Jagten på fodboldhackeren

It's quite astonishing when a "journalistic" piece is aired without all the facts being investigated. At this time Rui Pinto and Anibal Pinto have been found guilty of numerous crimes. All the interviewed personalities are directly related to FCPorto and have been considered guilty or suspects in cases of corruption, violence (including domestic) and sharing illegal information. FCPorto is the one and only football club in Portugal to be considered in a corruption trial and was forced to loose points in a league. If all the evidences were admitted, it would have been more arming for the institution. The toxic climate of Portugal's league is solely created by FCPorto ( take a few minutes and google for the managers and directors threatening referees).

This is an biased and poorly investigated piece.

One last thought, if Nélio Lucas was guilty why did he call the police before the first meeting?

To start with, I don't fully agree with the two previous reviews on the following items, and definitely not with the ratings.-

• The documentary does somewhat focus on Portugal, though not as much as asserted and it's probably to provide a concrete illustration of the whole affair, instead of moving from one country to another since many were involved. Also maybe it's linked to the contacts the director could concretely establish, which leads to my second point.-
• The movie does extensively interview two figures of FC Porto (and only two as opposed to what was said), which is indeed questionable. First, they are not key protagonists of the scandals so why spend so much time with them when there are many more interesting interventions as we'll see? Probably again for illustrative purposes, although it's quite thin. Second, the two men are to date condemned or indicted in different cases which casts a shadow on their testimonies. However it's difficult to say how much of their issues were known at the time the film was shot; maybe a few comments should have been added to the captions at the end.

Regardless, the documentary offers many interesting aspects:

• It provides a decent outline of the Football Leaks scandals which shook the sports world from 2015 to 2019 and even beyond. It can just be an overview else it would run for hours; actually these affairs would make a fine TV series.-
• Most interviews are of high quality: the Doyen Sports representative (Nélio Lucas), knowledgeable journalists (working for Sábado which revealed Rui Pinto's identity, the New York Times, Mediapart), a prominent football agent, the lawyer who defended Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, etc. It shows a captivating kaleidoscope exploring different sides with the exception that unfortunately Pinto refused to be interviewed.-
• The film uses Doyen Sports as a lead narrative to provide continuity throughout. Again, it might be due to the fact the director was able to get a long meeting with Lucas, yet in this instance it works quite well due to the dynamic, sometimes comical, nature of the interview.-
• The movie does not take sides: there is no bias, at least no intentional one. It lets Lucas and the agent express their opinions without much contradiction, hence there is no real "bandido" as Lucas says, simply different points of views. It reveals Pinto's dark side by highlighting he stole money from a Cayman bank (before partly giving it back) and tried to blackmail Doyen Sports. Was he a crook who afterwards became a whistleblower, as a journalist thinks? Was he blackmailing Doyen Sports to test them, as his lawyer implies? Did he need the money? No definite answer can be given, and it's good the film doesn't try to. Incidentally, some footage shows Edward Snowden and Antoine Deltour (LuxLeaks) defending Pinto.-
• The documentary is built like a thriller with suspense, action and incredible scenes: Cristiano Ronaldo acclaimed by his fans on his way to and from the court, a meeting in a café near the highway to setup the blackmail, the revelation of Pinto's identity (a 29-year-old who looks 20, far from the image of a tough hacker), his arrest. Editing is efficient, with a sustained rhythm. There are some meaningful images, for instance when we see Pinto with a bow and arrow, illustrating the fact he was called a "Robin Hood" previously.

On the other hand, there are some drawbacks on top of the ones mentioned in the introduction:

• The documentary pretends to address the Football Leaks, however we only see a part of it: a few countries (Portugal, Spain, England), clubs (Benfica, Real Madrid, Manchester United), players (notably Ronaldo) and protagonists, whilst actually the cases spread out to other countries like Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Belgium and Monaco. Even FIFA and UEFA were involved, yet it's just rapidly mentioned. Also there were other affairs than financial opacity and fiscal evasion: fraud, corruption, collusion, exploitation of African children.-
• Actually, the movie mainly focuses on Doyen Sports which is merely an element of the Leaks. If it is efficient in terms of form as we saw above, in terms of content it is a bit limited. Especially since it doesn't explore the full operations of the company, just rapidly its links with a supposedly shady Kazakh family. Was it really used for money laundering? It is only hinted.-
• Pinto was not alone gathering the files although he was the key figure. It's understandable the director wanted to personalise and dramatise the story, but he could have least have mentioned other persons were involved.-
• Nobody from Der Spiegel is interviewed even though it was the magazine through which most information was channelled.-
• As a side note, since the film was shot in 2022, it could not reveal the denouement of Pinto's trial in 2023 consisting of a four-year suspended sentence. In any case, this as well as the previous two points represent minor flaws.

In summary, the movie is worth watching even if you are not interested by football, to understand how a highly popular milieu can be corrupted by excessive amounts of money. The main downside is its relatively reduced scope, hence it is unfortunate it did not broaden the investigation, else its intrinsic qualities would have delivered an absolute reference in the Football Leaks depiction. It ends on two compelling quotes, amongst many, from two clever journalists:

• "People don't care (about football scandals). That's on the news cycle for a couple of days, but the next weekend Cristiano (Ronaldo) scores two goals and everything goes away."-
• "It tells you the world really functions in a grey area. There is nothing that is completely pure and not this other end which is pure evil. There is this kind of mess in the middle that we are all operating in."

It's unfortunate for Holm's that the pure intentions and the conclusion of this piece (who were meant to be more clear and truthful) get obscured due to really bad decisions of which the more glaring is when the director decides focus on the Portugal part of this case in detriment of the analisis of the more interesting worldwide case, where the illicit schemes were evident inside the courts as well as outside. To make it worse, in Portugal Holms chooses characters of known ill repute, banned from stadiums around the world and known(some say very violent) criminals to front the fight against the established corruption.

Very poor to say the least, superficial and some might even say distracting from the real issues.