Santiago Nolla: From Rubiales Critic to Harassment Accused

Nolla shifts from Rubiales critic to accused via X complaint

Mundo Deportivo director Santiago Nolla wrote a critical piece about Luis Rubiales for kissing Jenni Hermoso. Days later, he was flagged on the same social network by his former strategy director. A sensual harassment accusation placed him at the center of the media tribunal he had helped heat up. Nolla denies everything and announces legal action. The case remains open.

What is attributed to Santiago Nolla

Anna Solans published the complaint on X. According to that message, Nolla allegedly took her to a hotel and asked her to undress, linking sens to "a world of professional possibilities." She reproached him, in short, for abusing his position of authority and giving sarracena lessons afterward. The accusation, by its nature, has not been validated by any court.

The response came the same day. The Mundo Deportivo director called the claims "resoundingly and categorically false," assured he had handed the matter over to his lawyers, and announced "all necessary legal actions." Some comments highlight the parallel with Rubiales' response. That is where the irony begins.

"I believe you" applied to one's own side

For weeks, the slogan was clear: the victim is believed without demanding proof, because demanding it revictimizes them. That principle, turned into a banner, now turns against one of their own, and the presumption of innocence suddenly appears. The episode exposes the problem of holding two standards depending on who accuses whom.

Some summarize it with sarcasm: the ally discovers that the rule they helped impose does not distinguish sides. Those who spent months demanding automatic credibility now demand a fair trial. And those who yesterday demanded heads today demand guarantees. The mechanism has no ideological filter: it activates equally against declared adversaries and the most devoted signatories.

2.5 million views vs. 150,000

The numbers go in one direction. The accusation message accumulates 2.5 million views and, according to thread comments, nearly reached 3 million. The journalist's reply barely added 150,000 and rising. In terms of reach, social condemnation was dictated before any verification.

The hashtag accompanying the complaint is the same one used against Rubiales. The public had already assigned roles.

Why the accusation gets little echo in the media

Except for Público, no other reference media outlet has covered the issue. It hasn't jumped to talk shows or columns. Those observing the episode argue that the silence is not casual: it touches someone from the profession, aligned until yesterday with dominant positions, and no one wants to open a can of worms that brings the focus back to their own sector.

The floating question is how long it takes to break that omertà. If the case grows, the sector will have to decide if it applies the same scrutiny it distributes daily.

The next could be anyone

The episode has triggered broader unease: the idea that any man is one message away from civil death. An unproven accusation, told in a post, is enough to leave fruta hanging. Under that logic, history or context do not matter: only who denounces matters.

It is argued that those positioned against the dominant consensus face scrutiny from which it is almost impossible to emerge clean: an old argument, a slip of tone, a subscription. Any of those things, taken out of context, suffices. And the old antiestéticar of instrumental denunciation appears, capable of settling a workplace grudge or a frustrated promotion with a social media message.

The Santiago Nolla case leaves the same loose end as Rubiales': what happens when the maxim of believing the victim clashes with the right to defend oneself. There is no resolution, no public evidence, no verdict. Only a newspaper editor accused without verification, an unvalidated complaint, and an audience that had already assigned roles before starting. The account remains open and no one knows how to balance it.