative notes from the era and attempt to align them with the club’s evolving identity.
Further layers of the story emerged in 1938, when the Millionaire celebrated a major milestone with the inauguration of the Monumental Stadium. One founding member, Enrique Zanni, wrote candidly in the club’s magazine about the timeline, describing how circumstances in the 1902 and 1903 seasons led to a shift from rivalry to partnership between the two original teams. The record describes a pivotal meeting beneath a canopy of willow branches, with greenery described as a comfortable setting for decision making. This reminiscence hints at the complex negotiations that defined the club’s early days, though it does not resolve the exact founding date.
Another line of inquiry centers on Leopoldo Bard, the institution’s first president. Contemporary chronicles place Bard at a young age as River Plate’s birth unfolded. If Bard’s age aligns with a 1901 timeline, a contradiction arises when cross-referencing his known biographical milestones with the club’s documented founding year. This inconsistency remains a focal point for historians attempting to reconstruct accurate biographical and organizational timelines from more than a century ago.
Despite the abundance of documentary evidence suggesting revisions to the founding date, the precise rationale behind any potential change remains elusive. One compelling obstruction is the fact that several Memory and Balance documents from 1910 to 1914 were destroyed or missing, limiting researchers’ ability to confirm the club’s official chronology with certainty. The CIHF study thus faced a challenge: reconstruct a coherent narrative from incomplete archival material while considering the broader social and administrative pressures that might have encouraged a date revision.
What is clear is that by 1912 the club is described in records as being established as early as May 25, 1901, yet other documents from the period describe events and decisions that point to a 1904 origin. The minutes of 1915 already refer to a “fourteenth exercise,” which would align with a timeline extending beyond 1901. These timelines are not mere trivia; they shape how the club’s identity is remembered, how its early supporters are honored, and how its historical narrative is interpreted by fans and researchers today.
One plausible interpretation offered by scholars is that the date change may have served practical purposes, such as eligibility criteria for grants. It is suggested that the leadership sought a larger seniority to qualify for a particular grant program, a possibility that would help explain why a formal adjustment might have been made without an explicit public explanation. According to the accounts reviewed, the Deliberative Council ultimately approved a sum of three thousand pesos, directed toward constructing a grandstand on the Dársena Sud field. This allocation underscores the club’s intent to expand its infrastructure and secure a lasting home for its community, even as questions about the exact founding moment endured.
To date, Núñez has not issued a definitive ruling on the founding date controversy. The matter remains part of the club’s broader historical dialogue, a conversation carried forward in the memories of long-time supporters and in the careful work of football historians. The enduring question is not merely about a date but about how an organization builds its identity across generations, how archival gaps are interpreted, and how anniversaries are celebrated in a way that honors both tradition and factual accuracy. In this sense, the birthday of River Plate continues to be observed with a sense of reverence, while the historical discussion persists as a living, evolving narrative that invites ongoing study and reflection.