Tebas: Real Madrid didn't lose the derby because of the referee, and their pressure is 'unfair and harsh'

The Madrid derby night ended, the score was settled on the pitch, but the real battle exploded beyond the touchline. Real Madrid TV repeatedly broadcast slow-motion replays of the controversial incidents. The commentators of the Royal Spanish club mentioned referee Ortiz Arias in the language of an indictment. On social media, clips of the contentious decisions were cut and edited, stripped of context, spreading at lightning speed.

But in response, one of the most powerful figures in Spanish football spoke with a firmness that left both sides stunned. La Liga president, Javier Tebas, did not choose silence as usual. In his official statement, he declared that Real Madrid did not lose the derby because of the referee's decisions, while accusing the club of creating 'unfair and harsh pressure' on the match officials. This statement was not merely a post-match comment; it was an act of institutional warfare.

The incident began with an eagerly awaited Madrid derby that ended with a bitter taste for the Madridistas. Real Madrid, a team considered superior in squad quality, left the field without points. Immediately, the club's media machine was activated. Accusations of a conspiracy against them quickly formed. But Tebas, who has occupied the La Liga presidency chair for years and witnessed too many power struggles, cannot be shaken by a media campaign. He knew that if he stayed silent, he would hand Real Madrid a spiritual victory off the pitch, and above all, he would betray the very referees suffering tremendous pressure.

Context: A derby overshadowed by a power struggle

To understand the harshness of Tebas's statement, one must look at the context before the derby. This is not the first time Real Madrid has expressed discontent with refereeing. In fact, according to several sources, La Liga had a prior report documenting Real Madrid TV's activity as a propaganda channel that pressured referees before every important match. That report was shelved, but the Madrid derby revived the entire issue.

The match featured three most discussed controversial incidents. First, the dismissal of Dean Huijsen. Second, Cristian Romero's challenge on Jude Bellingham. And third, Lee Kang-in's sole-of-boot challenge on Federico Valverde's ankle. In each situation, Real Madrid claimed to be victims of unfair officiating. But Tebas's response to each case was a powerful affirmation of the correctness of the refereeing decisions.

Interestingly, Tebas's statement was not meant to appease. He acknowledged Real Madrid's right to complain, but he strongly condemned the manner in which they did it. 'I understand the frustration after such a match, but I cannot accept the unfair and harsh way of putting pressure on the referee,' Tebas said. This sentence has two layers of meaning. On the first level, he was defending the right of a big club to speak. On the second, he was warning that La Liga would not tolerate threats to the integrity of officiating.

Three incidents, three answers: Detailed analysis from the perspective of law and data

Let us examine each incident in detail to understand why Tebas is so confident.

The first incident: Dean Huijsen was sent off. According to Tebas, this was a 'certain red card'. There is little debate on this aspect. Huijsen's challenge was destructive in nature, with no legitimate attempt to play the ball, and the force of impact after the foot had left the ground was clear. Under IFAB Law 12 on fouls and misconduct, a two-footed challenge with high intensity and using studs falls into the category of 'serious foul play'. This is not a 'maybe' decision; it is a decision well within the green zone. Any referee would show a red card, and VAR has no reason to intervene as there is no clear error.

The second incident: Cristian Romero challenged Bellingham. Real Madrid claimed this was a dangerous play. But Tebas drew a decisive distinction: Romero touched the ball first. In refereeing circles, the unwritten rule of 'touching the ball first' remains an important reference point, although in recent years the trend in modern officiating has shifted towards a more comprehensive assessment based on point of contact, force and the consequence of the fall. However, in this situation, Romero's ball-first contact combined with a level of force not exceeding the 'dangerous' threshold led the referee to decide not to show a red card. This is a decision within the normal assessment band of a referee. Nothing unusual.

The third incident: Lee Kang-in, the South Korean player, planted his studs on Valverde's ankle. This was the most interesting situation, and the only one where Tebas had to concede that the decision was 'arguable'. The referee awarded a foul and showed a yellow card, but VAR did not intervene to check for a potential red card. Why? Because VAR operates only on the threshold of a 'clear and obvious error'. A challenge where a yellow or red card is 'a matter of interpretation' does not fall under VAR's remit. Tebas admitted: 'I can understand if someone says that situation could have been a red card, but it is an open situation, and VAR cannot intervene in situations like that.'

This very statement by Tebas inadvertently created a loophole for Real Madrid's media campaign. Because when the most powerful official says 'it could be a red card', the Madridistas immediately turn 'could' into 'was'. They will ask: why did a challenge that even the La Liga president admitted 'could be a red card' not lead to a full VAR review?

However, from another perspective, this admission shows Tebas's rare honesty. He does not fabricate events. He looks at the situation with the cold eye of a law enforcer. And that makes his statement more convincing than purely emotional condemnations. In a football world where league presidents often choose ambiguous diplomacy, Tebas chose a different path. A path of stark frankness. A path that could lead him into a head-on conflict with the greatest club in Spain.

The 'Stop the refereeing intimidation now' campaign: A new front in Spanish football

What makes this story transcend the scope of a single match is the emergence of a well-organized campaign. Atletico Madrid, the other Madrid club, launched a campaign called 'Stop the refereeing intimidation now'. This is not an ordinary hashtag. This is a strategic first strike.

Atletico Madrid, benefiting from the derby result, cleverly positioned themselves as the 'clean' club in the fight. They did not talk about the three specific incidents, because that could backfire. Instead, they spoke about a systemic phenomenon: the intimidation of referees. In doing so, Atletico raised the banner of protecting fairness, a moral position from which to savour their victory.

Tebas appears caught between two jaws of a vice. On one side is Real Madrid with their fury and powerful media machine. On the other is Atletico Madrid with a media campaign being embraced by public opinion. But through his frank statement, Tebas chose to stand above both. He did not directly defend Atletico, even though their campaign benefits him. He did not condemn Real Madrid with extreme rhetoric. Instead, he placed himself as the protector of the institution, the protector of referees, and the protector of the game itself.

But looking deeper, a much bigger theme is at play here. That is the role of club-owned television channels. In the past, Real Madrid TV has not only broadcast the team's matches; it has also become a tool to pressure referees before every important match. They replay old controversial incidents, exaggerate camera angles, and create a hostile atmosphere around the referees assigned to Real Madrid matches. This, from Tebas's perspective, is a form of 'systematic intimidation' no different from making threatening phone calls to referees before a match, except it is carried out publicly and 'legally'.

Tebas said: 'We must continue to hold on to ethics.' This sentence carries an implication that the ethics of Spanish football are being eroded by the very most powerful forces in the sport.

Contrarian view: Is Real Madrid exaggerating the issue?

While both sides are trying to win the PR war, a big question is being overlooked: would the derby result have truly changed if the decisions had been different? The answer lies in Tebas's own statement. When he said 'Real Madrid did not lose because of those moments', he was making a judgment about the tactical and physical aspects of the match.

Real Madrid have a quality squad, formidable attacking weapons, but they failed to generate enough pressure to win. If Huijsen had not been sent off, if Romero had been shown a red card, would Real Madrid have been certain to win? This is a question that cannot be answered with logic, because football does not operate on simulations. But what is certain is that, in a derby, when refereeing decisions are borderline, the team that controls its emotions better will have a great advantage. And in this derby, Real Madrid let their emotions take over in the decisive moments.

The volume of protest far exceeding the evidentiary weight of the incidents is a sign of psychological imbalance. When a team loses and immediately blames the referee, they refuse to confront their own real issues. This denial may reassure the players in the short term, but it will become a bad habit in the long run. It also sets a dangerous precedent: if referees feel cornered, they may unconsciously or deliberately favor the club in upcoming matches, which would damage the very league Real Madrid plays in.

Data and the view from the hot seat of an insider

In my decades of following Spanish football and international competitions, I have noticed a rule that never changes: refereeing scandals occur most frequently in decisive matches, where psychological pressure peaks. My analysis of the three situations above, based on years of match-watching experience and cross-referencing with IFAB laws, paints a clear picture. Huijsen deserved a red card, Romero did not, and Lee Kang-in falls in a grey zone.

But the biggest lesson is not in those three incidents. It is in how the top two Spanish clubs leverage media to shape the narrative. In an era where data can be cherry-picked, where clips can be edited to serve a narrative, honesty becomes a luxury. And when the league president himself must speak up to re-establish order, it is time for fans to be most vigilant in distinguishing truth from pressure tactics.

The corridor of power: Tebas and the off-pitch victory

Tebas may not be a beloved figure at Real Madrid, but he remains in his position. He has clashed with other big clubs in the past and survived. This comes from his strategic positioning: he never turns himself into an autocrat, but always a guardian of order. In this case, he once again succeeded in shaping public opinion in his favour. When he talks about 'ethics', he holds a flag that is very difficult to tear down because most people fundamentally want fair football.

Of course, that does not mean he is entirely right. There is a certain irony when a league president issues verdicts on specific referee decisions. In doing so, he also makes himself a party to the controversy, no longer above it. But in an era when big club presidents often call the league president after every match to complain, a warning from Tebas can be seen as a way of re-establishing the line of power.

Conclusion: The real match is still ongoing

The Madrid derby has ended, but the real match has no final whistle. The confrontation between a football empire and a league governance apparatus will continue through each round, through each controversial slow-motion replay, through each tweet from prominent figures. My editorial choices on this matter lead me to think: do fans really want fair football, or do they only want the team they love to benefit from unfairness?

If Real Madrid truly did nothing wrong, they have grounds to feel unfairly treated. But if they have built an entire system of pressure on referees, then Tebas's statement is a welcome signal for the health of La Liga. The line between legitimate complaint and threatening behaviour may be thin, but it is being eroded daily in major leagues around the world.

For Real Madrid, the lesson might be: focus on improving their own capabilities, rather than nursing a grievance that, according to Tebas's assessment, has no factual basis. For La Liga, the lesson is: the issue needs to be handled forcefully and consistently from the start, before it becomes a shameful culture of intimidation.

The final question lies in whether fans dare to separate themselves from club loyalty to look at the truth. Do they dare to admit that a correct red card is not a conspiracy, a well-judged referee decision is not bias, and a defeat is not an injustice? Nobody is saying football is perfect; referees make mistakes like anyone at the club. But refusing to accept decisions made in accordance with the rules is a betrayal of everyone striving to protect this game.

From the numbers, from the incidents, from the data and the laws, I see a bigger issue: the battle is not between Real Madrid and the referee, but between respect for the rules of the game and the triumph of the individual. The real match, the real battle, is still ongoing, and it will not end after one statement or even many years, because it is an endless journey to protect the purity of the game. And perhaps, that is the most watched derby Spanish football has never seen conclude.