A survey by the consulting firm Giacobbe shook the world of Argentine football and set off alarms in the leadership of the Argentine Football Association (AFA). According to the study, 65.8% of Argentines consider that “there is a lot of corruption” in national football and associate that perception directly with the figure of its president, Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia.
The survey, carried out between November 27 and 30 on a representative sample of the entire country, reveals not only a strong social distrust towards the most popular sports institutions, but also a broad consensus on the existence of irregular practices. In fact, when adding those who believe that “there is a little corruption” (18.6%), the rejection reaches 84.4% of those consulted. Only 8.4% consider that there is no corruption in Argentine football, while 7.3% responded that they do not know or preferred not to answer.
For the majority of those surveyed, the problem is not limited to a diffuse perception. A significant percentage uses terms such as “mafioso”, “scoundrel” and “corrupt” to describe what they consider to be common practices within football and, in particular, in Tapia’s management as head of the AFA. These epithets, which circulate strongly on social networks and were amplified by different media, express a climate that exceeds sports and is established in the field of public trust.
The context reinforces that critical view. In recent weeks, the AFA came under judicial scrutiny after investigations and raids for alleged economic irregularities and links with financial companies investigated for money laundering. This scenario enhanced social unrest and consolidated a negative perception that Giacobbe’s survey makes evident.
The figures place Argentine football at the center of a broader debate on institutional transparency. That almost seven out of ten Argentines believe that there is “a lot of corruption” and that more than eight out of ten detect some level of irregularity marks a level of distrust that even exceeds that of other public institutions.
In this framework, Tapia faces one of the most delicate moments of his administration. His critics point out that his prolonged stay at the head of the AFA, with successive re-elections since 2017, coincides with an increase in arbitration controversies, questioned institutional decisions and now a social perception that places him at the epicenter of discredit.
The survey also arrives at a sensitive time: less than a year before the 2026 World Cup, when attention will be focused on the National Team, tensions between the football leadership, the clubs and Justice seem to intensify. The distrust measured by Giacobbe leaves an uncomfortable question floating for the AFA: whether it will be able to regain credibility or whether these figures mark a breaking point in the relationship between Argentine football and society.
