The escalation of the conflict between the national government and the Argentine Football Association (AFA) entered a new chapter after the lawyer for Claudio 'Chiqui' Tapia, Gregorio Dalbon, published an extensive message on social networks questioning the origin and intent of the complaints filed against the leadership of Argentine football. Titled 'Public Data,' the lawyer focused on the whistleblowers and the role of various state actors, as reported by the Noticias Argentinas agency, amidst proceedings initiated by the General Inspection of Justice (IGJ) and presentations made to national and international bodies. In his post, the lawyer stated that Juan Facundo Del Gaiso, one of the whistleblowers against the AFA, 'has state income' and has administrative precedents linked to football, citing an official resolution. In the same vein, he mentioned Matías Yofe, attributing to him labor ties to the state and institutional meetings with officials and magistrates. Without making direct accusations, the message raised questions about the independence of those who promoted the complaints and suggested the possible existence of conflicts of interest. The text also referred to the dissemination in the media of information related to raids and judicial proceedings, noting that some of that material may come from leaks whose 'traceability and motivation deserve to be clarified.' In this context, the lawyer mentioned the Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, and the head of the Airport Security Police, Alejandro Monteoliva, alluding to the need to determine responsibilities for the circulation of sensitive information. Finally, the message warned of a supposed 'coordinated advance' against Tapia, the treasurer Pablo Toviggino, and the AFA itself, arguing that the debate goes beyond ideology and is framed in the defense of transparency and the rule of law. The closing of the tweet with the phrase 'now we're going for everything' was interpreted as a signal that the AFA leadership is considering deepening its legal and political strategy against the actions taken by sectors of the government, in a conflict that continues to add institutional tension.
