Jorge “Coke” Hevia faces a serious judicial mess after the decision made by the Professional Referees Workers Union of the National Football Association. It turns out that the judges of the chilean soccer they joined together some sayings of the journalistwho doubted his probity when it came to directing.
According to information provided by the media The Clinicthe national referees used two antecedents where the communicator accused judges of being influenced by external situations in their payments.
The sayings of Jorge “Coke” Hevia against the referees
The first date of the program From a good source of DLT Sports on February 8, 2026, when Hevia stated that “I doubt the probity of all First Division referees. For me, who likes to bet, the betting houses have taken, taken out (sic), some factors because they have been fixing things here for a while. So what needs to be done? Regularize them and obtain the revenue because it will be better for everyone.”
see also
Controversial expulsion shakes Chilean football: DT spoke with TNT Sports and the referee gave him a red card for his statements
The other dates back to his statements in the Pauta de Juego program three days later, this regarding the goal by Yastin Cuevas for Colo Colo against Everton. In that play, there was a possible foul by Joaquín Sosa against goalkeeper Ignacio González that could have canceled the goal.
“There is an involuntary contact. How is there an involuntary contact if the ball is not in dispute? First. And the referees are very angry with me, very angry with me, because these things, I insist, I get this from the fact that it is not that they benefit this one or this one. No. For me they are bad, but I also continue to maintain week after week seeing all these things that it is very difficult to trust the Chilean arbitration. I, at least, don’t trust it. Reds that are not red. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence,” Hevia stated on that occasion.
The referees’ complaint against Jorge “Coke” Hevia
The arbitrators’ complaint details that “it appears that the defendant’s approach goes beyond the quality of the arbitration: He directs the dart at a distrust that – he explains – sustains ‘week after week’, making it clear that there would be a rigging. About that, I would have ‘proof galore’.”
“From the statements made by the defendant, the accusation of poor honorability of the body of professional referees of the National Professional Football Association emerges, stating that it is a team that does not give guarantees because its trust is in doubt and, ultimately, pointing out together with others present in the programs that the referees are not responding to their duties of sporting integrity and, specifically, that the betting market would influence the relevant decisions,” they add.
Jorge “Coke” Hevia faces a serious complaint for his statements against the Chilean arbitration. | Photo: Capture.
In that sense, they also maintain that “seeks dishonor, defamation of the arbitration union, unfoundedly and with high probability maintaining a petty interest in artificially generating pressthat the establishment that I represent has ignored its professional duties, betraying the mandate of integrity for sports ethics it is called to uphold.”
“It is extremely serious to allow an individual disparage so lightly the work we do in each party, unjustifiably questioning our honesty before public opinion; That is why this complaint seeks to establish that such defamation be corrected and the corresponding criminal responsibilities be established,” they concluded.
Thus, the journalist will face a complaint for the crimes of serious insults and slander. Furthermore, the referees’ union calls for a compensation of $20 million pesos for moral damage of your comments.
see also
Mosa throws the presidents into the water: they reject separation between ANFP and FFCh for money
In summary
- Jorge “Coke” Hevia faces a complaint for serious insults and slander by the Chilean referees.
- The arbitrators accuse Hevia of defamation by doubting the probity of the union.
- The referees union requests compensation of $20 million pesos from Jorge “Coke” Hevia.
(function() { if (typeof window === ‘undefined’) return; if (!window.__myPixelIdsInitialized) { window.__myPixelIdsInitialized = new Set(); } if (!window.__myPixelIdsTracked) { window.__myPixelIdsTracked = new Set(); } if (!window.fbq) { !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){ if(f.fbq)return; n=f.fbq=function(){ n.callMethod ? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments) : n.queue.push(arguments) }; if(!f._fbq) f._fbq=n; n.push=n; n.loaded=!0; n.version=’2.0′; n.queue=[]; t=b.createElement(e); t.async=!0; t.src=v; s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s) }(window, document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’); } if (!window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.has(‘1324276914788316’)) { fbq(‘init’, ‘1324276914788316’); window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.add(‘1324276914788316’); } if (!window.__myPixelIdsTracked.has(‘1324276914788316’)) { fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’); window.__myPixelIdsTracked.add(‘1324276914788316’); } if (!window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.has(‘1447352325462177’)) { fbq(‘init’, ‘1447352325462177’); window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.add(‘1447352325462177’); } if (!window.__myPixelIdsTracked.has(‘1447352325462177’)) { fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’); window.__myPixelIdsTracked.add(‘1447352325462177′); } })(); self.__next_f.push([1,” n.version=’2.0′;n n.queue=[];n t=b.createElement(e); t.async=!0;n t.src=v;n s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];n s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)n }(window, document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);n }nn n if (!window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.has(‘1324276914788316’)) {n fbq(‘init’, ‘1324276914788316’);n window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.add(‘1324276914788316’);n }nn if (!window.__myPixelIdsTracked.has(‘1324276914788316’)) {n fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);n window.__myPixelIdsTracked.add(‘1324276914788316’);n }n n if (!window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.has(‘1447352325462177’)) {n fbq(‘init’, ‘1447352325462177’);n window.__myPixelIdsInitialized.add(‘1447352325462177’);n }nn if (!window.__myPixelIdsTracked.has(‘1447352325462177’)) {n fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);n window.__myPixelIdsTracked.add(‘1447352325462177’);n }n n })();n 1e:T65b,n var _comscore = _comscore || [];n n _comscore.push({n c1: “2”, c2: “7161055”,n options: {n enableFirstPartyCookie: true,n bypassUserConsentRequirementFor1PCookie: falsen }n });n n (function () {n var s = document.createElement(“script”), el = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0];n s.async = true;n s.src = “https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/cs/7161055/beacon.js”;n el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el);n })();n n (self.COMSCORE u0026u0026 COMSCORE.beacon({n c1: ‘2’, n c2: ‘7161055’, n “])
