Spain women's team loses on penalties, fueling public funding debate

Three penalties missed and the narrative cracks

Four penalties, three missed. The Spanish women's national football team fell in the shootout from the spot, leaving a trail of criticism that goes far beyond the scoreline. The match, decided in extra time and penalties, triggered a more uncomfortable conversation: one questioning the public money supporting women's football, its media treatment, and the narrative surrounding it since the Rubiales affair.

The scene was not just any defeat. It was a team that, according to repeated reports, gave away the game with hesitant plays, questionable substitutions, and a forward who tried to solve with a heel what required power. Missing three out of four penalties is, in the words of one fan, something seen in third-division cadets. And that is where it all began.

What peine in the match and why so many misses

The most common account of the encounter points to issues with attitude and coaching decisions. The coach removed one of the forwards in best form, and according to several analyses, the substitutions came at the wrong moments. The team played without confidence, with poor dribbling and a regazo that will be remembered more for its unnecessary nature than its effectiveness. The goalkeeper and a center-back were, for many, the only ones who performed well.

The penalties finished the job. Missing three out of four possible attempts is not bad luck; it is an execution problem. The circulating comparison is devastating: even an eight-year-old takes them better. The shootout, which should have been the moment of epic drama, became the summary of a gray tournament.

The rejection that had been building up

The defeat did not fall into a vacuum. Since the Rubiales case and the management of the Federation (RFEF), part of the audience had stopped viewing this team with sympathy. The witch hunt against the previous coach and the constant noise around the squad generated a rejection that the result only confirmed. If they never interested anyone, after this spectacle they managed to generate rejection, summarizes one of the most repeated viewpoints.

Some go further and argue that the problem is not sporting but structural: the public money supporting women's football is presented as proof of a subsidized farce. Comparisons with other subsidized cultural events appear again and again. The argument, debatable, has an uncomfortable core: is this sport sustained by its own merits or by agenda imposition?

Level of play, the stinging comparison

The discussion about the sporting level is not new, but the defeat revived it. Data circulates claiming that a Swiss men's U15 team scored seven goals to one against Switzerland's senior women's team in a friendly, and that the Swiss federation allegedly tried to hide it. Whether true or not, the data is used as ammunition: women's football, critics say, has schoolyard-level quality.

Comparison with men's football is inevitable and, for many, unfair. But the weightiest argument is not about level, but about narrative: the sugar-coated commentary of matches, with pundits licking wounds and grandiose phrases about the social example supposedly set by players, produces immediate rejection. One phrase sums up the general sentiment: Example of what?

Media noise and the aftermath of the Rubiales case

The Rubiales affair looms over the entire conversation. The team was marked by the handling of that episode and the response from the environment. For part of the audience, the defeat confirms that the narrative built around the team does not hold up. They have been visited by the curse of Rubiales, ironically notes one of the most repeated comments.

The rejection is not just towards the team. It is also towards the media amplifying it and the politicians using it. The idea that a victory would have unleashed a whole month of official discourse on the virtues of women's sports runs through much of the commentary. In that sense, the defeat is felt as relief: less noise, less slogan, less narrative.

---

In the end, the disorienting fact is not the score. It is that a match nobody watched, whose context few knew, and which nobody remembers for its quality, generated more conversation than many real matches. The only news, some joke, would be knowing how many people actually went to the stadium.