𝐈’𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐩 𝐑𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐈 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭.
But why are they ignoring the shaded part?
Why leave out the context that changes how the whole situation should be understood?
The meeting was requested by Jorge Jesus and included Ronaldo, Simão Coutinho and Tiago Craveiro.
Following that meeting, at Jesus’ request, a short document was produced to summarise what had been discussed and agreed between the parties.
𝗥𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
It was a record of the meeting and the understanding reached between them.
Then came the press conference, where Jesus was expected to clarify the situation. Instead, from Ronaldo’s perspective, what was agreed privately was not reflected publicly.
That was another breach of trust: promising one thing, then doing another. And this wasn’t even the first time Jesus had gone back on an agreement It was the third.
You can disagree with Ronaldo leaving the camp. You can criticise him for it and Ronaldo himself admitted he was wrong, taking responsibility and apologising to his teammates and the Portuguese people.
But that doesn’t mean we should deliberately strip away the context and reduce the entire story to:
“𝗥𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁, 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁.”
That’s not what really happened. You don’t have to like Ronaldo. You don’t have to defend everything he does.
But if we’re going to criticise him, at least have the nobility to criticise what actually happened not a version created by cropping out the parts that fit the narrative of a few haters and Some media outlets who are always chasing clicks.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬.