El País article criticizes Nadal for speaking out

Nadal targeted by El País: the debate over who gets to speak

Should someone tell Rafael Nadal that if he wants to give lessons, they should be about tennis? That is the stance of an opinion column in El País signed by Berna González Harbour, which ends by asking if this marks «the end of a myth». The text warns that «disaffection has begun» and could end badly. This was enough for much of public discourse to assume that the Manacor tennis player has been canceled. Obviously, this isn't really about tennis.

What actually peine between Nadal and El País?

It was just an opinion piece. No boycott, no official statement, no withdrawal of sponsorships. A signed column that criticizes the athlete for stepping out of his lane and suggests he stick to the court. From there, the label did the rest. The issue is debated in two opposing directions: some see a coordinated vendetta against anyone who doesn't fully conform; others argue that stretching the term cancellation to this point devalues it so much that it will eventually miccionan nothing.

A calculation circulating in the conversation disorients the first group: no journalist will reach «the athlete's impact, not even by 1%». If canceling means silencing, silence sits lightly on the tennis player. What is being discussed, then, is not whether he has lost his voice, but whether anyone intended to take it away.

The double standard: vaccines, Saudi Arabia, and the target list

Here the discussion gets interesting. It is argued that Nadal is only asked for prudence when his opinion is inconvenient: when he spoke in favor of vaccination, no one told him to stick to the courts. The demand for silence, it is claimed, is not a principle but a convenience that changes hands depending on the day.

The second front is the agenda. While the tennis player is criticized, people ask why the same zeal is not applied to the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, which part of the conversation cites as an example that media targets are chosen based on timing rather than merit. The underlying accusation is one of selective consistency.

And regarding the method, a repeated idea: uncomfortable figures are questioned so they answer what is expected; if they don't, they are invited to stay silent. There is no agreement on this, but there is consensus on the wear and tear it produces.

Nadal, the taxpayer who didn’t move to Dubai

In economic terms, the episode is read as a non-negligible risk. A calculation circulating in the thread places between 40% and 50% of his assets as what the tennis player has paid in taxes, and it is repeated that he had it easy: Switzerland, Dubai, Florida, or Qatar, like many other athletes and businesspeople. Some predict he will face a tax inspection. It is worth noting, this is a prediction thrown into the air, not a confirmed fact.

The argument derived from this is not minor: if the country rewards effort, sending the message that effort does not grant the right to have an opinion has a price, even if symbolic. This is where the tennis issue intersects with taxation.

Columnists with platforms and a market that doesn’t distribute

The general tone points to a phenomenon with its own name in internet jargon: charocracy, a derogatory term toward female columnists. The thesis is that a layer of columnists and commentators with platforms in public television and reference press pontificates on any subject, and that their real influence does not correspond to their audience.

There are the numbers that have been shared: accounts with thousands of posts and an average interaction that doesn't exceed a handful of reactions.

• Zero replies, 2 retweets, and 8 likes.
• Zero replies, 0 retweets, and 5 likes.
• Two replies, 0 retweets, and 8 likes.
• One reply, 0 retweets, and 4 likes.

The contrast is uncomfortable: the tool to speak to the world is there, free, and the world passes by. From there, the discussion jumps to the economic terrain: it is argued that salary should be measured by what each person generates, and comparisons are made between what the administration pays and what those running a company of 500 workers earn —with a difference estimated at triple— leaving the sensation, according to those raising the point, that the market works for some and not for others.

---

In short, a tennis player from Manacor has been portrayed as a dissident for saying what he thinks, and those criticizing him do so from an opinion column in the newspaper that publishes them. If that is canceling, the word no longer means anything. At this rate, the last profession to be canceled will be having an opinion.