A fierce exchange on social networks exposed the tension between journalism, economic power and football, after a comment about the future of the AFA led to accusations of media operation, lack of rigor and political defense of the current leadership scheme.
An unexpected crossover on social networks once again exposed the tensions between journalism, politics and football. Journalist Marcelo Longobardi and lawyer Gregorio Dalbón, defender of Cristina Kirchner, were involved in a tough public fight after the host published a message on
In his post, Longobardi maintained that “it is very difficult for Chiqui Tapia to be in charge of the AFA when the 2026 World Cup begins” and cited Joaquín Morales Solá as one of the voices that dare to anticipate the closure of the leader’s management. In addition, he revealed that Tapia would be organizing a meeting with Donald Trump in the United States, something he considered “completely possible,” noting that the former North American president “has met with worse characters than Chiqui Tapia.”
The message had a quick impact and provoked a withering response from Gregorio Dalbón. From his personal account, Dalbón accused Longobardi of practicing “journalism without study, without data and without truth,” questioning his self-taught condition and falsely claiming that this lack of training is reflected in his way of reporting.
According to Dalbón, the journalist “amplifies a story that is not true, without checking a single source, without providing verifiable data and without explaining the real context of the AFA.” In that sense, he accused him of not reporting or analyzing, but of operating, and of applying a method that consists of simplifying other people’s operations, presenting them as inevitable and attacking those who do not align with certain economic interests.
In his defense, the lawyer emphatically defended Tapia’s management at the head of the AFA and listed the sporting achievements obtained during his mandate, such as the Copa América, the Finalísima and the World Cup. He also stated that the AFA is “organized, audited and healthy,” and maintained in an unusual way that the judicial raids did not complicate Tapia.
Dalbón went further and stated that what really generates discomfort is not the figure of Tapia himself, but the refusal of the AFA to advance in the privatization of football, the handover of the clubs and the control of television. According to his vision, by not discussing this background, Longobardi chooses to amplify “barbarities”, disguise them as analysis and speak from a supposed moral superiority that, he assured, “does not withstand a single piece of information.”
The crossing revealed a dispute that goes beyond the personal and is part of a broader discussion about the role of journalism, the economic interests around soccer and the growing politicization of the figure of Tapia. In a context of investigations, rumors and internal tensions in the AFA, the fight between Longobardi and Dalbón added a new chapter to an increasingly charged climate, where public discussion takes place both in the courts and on social networks.
