Villas-Boas on the derby: “Miguel Nogueira, a ‘priest’ not a ref” | OneFootball

André Villas-Boas, president of FC Porto, returned to the clássico against Benfica in an editorial published in Dragões magazine. He defended Miguel Nogueira’s refereeing, criticized the media coverage of the match, and challenged reports linking the club to the recent refereeing scandal, declaring: “Have some decency!”

In a text marked by irony and confrontation, André Villas-Boas reaffirmed the position he had already taken and pointed directly at newsrooms, commentators and channels which, in his view, have abandoned rigor and impartiality. The message runs through the entire editorial: FC Porto will not accept having its institutional protest turned into suspicion.

Regarding the refereeing of the clássico, the Porto president argued that the favorable assessments of Miguel Nogueira’s work were ignored by the very media outlets that hire experts to analyze such performances.

“The management and editorial teams of the media outlets, which spend thousands of euros on refereeing experts, both domestic and foreign, decided to turn a blind eye to their opinions, unanimous in their assessment of Miguel Nogueira’s excellent refereeing in the clássico. I dare say they will all have their jobs at risk, because impartiality counts for little in this country,” he said. “Neither experts nor former referees nor UEFA guidelines will prevail over the opinions of biased newsrooms and their directors and executive editors, as well as the paraphernalia of supporters, former employees, former candidates, former players and former Benfica associates who invade opinion spaces, and who reached their peak of fanaticism in the commentator who claimed Gabri Veiga should have been sent off, reducing FC Porto to 10 players, at a moment when he was no longer even on the pitch.”

Villas-Boas then broadened his criticism to television coverage and revived his demand for a technological modernization of refereeing. It was at this point that the ironic tone carried even more weight.

“The absurd takes on new contours when suspicion also falls on Sport TV, in a league where the same club holds the broadcasting rights to its home matches and does whatever it wants with the images, overloading the ones that best suit its narrative and making those that distort it vanish, almost mysteriously. Have some decency! FC Porto has been asking for a technological revolution in refereeing for two years: better cameras, more cameras, better angles, better definition, semi-automated offside technology and goal-line technology. And everyone, without exception, looked the other way!” he continued. “To put it plainly and simply: the country was supposed to come to a halt because Benfica were going to win and nobody was going to work. For that to happen, Miguel Nogueira should have been a ‘priest,’ but he wasn’t: he was just a referee, impartial and serious, in yet another clássico in Portuguese football. But let’s look on the bright side: with FC Porto’s win, hours of live coverage and filming of the Benfica bus were lost, and thus thousands of euros were saved on gasoline, which is very expensive.”

The defense of Miguel Nogueira thus serves as a counterpoint to the narrative that the Porto president attributes to part of the media. More than discussing a single incident, Villas-Boas calls into question the way scrutiny is constructed and presented to the public.

The FC Porto president also returned to the reports that, before the clássico, presented the club as an alleged target of the Judicial Police in the refereeing scandal triggered by Duarte Gomes’s resignation. In that context, he singled out Tiago Silva’s intervention and accused CMTV of trying to turn a public disagreement into suspicion of interference.

“It is in this context that I want to single out Tiago Silva’s courage. Faced with a television approach that sought to turn FC Porto’s public and institutional indignation over an appointment into suspicion of interference, he defended the club without being intimidated by the weight of the newsroom or by the authority some believe they acquire by occupying a chair in a studio. He questioned the tickers, challenged the narrative and refused to accept that FC Porto be presented as a suspect merely for exercising the right to disagree. He did not ask for favorable treatment; he demanded that the defense of the institution not be confused with what was being insinuated against it. That forthrightness deserves recognition, especially when it would have been more convenient to bow one’s head and let the broadcast go on,” he stressed. “The day after the club’s reaction, the suspicion changed clothes. The journalist [Tânia Laranjo] acknowledged that FC Porto was not under suspicion, but, with Tiago Silva no longer in the studio and before an audience far less committed to contradicting her, she swapped ‘suspicions’ for ‘pressure,’ as if a change in vocabulary erased the message that had been conveyed. A truly prodigious investigation: when the suspect no longer fits, you change the noun. What did not change was the reality of a public position, assumed and known since January, which did not become clandestine because it received a red ticker in September.”

The criticism then moved on to the duty of accountability for those who scrutinize public institutions and figures.

“Whoever claims the authority to scrutinize others must also accept being held accountable for what they say. That same journalist recently ended a column with the maxim ‘first the facts, then the comments,’” he noted. “An excellent principle, whose application seems to have been suspended when FC Porto’s name came up. In this case, the tickers came first, then the insinuations, and only later the need to correct the story. Rigor cannot be a signature phrase that disappears when the facts ruin the narrative; it must exist precisely in the moments when it runs counter to preferences, ratings or convenience.”

Villas-Boas also found signs of what he sees as a lack of neutrality in the commentary and match calls of football and handball games.

“Worse, perhaps, is the ease with which this confusion between profession and the stands spills over into the commentary and narration of matches. In Benfica–FC Porto in handball, on RTP, we heard ‘we have four goals to make up.’ On NOW, during the football clássico, there was another display of impartiality: ‘I hope Benfica score and level the match,’” he stressed. “We were thus enlightened as to who needed to come back and who was hoping for an equalizer. It only remains to understand why people insist on presenting as neutrality something that the first-person plural and the expression of a wish make so transparent. Everyone is free to support whichever club they want; what they cannot do is demand that the public mistake that support for impartial information.”

The argument closes the circle drawn by the Porto president: he does not challenge the individual freedom to support a club, but demands that this preference not be presented as neutral information. It is on this conflict between opinion, narration and scrutiny that his broader accusation rests.

In his final message to members and supporters, Villas-Boas replaced attack with a call for unity, without abandoning his demands. The president highlighted his confidence in the team and the coach, but reminded them that this conviction does not remove the need to work and correct mistakes.

“Dear members and supporters, the best way to honor these 133 years remains to keep our feet on the ground and our focus on what is essential. We have a team we believe in, a demanding coach, talent to develop and a membership base that never leaves us alone. None of that exempts us from working harder, correcting what is wrong and remaining united when the road gets tough,” he assured. “May our culture, our desire and our hunger to win bring us many victories and the joy of answering on the field those sad souls who are more concerned with our downfall than with their own success. FC Porto will continue to grow with its city, to honor its own and to seek new achievements, because the History we celebrate does not ask us to rest: it demands continuity from us.”

After his strong criticism of the media climate, Villas-Boas brought the center of the message back to internal work and the response on the field. Continuity appears, in his words, not as resting on History, but as a permanent obligation.

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