In line with the AFA, the Liga Profesional de Fútbol responds to the IGJ | OneFootball

Through an official statement, the LPF confirmed that "all differences, doubts, or observations have been clarified" with the General Inspection of Justice and denied the reports of "irregularities in the accounting studies."

Three days after the AFA clarified that "there were no breaches" following the IGJ's reviews, the Professional Football League also issued an official statement to announce that it responded and presented all documents to the General Inspection of Justice.

"As a result of this exchange and the analysis of the submitted documentation, all concerns, views, and requirements were satisfactorily clarified in that meeting, leaving the situation clear, without the authorities making new observations or requesting additional meetings," wrote the First Division football regulatory body.

After denying the "erroneous versions," the LPF clarified that "from the beginning of the process, the Superliga was always certain that each observation made would be answered with absolute clarity and with documentary support, as happened today."

Three days after the AFA clarified that "there were no breaches" following the IGJ's reviews, the Professional Football League also issued an official statement to announce that it responded and presented all documents to the General Inspection of Justice.

"As a result of this exchange and the analysis of the submitted documentation, all concerns, views, and requirements were satisfactorily clarified in that meeting, leaving the situation clear, without the authorities making new observations or requesting additional meetings," wrote the First Division football regulatory body.

After denying the "erroneous versions," the LPF clarified that "from the beginning of the process, the Superliga was always certain that each observation made would be answered with absolute clarity and with documentary support, as happened today."

It also expressed concern about the "repeated use of media space to make serious accusations, without support in documented facts."

It also denounces that "in the political context of confrontation between the Government and the AFA, IGJ intends to abruptly reactivate those same files to use them as a tool of pressure and construct a fictitious narrative of non-compliance, thus facing an evident instrumentalization of the administrative procedure, used for purposes other than those for which it was legally conceived."

And it concludes: "There is not a single documentary record of notification of those observations that are used today to impute non-existent breaches. The law is clear and requires reliable notification, which in this case never occurred."

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇪🇸 here.