The Ministry of Justice must decide whether to appoint overseers; the AFA seeks to shield itself with the Buenos Aires resolution; and the government of Kicillof, which has so far avoided giving public explanations, has been left at the center of a question that will not go away by itself: why did it decide to allow a change of address despite the rejection of the IGJ, and why did it do so precisely when the accounting and financial investigation was starting to tighten? The question, which is already circulating through courts and the public sphere, is as simple as it is uncomfortable: why did they do it and why with such urgency, precisely when the IGJ was stepping on the gas with a request for official overseers? In recent hours, the IGJ requested the Ministry of Justice of the Nation to appoint overseers in the AFA “due to the seriousness of the irregularities,” as communicated by the ministry itself. This institutional link, added to the decision of the Provincial Directorate of Legal Entities, casts a shadow that the Buenos Aires political scene has not been able to dispel: the idea that the governor not only supports, but protects the leadership of the AFA at its most vulnerable moment of public exposure. The case that the IGJ is trying to audit does not revolve around a mere administrative formality. In this context, the request for overseers is not decorative: it is a control step that usually anticipates deeper measures, from severe warnings to potential legal actions if non-compliance is verified. That is why the Buenos Aires move is interpreted as an attempt to halt —or at least delay— the progress of an investigation that is already touching on sensitive issues such as possible money laundering and opaque financing circuits. At the national level, the government downplayed the scope of the move and assured that “nothing changes”: that the planned steps continue and that the final decision on overseers is in the hands of the Ministry of Justice. No one can yet say what the overseers will conclude because they have not even been appointed, but the heart of the matter is different: the political timing of the decision and the direct benefit that the AFA leadership receives in the midst of questioning. In practice, the conflict opens a fight of jurisdictions: who controls whom and from where. The measure was publicly celebrated by lawyer Gregorio Dalbón, representative of Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia, and appears as a direct move to halt —or at least block— the progress of the control body over the books, balances, and related entities. The political fact is inevitable: by endorsing the change of address under these conditions, Kicillof fully enters a high-voltage investigation involving the AFA leadership, Tapia, the treasurer Pablo Toviggino, and a web under suspicion that includes alleged diversions of money to commercial companies, evasion complaints, and maneuvers to move cases to more friendly jurisdictions and courts. The objective of the overseers, as reported, is to review accounting and financial statements closed as of June 30, 2025, access corporate documentation, and reconstruct the flow of funds and the logic of internal administrative decisions, with special interest in societies and structures linked to the entity's operations. In this context, the Buenos Aires decision was read as a “firewall”: the Provincial Directorate of Legal Entities of the Province of Buenos Aires ratified the move and argued that by changing jurisdiction, the IGJ would no longer have competence to oversee. In other words: for the IGJ, there was no real move; it was a “paper” change of address, designed to get out of the radar of the national-port control and relocate under Buenos Aires oversight. The controversy becomes even more delicate as it crosses the power map: Kicillof keeps Tapia at the head of CEAMSE, a strategic fund for its metropolitan role and its political weight. The request came after the entity failed to submit the requested documentary expansion. Buenos Aires - February 25, 2026 - Total News Agency - TNA - In an administrative decision that fell like a bomb in the world of football and in judicial offices, the government of Axel Kicillof accepted the transfer of the AFA's address to the Province of Buenos Aires, despite the Inspection General of Justice (IGJ) having rejected that move, considering it “fictitious” and understanding that there was no real transfer of headquarters, but an attempt to change jurisdiction. The body explained that it verified the place where the AFA said it was moving, in the district of Pilar, and concluded that there were no offices or operating facilities there. In the ruling party, they even suggest that the provincial procedure was “rushed” with a single objective: to judicialize the discussion and seek that the case be moved to another sphere, such as the Civil Chamber, to discuss jurisdictions before content. The temporal sequence feeds that suspicion. This is added to an investigation into a mansion in Pilar linked to the treasurer Toviggino, complaints for alleged irregularities with contributions, and a climate of growing suspicion about the management of resources in the mother entity of Argentine football. The investigation points to the existence of commercial companies and structures that, according to presentations and journalistic reports, could have been used to divert funds. And if the State —at any of its levels— is acting to guarantee transparency or to put up obstacles. What remains, at this point, is a scenario of maximum tension. But behind this technical debate lies the underlying problem: whether the AFA has something to hide or not. This gap strengthens the reading that a quick reaction was sought, like moving a piece before the control order falls on the table. It is no small detail that the attempt to move had already been rejected by the IGJ last week. According to official reconstructions, the provincial resolution would have been signed in the middle of the afternoon, while the IGJ had already notified the AFA a few hours earlier.
