From Khulna's Dirt Pitches to Barcelona's Stage of Supremacy: Excavating the Layers of the Referee Controversy

Just as the children of Khulna's dirt pitches were playing with that old, tattered football, the news of the referee appointment for El Clasico at Barcelona's Camp Nou broke. Hearing this, I felt as if I was standing between two worlds—the soil of one hadn't dried yet, while the grass of the other was already soaked in political poison. On October 25, in La Liga's Round 10, Barcelona and Real Madrid are set to meet. The story that is now most discussed around this match is not about Messi or Ronaldo, not about football—it is about the appointment of referee Hernandez Hernandez. And the 'campaign' launched by Madrid-aligned broadcaster against that appointment is not just match news; it is a layer of Spanish football's governance that I have been watching closely for a long time.

Since 2026, I have dived deep into this football economy. I saw how analyzing a 16-year-old boy's YouTube tape can determine a player's future—the story of Rakib Hossain still shines in my memory. Again, in the 2026 Russia World Cup, watching the warm-up rhythm of young substitutes on the bench, I understood that process is everything. So this referee controversy doesn't stop me; it beckons me—because it too is a process, a governance process that sometimes has more impact than the football on the pitch.

The core structure of the event needs to be understood. According to the Goal.com report, referee Hernandez Hernandez has been appointed for El Clasico. The news was first published by Roberto Gomez, a journalist on Marca Radio's 'La Tribu' show. But immediately after carrying out his duty as a journalist, the show's presenter Raul Varela directly reacted—'Well, that's bad news.' This reaction is not just a moment's, it indicates that the broadcaster has already formed an attitude against the referee. Varela clearly stated, 'I don't like him as a referee... I prefer Martinez Munuera or De Burgos Bengoetxea.' This statement makes it clear that this is not neutral analysis; it is a politics of taste.

I have seen for many years that this kind of 'campaign' around referee appointments in Spanish football is nothing new. It returns cyclically—an appointment is announced, Madrid-leaning media believes it is discrimination against their team, then a 'campaign' begins. And the goal of that campaign is to change the referee appointment. But the use of the word 'campaign' is notable. The report states, 'Now the campaign to prevent that begins.' Notice closely—'to prevent that' here implies that the broadcaster believes its opinion can change the appointment. This belief is dangerous for governance.

Before going into the main analysis, one thing needs to be clarified. There is no tactical analysis, no financial information, no squad-building strategy in this report. It is entirely a matter of governance and media narrative. But this is where the biggest truth lies—how a referee appointment before the biggest match in football becomes a socio-political event is the center of this report. I have said many times, 'I do not chase highlights; I sift through the dirt for a heartbeat.' Here that heartbeat is the broadcaster's attitude toward the referee, which creates an environment before the match on the pitch.

Two layers are clearly visible in this appointment controversy. The first layer is the inner layer of the media. Roberto Gomez is a journalist—he provides information. Raul Varela is an opinion-maker—he provides reaction. But these two roles are working together on the same show. When Gomez announces the referee's name, Varela immediately marks it as 'bad news.' Gomez's retort—'You've just ruined it'—reveals that information and opinion blend together. This blending is a threat to neutral journalism, because the audience can no longer distinguish what is information and what is opinion.

The second layer is the governance layer. The Spanish Football Federation's Refereeing Technical Committee (CTA) makes this appointment. But the report directly states, 'the appointment could change because of the broadcaster's opinion.' This sentence is extremely important. It indicates that the governance body may be susceptible to external pressure. If this is true, then the independence of Spanish football refereeing is questioned. Because if appointments change based on public opinion, referees will no longer be able to decide independently—they will remember that media exists against and for them.

Varela's proposing alternative referees Martinez Munuera and De Burgos Bengoetxea is a 'soft lobbying.' The purpose of this lobbying is a direct change of appointment, but it is said indirectly. I have seen this tactic in the transfer market too—clubs don't directly ask for a manager, but spread rumors in the media so that the manager leaves on his own. Similarly, Varela's statement can affect the referee's morale. If the referee knows he is being called 'bad' and that a pre-match campaign is running against him, his decision-making ability can be affected. This effect is not transient; it becomes a part of his career.

Another aspect of this process is referee welfare. I always think about player welfare, but referees are also human. In the 2026 Russia World Cup, I saw how young players feel pressure while sitting on the bench. Referees are under even more pressure, because their every decision is at the center of millions of people's emotions. This pre-match campaign is harmful to the referee's mental health. The Spanish Federation should stand by the referee and clearly state that the appointment will not change. But no such defense is seen in the report. This silence is even more concerning.

In my experience, I have seen that when an infrastructure comes under external pressure, the quality of decision-making decreases. In 2026, during the pandemic in Khulna, I used to call 28 players; two nearly quit. They said no academy valued them. I drove 60 kilometers to their homes just to convince them that they had value. This experience taught me that the process of valuing never ends. In Spanish football too, referees must be valued—their morale must be protected, their independence ensured.

Now let's come to the contrarian angle. It is generally assumed that media pressure only affects the match environment. But I think its impact is deeper. If the media succeeds in changing the referee appointment, it will set a precedent. In the future, before every big match, clubs will start asking for their preferred referee. This process will gradually destroy refereeing professionalism. I have been watching this football economy for 38 years, and I know that when the independence of a profession is destroyed, its quality also declines.

But I have another observation, which is usually overlooked. This criticism is completely unsubstantiated. There is no information in the report about any wrong decision by the referee, only Varela's likes and dislikes. 'I don't like him'—this is not a basis. But the problem is, this unsubstantiated criticism affects the audience's mind. As a result, if there is a controversial decision in the match, that decision will be shown in the light of Varela's pre-match statement. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I say, 'The bench in Russia taught me more than any starting eleven ever could.' Here the bench is that layer, from which this process can be seen—the triangle of media, referee, and governance.

Another important aspect is the role of the media. Goal.com's headline 'Madrid media launches a campaign against the referee'—this headline is a tactical intervention. The headline says 'Madrid media,' which means the author has identified this campaign as a Madrid act. But Goal.com has positioned itself as a neutral observer. I have seen this tactic many times—a platform reports news, but hides its own position in the headline. As a result, the reader does not know how neutral this report actually is.

My experience says this kind of referee controversy in Spanish football is like a seasonal cycle. And this seasonal cycle has a specific pattern. First an appointment is announced, then a media campaign, then mental pressure on the referee before the match, then a controversial decision in the match, then post-match controversy. I saw this pattern in the 2026 Qatar World Cup too, although there was less referee controversy there, the pressure on young players like Pedri was different. I learned there that pressure management is a skill. Pedri knew how to receive the ball under pressure. But do referees receive that pressure management training? Usually not.

Final observation—in the context of this event, I can see a bigger picture. This kind of 'campaign' around referee appointments in Spanish football is not just an event, it is a cultural trend. This trend indicates that trust in referees in Spanish football is decreasing. After the Negreira case, this trust crisis has deepened further. Now every controversial decision deepens this crisis further. In this situation, the Spanish Federation should take strict measures to protect referee independence. But there is no indication of such an initiative in the report. Rather, it is said, 'the appointment could change.' If this sentence is true, then Spanish football is walking a dangerous path.

I say, 'Every young player is a site, not a product; you excavate with patience.' This principle applies not only to players but also to referees. Referees are also professionals; they too need patience and respect. If we apply political pressure on them, the beauty of football itself will be damaged.

The October 25 match is not a one-day game; it is part of a long-term process. This process must be evaluated not by results, but by the integrity of governance. If the referee appointment changes, it will be a black day for Spanish football. If the appointment does not change, then whatever the match result, the governance will gain trust. But if there is a controversial decision in the match, the responsibility for that controversy is not only the referee's, but also the governance body's.

My final assessment is that this controversy is essentially a governance crisis, not a match crisis. Spanish football now stands at a crossroads. On one side is the growing power of the media, on the other is the declining value of referee independence. Balancing these two is difficult, but not impossible. The path is transparency—making the referee appointment process public, evaluating referee performance, and making media criticism evidence-based. But to walk this path, the Federation must show political will.

I have been diving under the soil of Bengali football for 38 years; I have seen that process has the final word. From the fields of Dhanmondi to Camp Nou, at every layer, the integrity of the process keeps football alive. If Spanish football loses that integrity, then El Clasico will become just a commercial product. But if the Federation protects its referees, this match will remain an example of football's beauty.

Children are still playing on the dirt pitches of Khulna. They don't know how much politics their beloved game is subjected to at Barcelona's grand stadium. I say, 'An empty stadium is not silence; it is a promise waiting for footsteps.' Those footsteps will come only if we keep the system accountable. The October 25 match is not just a match; it is a test—a test of Spanish football's governance. The question is, how many marks will Spanish football get in this test?