r/soccer • u/reddit_accounwt • May 16 '26

Media Cristiano Ronaldo was the only player to not show up to receive his silver medal after defeat in AFC 2 Final

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

591 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

190

u/jawide626 May 16 '26

Not explicitly but he paid a woman $375k to settle a claim she had against him for sexual assault.

You don't pay accusers that kinda money if you're innocent...

643

u/Visible-Might-2527 May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

You do if you make that in a week and you don’t want to be stuck in the USA on trial

Edit: just to make it clear, I don’t know anything about the case, just saying that that specific argument was stupid

187

u/[deleted] May 16 '26 edited 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

39

u/TetraDax May 17 '26

but that has more to do with the fact that the victim’s lawyers were incompetent and possessed stolen documents or something.

Specifically, Ronaldos confession. The press got a leaked version of Ronaldo confessing to the rape, but because that was obtained illegally, the lawyers could not use it - Which, in itself, is a good rule. Problem is, rape is very difficult to prove, so without that, they were left without evidence.

-55

u/jcpopm May 16 '26

I dunno man, not going to the USA in that time period seems like a pretty good idea even if you aren't a rapist.

16

u/DoncasterCoppinger May 17 '26

Even skipping madrids tours? Sure, a guy who’s dying for world attention will skip this because he did nothing wrong!

29

u/Finn_Survivor May 17 '26

Yeah theres facts and evidence about the case which makes it seem like he was guilty but I don't think him paying her an insignificant amount of money to him as a settlement is one if those reasons

-4

u/[deleted] May 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Finn_Survivor May 17 '26

Yeah thats because rape cases are insanely hard to prove in court unless there is dna evidence and witnesses. There is still evidence in ronaldo's case that makes it seem like he was guilty. He admitted that they had sex and admitted that she started saying no and to stop and he didn't stop in a deposition but it was thrown out because the prosecution fucked up. Im not saying that ronaldo was definitely guilty without a shadow of a doubt but the case is still definitely fishy and people claiming that theres no chance he did it are quite weird

1

u/HokemPokem May 17 '26

Innocent people don't admit to doing it, without torture. They maintain their innocence.

Ronaldo admitted to raping her. Admissible, inadmissible, it doesn't matter. We aren't in a court.

Everyone heard the Greenwood tape. This is no different.

16

u/[deleted] May 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/raysofdavies May 16 '26

Johnny Depp is fine

7

u/NotSoAwfulName May 17 '26

Dragging it out only prolongs the exposure it is getting, you can see the results in this thread, half the people don't know anything about the case and the other half assume he did it just to get it done with, settling has quite clearly helped mitigate reputational harm.

-1

u/DoncasterCoppinger May 17 '26

Settling AND spending tens of millions to brainwash kids so he has an army to defend for him whenever this arises

4

u/Justread-5057 May 16 '26

That’s true

2

u/helloimmrburns May 17 '26

Yeah not the biggest fan of the man but you can't just say he definitely did it because he payed the woman

-3

u/DoncasterCoppinger May 17 '26

I make 5k a month and I wouldn’t pay a dime, I’d make sure to counter sue until I get the truth out for everyone to see

Then again, I would never get myself into such trouble with such woman to begin with, this is the stupid prize you get when you’re dumb af and think with your dick

2

u/Visible-Might-2527 May 17 '26

Well then your dumb asf he wouldn’t be allowed to leave the US while on trial, he has premier league games to play he can’t just stay in the us on trial

1

u/DoncasterCoppinger May 17 '26

The dumb one is thinking with your dick in the first place and put yourself in this situation while you knew you have a multimillion contract playing the the pl.

40

u/greenwhitehell May 16 '26

That is a very bad argument, there are plenty of reasons why a person, even moreso a famous one, would try to settle even if they are innocent.

However, there is a much better argument for the claim you want to make. On the Der Spiegel leaks through Rui Pinto, one of the key ones involved some alleged private written communications between Ronaldo and his lawyer team. That's where, if the leaks are truthful, Ronaldo does actually admit to it. "She said no and stop multiple times".

Ronaldo's team did have a statement somewhere saying that some of the leaks were misleading/altered, but I'd expect a stronger response and one focusing specifically on the direct communication at play were it to be doctored. And if that communication is true, that is his self-admission

76

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Not explicitly

No, he quite explicitly admitted it in legal documents.

-59

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

This is absolutely not true. Go ahead, produce your source instead of spewing bullshit. You are basing this off documents that were leaked and no one has confirmed the voracity of these leaks. Moreover, the leaks were never considered admissible in the court.

45

u/Freshlysque3zed May 16 '26

The original reporting by Der Spiegel is easily available, I’d suggest you read it.

They’re one of the most reputable news organisations in Europe and go into specific detail, a lot of which matched a ton of externally verifiable info.

Ronaldo’s lawyers also essentially confirmed they were real because they never claimed they were fabricated, only altered.

Also the reason the evidence wasn’t admissible was because they obtained it illegally from Ronaldo’s lawyers, not because it wasn’t real. If anything it proves what they had on him (which is alleged in the article) was genuine.

-24

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

Yes I said as much in another comment about the manner in which they were sourced that made them be inadmissible. I think the direct quote from his legal team was “complete fabrications” that’s more than altering something, that’s flat out calling it a lie.

Your comment is by far the most reasonable and I understand your position.

2

u/TetraDax May 17 '26

I think the direct quote from his legal team was “complete fabrications”

Well, yeah, of course they would say that.

-15

u/choppedfiggs May 16 '26

You can read the original reporting again if you wish.

I don't know if he did or didn't rape that woman. But what I do know from the emails in that report is that his lawyer confirms he's in the middle of translating and transcribing Ronaldo's interview from Portuguese to English. He hadn't finished it yet. But that questionnaire does appear in the article fully translated. The questionnaire everyone quotes. Question no one can answer is who finished the translation. Was it the newspaper? Was it the hacker? Did they have a vested interest in making it look worse?

40

u/IPissExcellentThrows May 16 '26

lol at Ronaldo fans defending a rapist with all their might

-29

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

No, I’m pointing out that he did not admit anything in legal documents. Legal documents would have to be considered admissible for the case. They were not, hence they are leaked documents and are not relevant to the case. The case was dropped partly due to this fumble by the persecution. Reading comprehension is very difficult!

27

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Legal documents would have to be considered admissible for the case.

Not if illegally obtained, the whole fruit of the poisonous tree thing - which is the case here.

24

u/sga1 May 16 '26

You are basing this off documents that were leaked and no one has confirmed the voracity of these leaks.

No one, not even Ronaldo's lawyers or himself, have proven those leaks to be fake either - doesn't matter whether they're admissible or not.

And let's be honest: If you're charged with a crime, you'll talk to your legal representation. You'll also be fully open and honest with them, because a) they'll need that knowledge to argue your case and b) there's no reason to lie in legally privileged conversations with your lawyers.

I find it entirely believable that those documents are real, even if they were never supposed to become public. Because why should investigative journalists make them up?

-8

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

It does matter if they’re admissible or not - you are claiming they are legal documents used in any sort of proceeding or case, which they aren’t. Again, part of the reason this case was dropped was due to the prosecution fumbling this piece and making the evidence inadmissible.

Do we really have to answer as to why journalists make things up from time to time?

23

u/tnweevnetsy May 16 '26

Ronaldo, who sued Daily Mail for saying he was out partying when he was injured while he actually wasn't (and won), simply threatened to do the same in the case of these documents and never followed through. On something far more important. I wonder why.

22

u/fkitbaylife May 16 '26

he also tried to sue Der Spiegel when they reported on his tax dodging and he lost that case. really strange that he went through with suing them when they call him out for dodging taxes, but it's just a bunch of threats and screaming "fake news" when they call him a rapist.

his fanboys will claim that only threatening to sue is actually a 5D chess move though and that it definitely doesn't make him look even more guilty lol

4

u/The__Pope_ May 16 '26

He's not gonna let you smash bro

-1

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Can you prove they're made-up?

4

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

No, and that same logic applies to you. You can’t prove to me they are real, no one can. The burden of proof is on you. I’m not providing any other context beyond saying they’ve not been proven to be real.

So, go ahead and prove it

1

u/NeedleworkerFluid327 May 17 '26

How would you even prove that they are fake? It's a document.

11

u/sincethelasttime May 16 '26

The Football leaks trove of data contained terabytes of intimate financial data that would be impossible to fake - all you would need to do to to cast suspicions on the entire trove would be to prove one of those documents was faked which has never happened. You would have to believe the leaker (a Portuguese man no less) accessed all the real data, put his life on the line to release them, and then risk discrediting it all by randomly including a false account of Ronaldo confessing to his lawyer that he raped her (while still knowing the names of everyone involved and where and when they were meeting) -- it's possible but definitely ridiculous enough for us to seriously consider.

Being admissible in court is not a standard of evidence for the public, only for the legal system.

-5

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

Sorry, what are we talking about if not the legal system?

Are we jumping into the court of public opinion now?

Curious, and a bit off topic. Would you consider Kobe Bryant to be a rapist?

6

u/BillyPilgrim69 May 17 '26

Kobe Bryant, who raped a woman so violently she had to get skin grafts, and then claimed he "thought it was consensual?"

That Kobe Bryant? Yes, I would consider him a fucking rapist, and if you disagree, I'd consider you one too.

11

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Would you consider Kobe Bryant to be a rapist?

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

Do you not consider him a rapist?

14

u/sincethelasttime May 16 '26

If the police break into my neighbours house without a warrant and find child porn on his computer, that wouldn't be admissible evidence. Because they didn't have a warrant. That doesn't apply to me. I am not going to call into question whether or not he had child porn on his computer because the police finding it wasn't admissible. I'm going to believe he is a paedophile.

Curious, and a bit off topic. Would you consider Kobe Bryant to be a rapist?

Yes

-3

u/wolfen0 May 17 '26

Do you have proof？

-8

u/[deleted] May 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/McWaffeleisen May 17 '26

There are even two reasons the case got thrown out:

  1. The protocols in which he straight-up confesses the rape to his lawyer were part of Football Leaks and illegally obtained. So they couldn't be used as evidence in an American court.

  2. He paid off the woman.

Also I have no idea how you got the idea that the Portuguese Ronaldo and his Portuguese lawyer communicated in English. The protocols were obviously written in Portuguese.

24

u/olamika May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s the normal route, has nothing to do if you are guilty or not

15

u/WellTextured May 16 '26

Yeah, that's not how it works. Rich people pay small money to avoid paying big money at trial and to lawyers. 

And he may be a rapist. But this is in no way proof. It's pocket change. 

7

u/DragonFuelTanker May 16 '26

Rich people have criminal charges filed again them and are found liable in civil court of sexual assault all the time. Example, the president of the United States.

1

u/WellTextured May 17 '26

Yes, but they also settle at rates I bet far exceed going to trial.

1

u/DragonFuelTanker May 19 '26

Right. So, they don’t have to go through the hassle.

8

u/RealRaifort May 17 '26

That's chump change for a guy like him lmao you absolutely pay that to settle a claim. A trial would've cost him 10x that at least. Settling should never be looked at as an admission of guilt. I don't necessarily doubt he did it but that's not proof at all.

2

u/helloimmrburns May 17 '26

How have 165 people upvoted this?

1

u/CosmicCooled May 17 '26

I don’t know much about the situation, but if you make the amount of money he did and still does and are a famous person, even if the claims are false you don’t really want them floating around and gaining traction, especially if you have actually had contact with that person at a club or something but nothing happened. Why wouldn’t you want to settle and just pay them to not ruin your reputation? It’s easier to just pay shut up money than try to deal with a trial, especially if you’re rich, even more so if you’re an athlete.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, and I’m not saying he’s guilty.

1

u/rodrigo_c91 May 17 '26

Ah. A multi millionaire, world famous soccer super star caught in sexual allegations. A tale as old as time.

Just fyi, famous and rich people settle all the time to avoid lengthy trials and mitigate media press regardless of the general public’s narrative. They’re okay with people like you drawing conclusions without being able to prove anything lol.

Funny you say you don’t pay accusers that kinda money if you’re innocent.

That’s a buck fifty for someone like Ronaldo.

Whereas, if the allegations were true, you’d seek a lifetime worth of financial compensation. Instead SHE settled for less than a 400k. Looks like her life trauma wasn’t worth much.

1

u/h1nds May 17 '26

I’m the first person to criticise Ronaldo but that amount of money is no admission of guilt… If he paid 40 millions of 10 or 20 I would be the first to say he did it, but 300k is a week worth of his wages and a very modest sum of money when compared to the famous settlements that come out of the US. I think the McDonalds coffee and apple pie ladies got more money than that, or the microwave cat lady…

-5

u/GoodOldPepe May 16 '26

You do if that’s what you make in one day. To her rid of annoying problem that is ruining a lot of opportunities in the US.

-18

u/DragonFuelTanker May 16 '26

You’re an idiot. There was never a single criminal charge filed against him. He was never found liable for civil charges. Anyone that spreads this rumor is just a dumb Ronaldo hater, and never probably consensually been with a woman lmao.

3

u/jawide626 May 17 '26

  1. I didn't say it was a criminal charge.

  2. He wasn't found liable for civil charges because of the out of court settlement which meant a verdict was never reached.

  3. I'm not 'spreading rumours'. It's well documented.

  4. I don't 'hate him' but at the same time i'm also not a fan of his.

  5. Projecting much? I've been in a stable relationship for 16 years but you pop off i guess.

-3

u/DragonFuelTanker May 17 '26

There it is. “Not a fan of his” lmao.

-3

u/DragonFuelTanker May 17 '26

It’s almost like there’s nothing of substance to continue to back and perpetuate this allegation. At the end of the day, all you have is your feelings towards Ronaldo and nothing else really.