The [victory of FC Barcelona in the Spanish Super Cup final](https://semprebarca.com/raphinha-9-0-frenkie-de-jong-8-5-barcelona-3-2-real-madrid-player-ratings/) will stand regardless of the debates that followed it. Titles do not come without talking points, and Clasicos rarely end without controversy. Yet even in triumph, certain moments demand closer scrutiny to understand how thin the margins were on a night that could have unfolded very differently.
For long stretches, the final was played at a frantic pace, with both teams pushing transitions and duels to the limit. In that context, referee José Luis Munuera Montero faced a difficult task, one that inevitably drew criticism from both sides. Still, as the dust settled, it became increasingly clear that one key decision weighed more heavily than the rest.
It arrived early in the second half. With Barcelona beginning to assert control and threatening on the counter, Pedri carried the ball forward with space ahead of him. From behind, Real Madrid defender Raul Asencio stopped the move with a kick to the midfielder’s left foot, a challenge that had little to do with playing the ball and everything to do with halting danger. Munuera Montero opted for a yellow card, and the decision immediately sparked debate, not just limited to partisan reactions.
Speaking on Carrusel Deportivo on SER via [Mundo Deportivo](https://www.mundodeportivo.com/supercopa-espana/20260112/1002599803/iturralde-gonzalez-aborda-polemica-asencio-pedri-mas-roja-amarilla.html), former referee Eduardo Iturralde González offered a blunt assessment: **“Asencio’s challenge on Pedri, for me, is more red than yellow. It’s a very quick play, a kick from behind with no chance to play the ball. For me, it’s more red than yellow, but I can understand giving a yellow because of the speed of the action.”**
His reasoning revolves around the assessment that the kick was made from behind, with no attempt to play the ball, and constitutes a clear interruption of a promising Barcelona attack.
From a Barcelona perspective, the frustration is understandable. This was not a marginal foul in midfield or a mistimed tackle in a crowded area, but a deliberate action designed to stop a transition, precisely the kind of situation modern refereeing has sought to punish more severely. Had the red card been shown, the final’s balance could have shifted dramatically.
Iturralde also questioned another critical decision. He believes Munuera should not have allowed the final corner of the first half, which led to Gonzalo’s goal: **“The stoppage time of the first half is subjective, but for me, he shouldn’t have allowed the corner that ends up in Gonzalo’s goal.”** Such decisions contribute to the perception that Barcelona were forced to navigate not only their opponent but also controversial refereeing calls.
They absorbed the pressure, overcame moments of adversity, and lifted the trophy without allowing controversy to define them, but that should not silence legitimate discussion. Decisions like Asencio’s tackle matter, not because they could have worked out differently on another day, but because they shape trust in the game.
Barcelona proved they did not need favours to win. The question remains whether the same standard was consistently applied on the night.