Last weekend, at the stadium Pedro Bidegain —popularly known as the New Gasometer—, San Lorenzo de Almagro received Independiente in a decisive duel for the regular phase of the 2026 Apertura Tournament. The match, played on Saturday, May 2, ended with a 2-1 visitor victory, in a match that had direct implications in qualifying for the playoffs. The referee was Pablo Dóvalo, who led a development full of tension and controversy.
Those from Avellaneda won with goals from Abaldo and Maximiliano Gutiérrezwhile the Barça team scored but failed to reverse the result in the final minutes. The chronicles coincided in highlighting the intensity of the classic and the weight of the details in a closed procedure, which ended up leaning towards the visit in the decisive section. In parallel to the sporting development, in one of the local stands a Barça flag was observed with the inscription “Adorni Thief”in an episode that linked the political climate with the soccer scene and that was replicated on social networks and journalistic coverage of the match.
The latest journalistic and judicial investigations involving Manuel Adorni have been developing in stages and already constitute a complex public case for the government of Javier Milei. The various episodes that occurred over time and that combined criminal complaints, media revelations and official explanations are putting the libertarian administration in check, which refuses to let go of the hand of the Chief of Staff and main spokesperson for the executive management of La Libertad Avanza.
The first event that sparked the controversy was the official trip to New York in March of this year, within the framework of the “Argentina Week” event. Adorni was part of the presidential delegation that used the official plane, but controversy broke out when it was learned that his wife, Bettina Angeletti, He also traveled without holding public office. The situation led to complaints of alleged embezzlement and abuse of state resources, promoted by opposition leaders and congressional deputies.
From that first controversy, new revelations emerged that expanded the focus. Among them, the trip to Punta del Este during the Carnival holiday, made on a private plane with his family. This transfer – estimated to cost at least $10,000 – motivated another judicial complaint aimed at investigating possible illicit enrichment, since it was not clear who financed the flight.
In parallel, journalistic investigations indicated that the level of the official’s personal expenses did not seem to correspond to his declared income, which fueled suspicions about his financial situation. These revelations were quickly linked to the case of the trip to New York, setting up a pattern of questions about the use of resources and the financing of transfers.
The third axis of the scandal was centered on real estate assets. Newspaper reports indicated the existence of properties that did not appear clearly in his statements, including a home in a gated community in the name of his wife and an apartment in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Caballito. This last case generated special attention: it was reported that the property had been acquired for about $230,000 through a scheme in which the sellers themselves—two retired women—would have financed approximately $200,000 of the operation, which raised doubts about the nature of the agreement and its transparency. In addition, possible links with other real estate operations and informal loans were mentioned, which amplified suspicions about inconsistencies between declared income and assets.
The accumulation of these episodes led to a broader political and judicial scenario. Adorni was summoned to give public explanations and his situation reached Congress, where he faced questions from the opposition amid growing media pressure. The official himself denied irregularities, maintained that he had “nothing to hide” and attributed the complaints to political motivations, while Javier Milei’s government maintained its support. Even so, the case remained established as one of the main sources of institutional tension, combining open judicial investigations, requests for reports and a strong impact on the public agenda.
Image gallery
