Former Spanish referee Antonio Lopez Nieto has dismissed the idea that there was systemic corruption amongst referees during the time that Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira was Vice-President of the Referees Committee (CTA).
Lopez Nieto, currently president of Unicaja Malaga basketball team, refereed in La Liga from 1988 to 2003, at which point he would have had crossover with Negreira. He then returned to the refereeing scene in 2011, spending a decade as part of the CTA himself, before leaving in 2021.
Speaking to Onda Cero, as carried by Marca, Lopez Nieto explained that he was in charge of choosing which referees took charge of games, not Negreira.
“I was responsible for the designations and Negreira had nothing to do with it. I’ll say it now and in front of any judge, Negreira in 16 years had no influence on anything.”
Lopez Nieto had also dismissed the idea back in April.
“I was a referee with Negreira, and he has never said anything to me about refereeing.”
“I think it’s all a setup and nothing will be found.”
The CTA has claimed that Negreira’s role was representative, and did not hold any power.
“I guarantee you that they are not going to get anything out of the referees during the time that I refereed. I understand that you don’t believe it, but Negreira was a vase. [his role was decorative]”
Negreira was paid between €7m and €8m over 17 years between 2001 and 2018 by Barcelona, which is currently being investigated by Spanish police. A judge has ordered that they investigate systemic corruption, and are also working on establishing whether Negreira may have had a say in which referees were promoted or relegated from La Liga and Segunda, thus influencing their financial rewards.
Lopez Nieto won the Guruceta award, a Marca prize handed out to the best referee, on four occasions, and the best referee award handed out by Don Balon on four occasions.
“In 1995, López accused representatives of Dynamo Kyiv of attempting to bribe him before a UEFA Champions League game against Panathinaikos of Greece, a charge Dynamo Kyiv continue to deny. As a result of this accusation, UEFA banned Dynamo from competitions for two years, a sanction that was later overturned.”
Why was sanction overturned? Because they found that this guy is a liar?
It gets more interesting, from “Independent” article:
“The club accused the Spanish referee of first ordering, then refusing to pay for several fur coats and hats purchased before the match.
Lopez Nieto had told Uefa officials, meeting in Porto, Portugal, that he was approached by Vasyl Babychuk, vice-president and general manager of Dynamo, and Igor Surkis, a board member, before the match. Both men were summarily banned for life from Uefa-related activities.
But in a statement Dynamo said Lopez Nieto asked the club to acquire fur coats and hats for the four Uefa officials. Dynamo said that when Lopez Nieto was told how much the coats and hats for the four officials had cost, he handed them back.”
“It turned out that Mr Nieto portrayed the bill from the shop to the Uefa representative as an attempted bribe,” the statement said.
It seems like this guy has a taste for buying but not for paying and gets upset when presented with a bill.
Sounds like a credible source.
How much was the bill? If the items were significantly underpriced he could have interpreted that as an attempted bribe.
Why was the sanction overturned? Without an answer to that question it’s impossible to connect it to the official.
Not enough information to do anything but project, I’m afraid.
As much as other teams paid to Negreira, give or take more or less.
What matters is that the historical fact of ban to the club was overturned, due to him not being completely honest or some other facts unknown to us surfaced forth – we can only speculate. Point being, if UEFA took clubs side it can only be interpreted one way, figures are irrelevant.
The amounts are most certainly relevant. If the value of the items was significantly greater than the bill it would be completely normal for an official to return the merchandise and view it as an attempt at a bribe.
The article mentions that the two men that approached Nieto were banned for life, and those bans do not appear to have been lifted. Perhaps the club’s sanctions were lifted because they were able to prove that the Vice President and the board member acted on their own, without anyone at the club knowing what they were doing. That seems to be the most logical explanation, but again, not enough information to know for sure.
The biggest question of all is why did he order fur coats for him and his colleagues anyway? Not how much they cost. That is where he loses all his credibility.
A referee shouldnt order a club to buy him anything. There seems to be a culture of accepting “gifts” in Spanish referee corps or in some cases millions for poorly written “reports” riddled with grammatical errors, unclear if they contained MSPaint – drawn doodads. For 8 millions, they better have.
You interpret it as if furs were overly cheap. Me (and UEFA, eventually) interpret it as if he didnt want to pay full price they cost, story leaked out about him getting gifts, pulling the plug on deal and threw the club under the bus. Perhaps he was expecting an 8 million gift himself but got dissapointed.
“Perhaps the club’s sanctions were lifted because they were able to prove that the Vice President and the board member acted on their own, without anyone at the club knowing what they were doing.” First: Chelsea got sanctioned because of Abramovich and youre telling me UEFA would buy that? Why would a club avoid punishment if a representative tries to bribe on behalf of club? Second Igor Surkis hasnt actually been banned for life, must be a typo – he is still Dynamo Kievs owner and has been for 20+ years.
Therefore no, its not a logical explaination at all, its a.. how did you put it now again, a projection – because your goal is to make a credible person out of him which alligns with interests of your club. Sorry, noone who orders fur coats through a club which he will be eventually refereeing is credible.
But we are on different sides of this and people who read this can make conclusions for themselves.
Think, man. The club itself referenced the bill as the reason Nieto thought he was being bribed. The only logical reason he would have returned the merchandise and accused them of trying to bribe him is because the bill would have reflected an amount he knew was too small for expensive fur coats and hats and he would have seen that as suspicious. If it was too expensive, he would have simply returned the merchandise. If he got a bill and was expecting free merchandise, why would he report the club for attempted bribery?
What happened to Abramovich took place about 25 years later, and the circumstances were totally and completely different. Attempting to draw a parallel between those two things is grasping at straws, to say the least.
Your goal is to make a less than credible person out of him so you can continue with your Negreira crusade against Barcelona. I’m just pointing out that your argument that Nieto is the suspect party here just doesn’t make any sense.
Think man, think.
Noone orders clubs to buy ANYTHING if he is to referee the upcoming match.
Im sure pretty much anyone who reads this will come to same conclusion. Why did this guy even had anything to do with a club?
No, its only different because you want it to be different. In reality, its a good precedent that goes to show that club wont escape punishment if owner such as Surkis messes up.
My goal is to point to the fact that referees shouldnt be involved with clubs in any way- especially gifts and Im succeding in it far better than you. Ive also noticed that ignore arguments you have no explaination for such as this one and I take it as yet another victory.
You might find this article interesting; I can’t post the link here but if you google “Dynamo’s Disgrace” you’ll find it.
Also, Surkis and his brother seem to be quite the characters, in a gangster sort of way; there’s a 2019 article referencing them. Google “Ukranian soccer embezzlement case” and learn how he and his brother received payments intended by UEFA to go directly to the Ukrainian Federation, into an offshore company that also handled the payroll and expenses for Dynamo Kyiv.
Real choir boys, those two. His brother’s now a lawmaker for the Pro-Russian platform in Ukraine, so sure, let’s take their word for it over a decorated match official from Spain.
Dynamos disgrace isnt an article- its a forum post written by a person who lives in Donjetsk. Since you apparently are pretending to be clueless again I might as well inform you that Donjetsk and Luhansk seceded from Ukr. and there have been bad blood between people who live there since Majdan in Ukr. Im happy to educate you that pro Ukr. people and pro Russ. people (such as Donjetsk natives) arent really on friendly terms and nothing written between them can be taken as… well basically anything unbiased and seriously. Its two sides in a current war and thanks to your ignorance, you embarrassed yourself yet again.
Thats interesting, he seems to have something in common with laporta, Google laporta Uzbekistan. Although laporta is your favorite whom you find 1000 and 1 excuse for and rationalise everything he does, but this guy on the other hand seems to be a “character” in a gangster way. Why the difference in characterisations is another pondering for neutral viewers but Im sure many will come to same conclusion by themselves.
As per usual, since you ignored the fact that he is still Kievs owner I will remind you – would Uefa not ban him forever if he was such a character?
A decorated referee who orders clubs he will referee to buy him coats. How many other clubs did he order to buy things is another question worth asking. Ask laporta, once shady always shady.
You didn’t read either one, did you?
Figures.
You didnt understand why a source cant be considered impartial?
Didnt expect you to think in 3d this time either, lets call it inductive logic.
Im happy to expose you though.
I know it’s easier for you to discredit something that doesn’t align with your opinion than it is to investigate a little further and find out that the facts might be different than what you’ve made them out to be. You do it time and again, so I’m not surprised.
I’d encourage you to read them though; the furs thing is explained in pretty good detail, as is an attempted cash bribe, and why the sanctions were eventually lifted. You might want to do a little research on the Surkis brothers as well instead of deflecting to Laporta.
Don’t worry; you don’t have to admit you prejudged the entire thing. It’ll be our little secret.
I know that its easier for you to ignore at least three concrete arguments I made, unlike replying to them. Its not the first time so Im not surprised.
Also Im not surprised that you have fallen into my trap, once more. You see, since laporta and this Igor guy are two peas in a pod an intellectually honest person wouldnt have such a discrepancy in principles when it comes to them. While youre a priori clearing ol’ laporta youre not giving the benefit of the doubt to Igor, instead you insist that he is not a choir boy. An amusing little experiment and let me give you a hint: everything you say about Igor you inadvertly mean about laporta.
I conclude this fun little experiment in human psychology by demonstrating how principles can change when a certain narrative is pursuited.
Dont worry, this will also be our little secret.
Instead of replying to them* autocorrect.
Yet again, a biased source of information I’d not considered credible, anywhere. He could have pretty much written anything. Since you werent careful or informed enough about the factual state of matters in war and seceded republics you managed to yet again embarrass yourself.
Still haven’t read them, have you?
We’re done here, lol.
Ahaha I love when a quality argument leaves em speechless, dazed and confused while repeating same stuff and igonring whats being written to them.
Remember, a intellectually honest person wouldnt have two different principles on same matter.
Untill next time, love to school you 7 days / week and twice on sundays.
Easy.