What Just Happened? | The Polpeo Podcast

Spanish Football Scandal transcript

Introduction

This is “What Just Happened?,” the podcast that looks at the biggest brand crises of our time, what they meant for organisational strategy and behaviour, and their lasting impact on our approach to crisis communication.

I’m Kate Hartley. And I’m Tamara Littleton. And together, we’ll delve into what happened, why it mattered, and whether it could happen again.

Episode

Tamara Littleton: Today we’re talking about an event that was seen by millions of people on live television. It triggered a massive backlash against sexism in sport and sparked a major debate about consent.

Kate Hartley: So today we’re talking, of course, about Luis Rubiales, who is the former boss of the Spanish Football Federation. He was found guilty of sexual assault after he kissed World Cup winner Jenny Hermoso on the lips after Spain won the Women’s World Cup on 20th August 2023 in Australia.

TL: I remember watching that game and the celebration afterwards, and feeling really uncomfortable at the time when I saw the kiss. He had his hands on both sides of her head and kissed her full on the mouth.

KH: It was really, really uncomfortable to watch, wasn’t it? And later, he said that he’d asked her permission and that she’d said yes, but she said in a statement on social media that wasn’t true, and that the kiss was not consensual. There’s also a video that went out on Instagram Live right after the kiss, where the team’s celebrating the win, and somebody said, “He kissed you,” and she said, “I didn’t like it,” twice.

TL: This was part of a much bigger issue and conversation about women’s rights in general, wasn’t it, and particularly in Spanish women’s football.

KH: It was just amazing to see how the women stuck together on this. So, 81 players said they wouldn’t play for Spain’s women’s team until Rubiales was removed from his post, which I think was really amazing. What I think is really interesting is that right after it happened, literally the day after, on the 21st of August, Rubiales apologised – or sort of apologised.

TL: I mean, yeah, “sort of” is the key here, because that was a pretty inadequate apology. It was terrible. He didn’t really say sorry to her – more saying sorry for other people not understanding what had happened.

KH: Yeah, it was really bad. He basically said in a video on social media that this was the greatest day in Spanish women’s football – which, you know, it was amazing – and that this had somewhat tarnished the celebration. And of course, this is a translation, but he said he somewhat regretted it and that he had a magnificent relationship with Hermoso, and it was all done without any intention in a moment of celebration, basically, is what he was saying.

So he then said he didn’t understand the controversy. He said, “We saw it as something natural and normal, but outside it seems there’s been a cohesion.” Then the actual apology bit sounded something like this – again, this is a translation – but he said something along the lines of, “If there are people who have felt damaged by this, I have to apologise. I have no other choice.” And also, “I can learn from this – that when you are the president of an important institution as the Federation, in ceremonies of this type, you need to be more careful.” Now, that’s a rough translation, and my Spanish isn’t perfect, but you get the idea. And there are a lot of caveats in that sentence, aren’t there? A lot of kind of “ifs” – if people have been damaged, if you’re in a job that’s important – it’s not great.

TL: And it’s a good job that we’re on audio only, so you’re not going to see my massive eye roll. But there are a couple of things here that I think are really interesting. There’s a bit of “here it’s okay – it’s everyone else outside that thinks it’s a problem,” first of all. And then, “when you’re in a position like this, you need to be careful.” He doesn’t say anything about consent, or that you need to respect the wishes of players or women more generally, but just focuses on taking care when representing the Federation. It’s very obvious to me that he didn’t think it was a problem.

KH: I totally agree with you, and his demeanour in that video was pretty nonsense. I thought he was almost shrugging it off, and there were times when he was almost smiling about it. It’s like this really isn’t an issue. But then you fast forward a few days, and there’s a video online of him addressing the General Assembly of Spain’s Football Federation after there had been calls for him to resign, which had happened pretty much straight away.

There was a big kind of outrage on social media, and his demeanour had completely changed from that initial video. He talks about the fact that he’s done the best job for Spanish football and he asks, “Is this issue so serious that people think I should resign?” And there’s a really, really deeply uncomfortable moment – at least for me – where he shouts, “I will not resign,” over and over again. He says it five times in total. And if you look at that video, all the men in the room are clapping, and the women are mostly staying very, very still. It’s really uncomfortable to watch.

TL: So uncomfortable to watch. Yeah, it’s horrible.

KH: In that speech to the Federation, he said that Hermoso lifted him up and held his hips, and when she put him on the floor, they hugged. He says he asked her for a kiss, and she said yes. He then goes on – and this is really interesting and we’ll maybe come on to this – but he talks about false feminism, which he describes as a great scourge in our country. So he’s painting himself as the victim of a social assassination – which are the words that he used. I think that’s really interesting, because he’s almost been entrenched in his view by that backlash against him.

TL: And the kiss wasn’t the only controversy, though, was it? I remember seeing pictures on social media that showed Rubiales grabbing his crotch as he celebrated the win. Nice. And that’s, yeah, very Michael Jackson-esque, and that’s bad enough on its own. Also, a lot of people on social media pointed out that he was in the VIP area with the Spanish royal family. He was standing next to the Queen and near her 16-year-old daughter, and people quite rightly said that it was disrespectful.

KH: Yeah, and again, he apologised for doing that in front of the Queen and her daughter – although I completely agree that’s not exactly the only problem here. But he also lifted one of the other players over his shoulder after the game was over, which was, I think, pretty inappropriate. There were some other allegations against him as well, of harassment. This wasn’t the first time he’d been accused of it.

He’d been accused by a former colleague of asking her about the colour of her underwear, for example, and also joking – again, my eye roll, you can’t see – joking in the loosest sense of the word about wearing knee pads in meetings. So, pretty dodgy stuff.

TL: And it does now start to look less like an impetuous moment of madness – which is how some people tried to frame it – and more like a trend.

KH: I think that’s really, really important, because I know at the time there were a lot of people who – particularly, probably our generation and above – maybe said, “Oh, come on. It was just a kiss. It was a celebration. It was just a moment of not thinking.” But the point is here, it was non-consensual, and it followed a pattern of behaviour and a culture that was absolutely rife in the game.

Now, the good thing, I think, is that FIFA – who I don’t think necessarily are known for being really good about this stuff – did see pretty quickly the direction that things were going. On the 26th of August, so just a few days later, Rubiales was suspended by FIFA – the body that governs world football. But the Spanish Federation was still saying he’d done nothing wrong.

They were even saying they would take legal action against Jenny Hermoso or – and this is again a quote from them – “anyone spreading lies on her behalf.” They said categorically, “Mr President has not lied.” But there were calls for him to resign from all areas of sport, including the Spanish men’s team, which I think is great. The Spanish government also got involved.

There was a quote from the acting Labour Minister, Yolanda Díaz, who said on social media, “We stand with you, Jenny, and all women.” And I think that’s the crux of it. This became a case for all women. It became Spanish football’s Me Too moment.

TL: And other things came out too, didn’t they? Jorge Vilda, who was the Spanish head coach, was accused of inappropriately touching a colleague. It was very telling, I thought – and again, I remember this at the time – that the team ignored him when he went onto the pitch after they’d won. You’d think he’d be celebrating with them.

KH: I remember being really struck by that as well – that the natural thing would have been to go straight in and celebrate with your team, and that really didn’t happen. Again, I think this is part of a bigger picture. There’d been lots of complaints about the culture that he’d created – that he was very controlling, and he was doing things like not allowing players to shut the doors of their rooms until he checked in on them at night. Some really strange things.

To the point where a number of players refused to play under his leadership and complained to the Spanish FA about him.

TL: Now that’s a huge thing – to turn down the opportunity to play for your country in order to make a stand against someone is very brave. It kind of completely goes against your instinct to want to represent your country.

KH: It really does, doesn’t it? It’s incredibly brave, I think. And ultimately, it worked. Vilda was also fired on 5th September – although I think he was fired as part of restructuring. But this was a really, really important moment for Spanish football.

Tamara, you mentioned earlier, players were boycotting the game until there were changes made – and those changes really were made. The Federation sacked the Secretary General and a number of senior officials as well, some of whom had actually been named by the players.

But until absolutely the last minute, the Spanish Federation was fighting. They were threatening players with fines for the boycott, and the Spanish government had to step in, saying players who still refused their call-ups wouldn’t face repercussions. But eventually, the Federation had no choice, and they had to backtrack.

They said in a statement that they were aiming to create a safe, professional environment for players, and that they would support players. They also apologised to players for the enormous damage caused by Rubiales, which they said was completely unacceptable. The Federation also said they’d take down their original statement that accused Hermoso of lying and of defamation.

TL: It sounds a bit like the Harrods case we talked about recently with Anne-Marie Blake. So the Federation is trying to distance itself now from Rubiales and not focus on the culture that allowed that behaviour to happen – and even supported it.

KH: Yeah, I think that’s exactly what they’re doing. But then on the 6th of September, Jenny Hermoso did something that, again, I think is incredibly brave. She filed a legal complaint, and two days later, that complaint was filed in the high court against Rubiales for sexual assault and coercion. Three weeks after the World Cup, on 10th September, he eventually resigned, and he showed absolutely no contrition for what happened.

In an interview with Piers Morgan – interesting choice – he talked about how he needed to walk away with dignity and not damage those around him, nor the sport he loves. Nothing at all about the fact that he has damaged those around him and the sport he loves. In October, FIFA banned him from all football-related activity for three years, which I guess probably effectively ends his football career. In court, Jenny Hermoso said – and there’s a quote from her – “I think it was a moment that tainted one of the happiest days of my life.” She went on to say, “For me, it is very important to say that at no time did I seek that act and much less expect it.” She said, “My boss was kissing me, and this shouldn’t happen in any social or work setting.”

TL: That’s really critical, isn’t it? It’s the balance of power here. By bringing it back to work language – talking about her boss – perhaps she helps draw those lines for others who did see it as part of a post-sport celebration. I think that wording really matters. I’ve got so much respect for her bravery.

KH: I totally agree. I do think that wording really matters as well. It’s not acceptable in any situation for your boss to behave like that. It’s not acceptable for anybody – but particularly not, as you say, with that balance of power.

As we now know, of course, Rubiales was found guilty of sexual assault. He was fined 10,800 euros – around £9,000 – and told to give Hermoso 3,000 euros. He was also banned from contacting her for a year or even going within a 200-metre radius of her. Now, obviously the amount of the fine is not a lot. To put it into context, he’s estimated to earn around 675,000 euros a year – so that’s about 1.5% of his salary. But the verdict itself is actually, I think, what really matters here.

TL: Yeah. I’m sure he’ll make lots of money going on chat shows with Piers Morgan, maybe.

KH: But it is so sad that this should have been such an amazing moment for her and for the team, and it’s been overshadowed by this assault. Hermoso faced scrutiny and criticism for nearly two years, with people saying that she shouldn’t have brought the case. People around her have said it has had a huge emotional impact on her.

KH: It’s such a familiar story, isn’t it? Sadly, we know that women just are not taken seriously when they report this stuff. Much was made of the fact that, because it was beamed around the world – because people actually saw the kiss and saw what happened – that’s potentially the only reason that this was taken seriously. There was such a backlash against his assault of her because it was so public.

But the fact that she eventually was taken seriously – by the courts, by the Spanish government, by FIFA and by the Spanish men’s team as well – gives me hope. I think things are changing, slowly. There were some amazing things to come from it. I think there was a huge conversation around consent, and there was also the renaming of the national team, which I thought was really interesting.

Previously, the men’s team had been called the Spanish national football team, and the women’s team was the Spanish women’s national football team. Now they’re both the national football team. So again, it’s kind of sparked this conversation about equality in sport.

TL: Well, there’s so much more that we can go into here, and to do that, we’re going to be talking to our guest, Emma Woollcott, who will join us after this short break.

Break

TL: We’re joined by Emma Woollcott, partner at Mishcon de Reya and the head of the Reputation Protection and Crisis Management Group. Thank you for joining us, Emma. I already know that you’re going to have a lot of opinions on this crisis, so I’m going to kick-start – if this is okay – by asking: what is your view on how this changed the conversation around consent?

Emma Woollcott: Hello, thank you so much for having me. It’s a real pleasure. Yes, I don’t know that this example changed the conversation around consent, because actually it was quite clear for most people watching the video that she didn’t consent. It was quite odd that he claimed that she did.

I think it was clear to many people that it was a non-consensual advance. What perhaps kept the conversation running was: what does that mean? What does that mean in criminal law – to be forcibly kissed on the mouth? What offence is committed, and how should Rubiales, the criminal law, and the club and the FA have reacted?

KH: I just want to lead on from that, because this might sound like an odd question, but can we talk about what the legal position is in terms of what is and isn’t okay? I mean, I think – hopefully – we would instinctively know what that is. But my feeling is that this exposed a bit of a split in understanding about what constitutes assault, and whether that split was along gender lines or possibly age.

There were a lot of people going, “Oh, it’s a fuss about nothing,” or, “Does it matter?” Those are the kind of conversations I certainly heard being had, and I think it would be really interesting to hear your view on that – on what is legally acceptable, what isn’t, and whether people generally understand where that line is drawn.

EW: To answer the last point first – it’s clear from the debate that surrounded it that those sorts of acts, non-consensual advances, are unclear in criminal law and in public perception as to where the line’s drawn and what’s actionable. But the criminal court – the criminal system in Spain – convicted him. It was clearly a crime committed.

What I think is really interesting is I suspect that if Rubiales had acted differently, she would never have brought that complaint. These sorts of non-consensual advances sometimes can be a result of people misreading the situation or acting impulsively, but the police don’t tend to take action unless there’s a complainant. I suspect that this victim felt so aggrieved by how he reacted to the situation that that played a huge part in what motivated her to push forward with the complaint and support a conviction.

KH: I think that’s such an important point, because I think when she said afterwards, “This would not be okay in any workplace,” that was a really hard-hitting thing, wasn’t it? Because you think, actually – this is a workplace for her, and he was her boss. As you said, that’s a huge abuse of power.

In that way, it suddenly became very, very clear. The point you make about impulsiveness was sort of his argument, wasn’t it – that this was an impulsive moment, he just acted on the spur of the moment. And actually, that’s not okay.

EW: It’s really not. What’s very interesting is that a lot of his reaction afterwards was about being forced to apologise because of his position. I think leaders and businesses have to take very seriously and understand that dynamic in the workplace – that position of power and authority over others – it has to be very carefully used, and there’s a lot of scrutiny over it.

The Financial Conduct Authority – the regulator for financial services – has spent a lot of focus on increasing individual and firm accountability, and putting an active duty on businesses to create cultures which minimise abuse of power. Unfortunately, I’ve spent a lot of the past several years dealing with allegations of and investigations into what we call “non-financial misconduct” – allegations of this nature within workplaces.

There’s a real need for businesses to learn the lessons from these situations, to know that not only are they understanding what information is coming from their workforce – knowing how employees feel about management – but also that if something like this bubbled up, there wouldn’t be this undercurrent of frustration and dissatisfaction, and there wouldn’t be several other examples that come afterwards.

One of the things that struck me from the Rubiales case – to use a kind of football metaphor – is that he had a huge own goal. He had an opportunity in the moment to apologise and be really contrite, and because he refused to do that – refused to say, “I got carried away, that wasn’t okay, I’m sorry” – he opened the door to other complaints.

Journalists kept digging. There was the social media swirl. Ultimately, I think that led to the criminal complaint and him being fired. If he had reacted better, quicker, and apologised sooner – and meant it – a lot of that might have been avoided. I suspect it wouldn’t have made the headlines it did or had the consequences it did.

One of the biggest problems he had was that room of men clapping when he said, “I will not resign.” They were all of the same mind. They all wanted to dismiss it. No one was there holding a mirror up to him, saying, “If you actually take the temperature here and listen properly, there is a lot of sexism and there are a lot of issues with the culture you’ve overseen.” And because no one said that, he didn’t make the decision in the moment to apologise and hopefully move on in a more constructive way.

TL: And let’s just stay on the concept of risk and maybe think about other companies, because how do you spot this as a risk? You were talking about culture, but how do you spot it? Because what we saw here was a pattern of behaviour by an individual.

Can companies truly prepare for their leaders going rogue? For example, I’m trying to imagine a conversation where the internal team, or a legal team, would talk to the CEO about crisis preparation in case they sexually harass someone. So how do you actually advise clients on being prepared for leaders going rogue?

EW: I think it’s difficult to prepare for people going rogue. But perhaps this isn’t someone going rogue – this was an example of someone behaving as they had always behaved. It was an exaggerated example, but it wasn’t new. On the same day, wasn’t he seen rubbing his crotch or something?

It wasn’t rogue behaviour for him. It was accepted, tolerated behaviour. And I think that is something you can spot and prepare for. So often, when we’re talking to clients about reputational resilience, we do talk about culture and the way that challenge is made, and the opportunities they create for honest feedback.

Here’s a massive shout out to internal comms – and the connectivity between HR, executives, and the board is super important. Businesses need to know that they are getting data and information from their organisations – that they’re regularly doing engagement surveys or taking the temperature of how people feel – and that they’re listening to and responding to that.

Because if they don’t do that, they lack the information they need to make good decisions. Part of making those decisions is to know whether something is rogue behaviour, the tip of an iceberg, or symptomatic of a wider issue. Often, if you have good information flows between people teams, comms teams, and executives, they’re alert to the right amount of information.

We’ve had examples of executives who have been very affronted and surprised when they’ve received feedback that their manner is not what they expected, or that they’re perceived as oppressive or even a bit pervy. When you dig deeper, there have often been investigations and complaints that have been managed by HR but haven’t really bubbled up into their consciousness.

So actually, I think it’s really important for leaders to ask for, accept, and listen to feedback – so they’re not starved of the information they need to truly understand how they’re perceived – and to be able to reflect on that and change their behaviour.

KH: It’s kind of sad in a way, isn’t it, that we need that clarity for people – but we really do. There is probably a generation of people who think, “Well, this is how we’ve always done things.”

We’re all of a generation where we put up with things that we absolutely wouldn’t expect people to put up with now – which is obviously a good thing, in terms of change. But we do need that clarity. We need people to say, “This is acceptable, this isn’t.”

We say that a lot in crisis training, don’t we, Tamara – that giving people guidelines alone isn’t enough. You need examples of what’s okay and what isn’t, so that you can teach people until it becomes so embedded that they instinctively know what’s okay and what isn’t.

EW: And you need to listen to different perspectives. There’s an example that we use in my team quite a lot – and the female lawyer who was in this story hates me telling it – but I think it’s a really important one.

I was on a Teams call with a senior male executive who was answering questions about having put his hand on the back of a young female colleague’s neck. My colleague flinched – she’s in her early 20s.

KH: She flinched – well, we both flinched. Yeah, it’s such an intimate thing. The neck is such an intimate area.

EW: Exactly. It’s an intimate place. I’m slightly more weathered to these things, and I didn’t flinch, but the client saw the young woman flinch and said, “What was that? Let’s talk about that.”

Rather embarrassingly for her, he said, “Well, what was going on there?” And she said, “Well no, that’s an intimate thing. That’s not a casual touch. I’m not a man you’re playing sport with that you can tap on the shoulder. Touching my neck is really quite intimate and intrusive.”

She said, “I’ll offer you my hand to meet in a business environment – you can shake that. But don’t touch any other part of my body.” He looked genuinely shocked. I think he had been non-consensually touching people’s necks for years and none of them had flinched or told him not to.

So he wasn’t aware that time had moved on. That was his blind spot. It was a surprising example, but unless you’re seeing the reactions of people with different perspectives – if you’re only surrounded by people who have the same mentality as you – you’re never going to get that flinch. You’re never going to get that moment of reflection.

TL: Yeah, it’s an ongoing conversation. And I think it’s also really important that this is included in the risk register as well. I’m so pleased to hear you talk about culture and how that really matters, because I know that in a previous episode, when we were talking about the Harrods crisis, it all came back to culture there as well.

So it kind of does make me happy that companies are really looking at culture as a key area to avoid these kinds of crises. And obviously, people need to constantly learn and educate themselves as well.

Outro

You’ve been listening to “What Just Happened?” with Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton. If you enjoyed the podcast, please subscribe, rate, and review.