Tebas: Real Madrid put harsh pressure on referees, and they did not lose the derby because of these decisions

As soon as the final whistle of the Madrid derby sounded, Spanish football no longer focused on the scoreline. All eyes turned to the referee's decisions and Real Madrid's reaction after losing to Atletico Madrid. The story quickly moved beyond one match and became a confrontation between the royal club and Spanish football's governing body, represented by La Liga president Javier Tebas. Tebas did not choose to stay silent. In comments reported by Goal.com, he insisted Real Madrid did not lose because of the referee's decisions. He said he understands the club's desire to question incidents, but he cannot accept the way the club uses its own media to pressure the officials. In his view, Real Madrid TV operates in an “unfair and harsh way to put pressure on the referee,” a heavy accusation given how sensitive Spanish football is about refereeing. The notable point is that Tebas did not defend referees in general terms. He examined specific incidents, and that gave his statement weight. The three most discussed incidents were Dean Huijsen's red card, Cristian Romero's challenge on Jude Bellingham, and Lee Kang-in's sole-of-boot challenge on Federico Valverde's ankle. For Huijsen, Tebas said it was a certain red card. For Romero, he stressed the player touched the ball first, so it was not a sending-off. For Lee Kang-in, he admitted the challenge could have been a red card depending on interpretation, but the referee and VAR let play continue. This classification reflects the modern principle referees apply: the point of contact and the follow-through matter more than the outcome. Media coverage can easily create the feeling that the referee was wrong, but when each incident is viewed according to the laws, the picture becomes clearer. From my experience following Madrid derbies over many years, I know these are matches with a high number of duels, and referees must decide in an instant. A decision being questioned does not mean it was wrong; it may simply fall inside the grey zone the laws allow. The most technically interesting incident was Lee Kang-in's challenge. When a player stamps on an opponent's ankle, many expect a red card. But VAR did not intervene, and Tebas did not treat it as a clear error. The reason lies in the “clear and obvious error” threshold used by VAR. An open incident that can be read in several ways usually does not meet that threshold. That explains why play continued without further punishment. However, Tebas's admission that it could have been a red card is the easiest point for Real Madrid's media narrative to exploit. The atmosphere around the derby became even more tense when Atletico Madrid launched a campaign called “Stop the refereeing intimidation now.” It was a direct blow to the way Real Madrid operates its own media channel. Atletico positioned itself as the clean party, standing with referees and the spirit of sport. The move was not just a message to officials; it was also a way for Atletico to claim the moral high ground in the Madrid rivalry. It showed that the fight was no longer about one match but had become an organized media battle. Real Madrid TV is a channel run by the club itself and often replays refereeing situations in a way that favours the team's complaints. Tebas referred to a previous La Liga report about the channel's content, showing the issue was already being monitored before the derby. This is an important signal: the conflict has depth and will not end soon. The contrarian view is that if you only read the headlines, it is easy to see Real Madrid as the victim of a weak referee. But when Tebas breaks down each incident, most of the club's complaints lose weight. Huijsen's red card was correct. Romero's challenge was not a red card because he touched the ball first. Only the Lee Kang-in incident was a grey area, and VAR had technical reasons for staying out. In other words, if Real Madrid wants to prove the referee stole the match, they need more than emotionally edited clips. Tebas's choice to say “I understand the complaints, but not the manner” was a smart expectation-management move. He protected the referees' image without turning La Liga into Real Madrid's enemy. But he also put himself in the position of a public adjudicator, and that can make him look biased. A league president commenting on incidents like a referee is rare and shows how intense this confrontation has become. For Real Madrid, turning a defeat into an injustice often protects squad morale after a loss. It shifts attention away from sporting shortcomings and directs it outward. But this approach has a downside. If the club continues to pressure referees through its own channel, its image will suffer. Accusations of “referee intimidation” will keep growing and could even lead to sanctions from the federation. For referees, pressure is unavoidable. A referee strongly criticized after a derby will face even closer scrutiny in the next matches. This can create excessive caution or, conversely, a determination to prove they are not influenced. Either way, the quality of officiating risks being distorted. That is the hidden cost of a prolonged media war. This story also has a deeper meaning about the relationship between big clubs and league authorities. La Liga has long faced Real Madrid's dominant power, and Tebas's public criticism shows he is willing to defend the institution. But it is a double-edged sword. On one hand, he asserts La Liga's role in protecting fairness. On the other, he risks becoming a political figure rather than a neutral administrator. In modern football, the line between league leadership and media spokesperson is very thin. The Madrid derby is never just a match. It exposes stories about power, media, and collective emotion. Real Madrid's defeat became secondary to the refereeing war. That is not good for the league, because fans want football to be decided on the pitch, not in television reports. When clubs start using media as a weapon, the credibility of the competition erodes over time. Looking ahead, this conflict is unlikely to end soon. Real Madrid will keep complaining whenever refereeing goes against them, and Tebas is not someone who backs down easily. Every club has the right to question decisions, but the way they question them is the real issue. If the club keeps using its own channel to apply systematic pressure, La Liga's response will become stronger. The Spanish Football Federation may also step in, and then the story will no longer remain at the level of statements. What concerns me most is how referees handle the psychological pressure. They must work in an environment where every challenge can be replayed hundreds of times, and every decision can become a national debate. There is no perfect formula other than following the laws and staying calm. But if media pressure becomes too great, referees may turn defensive and take fewer risks, which will change how matches are officiated. From a professional perspective, the lesson of this derby is not about who was right or wrong. It is about how we read refereeing decisions. A challenge does not always have one answer. In the grey zone of the laws, the referee must decide based on principle, and VAR only intervenes for clear errors. When the public looks only at the result, they forget the process behind it. And when a big club uses its media to shape the story, that process becomes even more distorted. Tebas may have opened a new path by calling for ethical standards. But that call only means something if everyone respects it. Real Madrid needs to look at how it delivers its message, while La Liga must ensure every intervention is based on regulation, not emotion. The derby has ended, but the refereeing war may have just begun. The real question is not whether the referee was wrong, but whether Spanish football has enough strength to escape this spiral.