I mean, I’m not saying that there was any corruption or explicit instruction to give them a penalty, but even the minor thought that a certain club’s state-owners might pay me/hire me more often can be incredibly enticing.
I mean, I’m not saying that there was any corruption or explicit instruction to give them a penalty, but even the minor thought that a certain club’s state-owners might pay me/hire me more often can be incredibly enticing.
Looking at any one or two decisions in a vacuum is never helpful. There’s a clear conflict of interest in allowing referees to officiate games of clubs owned by the people who hire them on all-expenses paid trips to that region. At a minimum, officials wouldn’t want to risk upsetting the apple cart & losing what is a very lucrative & frequently cushy gig. At a maximum, who knows who insidious those trips can be in terms of swaying an official one way or the other in order to provide favourable outcomes?
I think anybody jumping on this with the venom & misunderstanding I’ve seen in this thread must honestly have very little experience of adult life & believe everything is separated and contextless.