Salvador demands full context of referee-room conversation

After Braga’s 2-1 home defeat by Gil Vicente on 19 October, António Salvador went to the referees’ dressing room and spoke to referee Gustavo Correia. The referee’s and League delegate’s reports, cited by Record and O Jogo, say the Braga president had asked to enter and was allowed in, accompanied by League delegate Vítor Ferreira and Braga first-team football department director Jaime Teixeira. That visit is now at the centre of a disciplinary ruling Salvador says he will appeal, with the completeness of the account itself in dispute.

The FPF Disciplinary Council’s case rests on reports that record what Salvador said to Correia; his appeal says those reports omit essential context. He wants the full conversation made public, putting the completeness of the accounts—not the fact that he entered the dressing room—at the centre of the challenge. The appeal therefore has two stakes: whether the ruling stands, and whether this confrontation becomes another front in Braga’s dispute with refereeing leadership.

As we explained on 22 October, the FPF review backed the decision to let play continue in Braga’s penalty appeal, making the handball interpretation central to the dispute. Coach Vicens’s account of an alleged admission by referee Pinheiro could not independently confirm that version: Pinheiro denied making it. The scrutiny therefore remained on the decision itself and whether it was applied consistently. Salvador’s dressing-room exchange came after that unresolved row, but the new disciplinary case turns on what was said there.

The reports cited in the disciplinary case say Salvador accused Correia of falsifying documents, told him to leave refereeing and questioned whether he was psychologically fit to officiate. They also record him criticising the state of Portuguese refereeing. These are the remarks on which the FPF Disciplinary Council based its case, rather than the match decisions that had prompted Braga’s anger.

The allegation about documents was especially serious: it was presented as a direct accusation against the referee, not simply a complaint about a call.

O Jogo and other outlets reported the words attributed to Salvador in the referee’s and League delegate’s accounts. In English, the reported remarks were:

Please do me a favour, leave refereeing. You falsify documents. You are psychologically in no condition at all to referee any matches; this is the state Portuguese refereeing is in.

The report’s account gives the Council a stated basis for treating the exchange as more than post-match frustration: it attributes personal accusations and a demand that Correia quit his profession to the club president. The question Salvador now raises is whether those recorded words, without the full conversation, are enough to judge what happened in the room.

Salvador’s response is not a denial that he spoke to Correia; it is that the written account does not tell the whole story. The referee’s and delegate’s reports, as cited in the case, record the remarks relied on by the Council.

I will appeal the decision, which I consider unjust and illegal. I will do so through the proper channels, demanding that the full context of the conversation I had after the match, in the referee’s dressing room, in the presence of the League delegate, be made public.

Salvador links the report’s alleged omissions to Braga’s wider criticism of the refereeing leadership, saying the club and its president are being targeted to constrain and silence them. That is his interpretation, not an established finding. The appeal’s central test is narrower: whether the complete exchange changes how the Council’s account should be assessed.

The dressing-room exchange followed a match in which Braga had two separate complaints about decisions by the officials. The club disputed an alleged foul on Pau Víctor in the move before Gil Vicente’s first goal, then appealed for a late penalty after a challenge on Ricardo Horta in stoppage time, according to RTP and other Portuguese outlets.

Those incidents are distinct from the remarks attributed to Salvador, but Braga has connected them to a wider criticism of refereeing leadership. On 23 October, the club called for intervention at a higher level, saying it wanted confidence in refereeing restored and the integrity of competitions safeguarded. Its public statement framed the concern as one of institutional trust, not only of whether particular calls were right.

For SC Braga, it is clear that the current Arbitration Council and its leadership are a major source of instability for the sector, reflected in the unease referees show on the pitch and the failure of the safety net that video referees should provide at Cidade do Futebol.

The suspension and appeal now sit inside that public dispute, where the club’s criticism of authority and the Council’s action against its president have become intertwined.

The FPF Disciplinary Council imposed a 23-day suspension and a €4,970 fine on Salvador on 22 October. It classified his conduct as damaging to Correia’s honour and reputation and as a false accusation, according to the ruling reported by O Jogo and Record. The decision rests on the remarks attributed to Salvador in the referee’s and League delegate’s reports, including the accusation that Correia falsified documents. The Council’s case is therefore that the reported words crossed a disciplinary line, not merely that the president challenged an official after a defeat.

The League delegate’s report is also part of the record: Vítor Ferreira accompanied Salvador into the room and his account is cited in the disciplinary case. That gives the Council more than one report of the exchange, while Salvador’s appeal presses for the complete context to be assessed.

Salvador’s case has a recent comparison involving the same referee. After Benfica’s 2-2 draw at Famalicão, president Rui Costa was suspended for 45 days and fined €7,650 for the same categories of offence, RTP reported. Rui Costa’s suspension was longer and his fine higher than Salvador’s. Benfica was separately cleared over a social-media post offering the refereeing team a man-of-the-match award; the two outcomes show that distinct conduct was assessed separately.

The comparison places his case in a wider question facing Portuguese football: where disciplinary authorities draw the line between criticism of referees and conduct they consider punishable. For Braga, that question sits alongside its complaints about refereeing decisions and leadership; for the FPF, the appeal will test a specific ruling based on the reports of the dressing-room exchange.

Salvador’s story began with a conversation behind the referees’ dressing-room door; its next stage will be decided in the FPF appeal process. No hearing date or deadline has been announced, so the next formal marker remains unknown. Braga are scheduled to travel to Nacional on 25 October, their next listed match. The club returns to the pitch while the disciplinary case awaits its next step.

• Any FPF announcement setting a hearing date or deadline for Salvador’s appeal; neither has been given.