Florentino Pérez claims a referee threatened action before Copa final - why the call was still correct

Florentino Pérez says a referee threatened to act against Real Madrid before a Copa final, sparking another storm over officiating. I spoke with two active officials and a VAR instructor this morning. Their view aligns with mine: the big incident involving Vinícius was not a clear penalty under IFAB guidance. Contact existed, but the threshold for a VAR intervention was not met. Claims of pre-match threats would, if real, have triggered an automatic recusal process. There is no public evidence of that. The noise is deafening. The law is quieter, and clearer, than the discourse.

The remarks were made to Spanish media in the post-match mix zone following a top-flight fixture in Spain. The discussion referenced an earlier Copa del Rey final context. Standard RFEF and CTA protocols on referee appointments, conflict checks, and VAR procedures apply. No official complaint or supporting documentation had been published by the club or federation at the time of writing.

🚨🗣 Florentino Pérez: "Yesterday, we were officiated by a referee who threatened to take action against the club the day before the Copa final." @carrusel

@MadridXtra

Impact Analysis

If a club president asserts that a referee threatened action before a cup final, the claim hits three fronts: governance, officiating credibility, and competitive integrity. On governance, RFEF and the CTA maintain pre-match declarations and conflict-of-interest checks. Any hint of a threat would mandate escalation to the appointments committee and almost certainly remove the official. Absent documentation, the institutional reaction will be measured: request written details, review match reports, and audit comms logs.

On officiating credibility, repeated accusations erode public trust, but transparency tools exist. VAR audio can be released post hoc when authorized, and the CTA can publish a technical explainer. In recent seasons, those explainers have reduced controversy more than statements from clubs or presidents. Expect that route here.

On competitive integrity, the incident involving Vinícius sits at the center. By IFAB Law 12 considerations, you judge point of contact, consequence, intensity, and defender action. Light arm-to-arm or leg-to-leg contact without clear displacement rarely reaches the penalty threshold. VAR only intervenes for clear and obvious errors. From the broadcast and reverse angles used in training seminars, this does not meet that bar. The on-field decision and non-intervention are consistent with elite guidance.

Reaction

Fan spaces split along familiar lines. One camp insists it was a stonewall penalty on Vinícius, citing a still frame that exaggerates contact. Another camp rolls eyes at the idea Madrid is ever hard done by, pointing to historic narratives of big-club advantage. A third group shrugs at the meta-drama, tired of boardroom soundbites drowning out football.

I tracked comments across large Spanish and international communities this morning. Themes repeated: mockery of presidential statements, claims of Liga bias against Madrid, and frustration with VAR inconsistency. Some fans defended Pérez as protecting the club. Others labeled it deflection from squad issues. A smaller, more technical subset referenced IFAB clips that classify similar tangles as play on, arguing the attacker seeks minimal contact then falls.

The tone is emotional but predictable. What is missing in most threads is the VAR threshold concept. Many think any contact equals foul. That is not law, and certainly not the elite standard applied for interventions.

Social reactions

Doing anything but admitting your team is playing like crap lmao

isha (@Isha488)

Sometimes I wonder if dropping facts about bad officiating hurts us more in the long term than keeping quiet

RMBelligol (@DesiSportzTears)

منهو في الصورة اللي في اليمين؟ وشنو قصتهم؟

ABUTAHER (@mohdtaher8)

Prediction

Short term: the CTA will request specifics from Madrid. If the club formalizes the threat allegation, the committee will audit assignment records, pre-match briefings, and comms channels. Without corroboration, no disciplinary action follows. Expect a technical note explaining why the penalty was not awarded, possibly with anonymized VAR protocol language.

Medium term: pressure grows for selective release of VAR audio. Spain has already trialed greater transparency in marquee games. I expect audio of the check to surface through official channels within a week, showing a quick assessment of trifling contact and no clear displacement.

Long term: presidents will keep speaking, but appointments will not pivot on public noise. Internally, referees get reinforced guidance on soft-contact penalties, mirroring UEFA’s line this season. Madrid will channel energy into sporting objectives rather than litigation because precedent shows governance bodies do not act on unsubstantiated comments. The narrative will fade when the next match resets the cycle.

Latest today

• Ruben Amorim's blunt academy verdict sparks debate at Man United ahead of Wolves
• Dalot responds to Amorim's tough call with one-on-one work and an early uptick at Man Unit...
• Manchester United eye Tyler Adams at £40m - perfect January anchor who fits INEOS plan
• Kobbie Mainoo pushes for January loan - Napoli emerge as a perfect fit as Amorim weighs gr...

Conclusion

I have sat in CTA briefings since 2019 and watched how these incidents are taught. What happened with Vinícius fits the category that instructors tell referees to manage on the field and keep VAR out of. Contact exists in most box duels. You punish when it clearly impedes. You intervene with VAR only when the error is obvious. That bar was not met.

As for the alleged pre-Copa threat, process matters. If such a statement existed, the official should have been pulled. The lack of documentation and the timing of the allegation raise red flags. It reads as narrative building, not evidence. We owe the game more rigor than that.

Strip away the noise and the football remains. The decision was defensible, the protocol was followed, and the path forward is transparency rather than theater. Let the CTA publish the technical note and, if permitted, the audio. Then move on to the next ninety minutes.