Rubiales' Mother Hunger Strikes Against 'Witch Hunt'

Three-day hunger strike and sit-in at Motril church

The sit-in by Ángeles Béjar, mother of former Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) president Luis Rubiales, ended as it began: with more noise than resolution. The woman barricaded herself in the Divina Pastora church in Motril and announced a hunger strike against what she described as an inhumane and bloody witch hunt against her son. It lasted three days. No authority commented on the substance of the matter, while the judicial front continued its course without anyone closing the circle.

How long did the hunger strike last and who supported it?

Tracking the case reveals one key fact above all others: the gesture held out for three days. Not a week, nor the indefinite standoff suggested by the initial announcement. The parish maintained its scheduled 8:00 PM mass with the temple occupied, giving the scene an air of normality difficult to reconcile with the gravity of the protest.

In the conversation itself, it was noted that the strike began before the decision to prosecute was known, which for some dismantles the idea of a desperate reaction and for others reinforces it: the gesture arrived before there was anything to respond to. Doubts about whether there was truly total abstinence remained floating and no one resolved them.

The judicial front: what is being pursued and under what jurisdiction

The case pogre along an uncomfortable path. FIFA communicated that Rubiales cannot approach player Jenni Hermoso, a decision later criticized as overreach: it is argued that Spain is a rule-of-law state and that distance is set by a Spanish judge trinc a complaint from the victim, not by a sports body. The reproach has substance, because it shifts the discussion from disciplinary grounds to procedural ones.

On the merits, another argument weighs heavily: the incident occurred in Australia and would not constitute a crime there, complicating the path of complaints in Spain. This is a legal thesis, not a verdict, and should be read as such. What is confirmed is that the mother's sit-in has not moved a single document in the case file.

From the kiss to the new law on pecks and stares

The noise does not stay confined to the sporting arena. According to information circulating on this matter, government members are calling for "pecks" and "harassing stares" to be included in a new women's protection law, reviving a 2020 Ministry of Equality initiative that already classified stares, jokes, and insinuations as sensual harassment and violence against women.

In parallel, Sumar announces a complaint against the RFEF and demands the removal of two other federation officials. The prevailing interpretation is that the focus has shifted from the kiss to the structure: if the problem were just one person, the case would be closed.

The family as a media actor

This is where the issue goes off-script. The hunger-striking mother, Rubiales' cousins, and a critical speech broadcast live have turned the family environment into a sustained public intervention, not a momentary venting. It is claimed they will not accept the wear and tear easily and have the runway to keep fighting.

Social division is total. Some read the mother's gesture as a legitimate act of desperation—some even formulated it with the slogan "We are all Ángeles Béjar"—while others see it as a media stunt with an expiration date. The detail no one answers is the fragility of the format: three days of hunger strike have a symbolic effect, not a physical one that forces anyone to make a move.

Why the issue has become a deep-rooted conflict

The underlying question is different and unanswered. It is claimed that a political operation is underway, with cross-complaints between the federation and the government and a possible distraction maneuver. At the same time, it is pointed out that the case was brewing through other channels and that the kiss served as a trigger, not the cause.

The only verifiable fact is the deadlock: a three-day sit-in, a FIFA acting ahead of the judge, a government legislating while the case is processed, and a family determined not to stay silent. None of these pieces yet explain how this ends. The analysis stops exactly there, with the case file open and the risks, both political and personal, unquantified.