I'm writing this column two hours before the game that will pit FC Porto and my Sporting side against each other. And yes, my Sporting. Because contrary to what is insinuated weekly in some comments, I strictly do not owe anything to the exemption nor do I have the duty to disguise anything. I'm a columnist for this newspaper, not a journalist. And that gives me the happy freedom of being able to write from the only possible perspective in my case: the perspective of a sporting fan. Do you know the fable about the frog and the scorpion? In short, there was a scorpion that needed to cross a river and, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it on its back. Now, the frog, knowing the scorpion's fame, initially told him not to think about it, but the scorpion ended up convincing her. The arguments that the scorpion used, in fact, were logical and sensible and the frog began to think that, in fact, he had no interest in harming him — after all, the scorpion really needed to cross the river and, without her, he couldn't do it. So the frog finally gave in and allowed the scorpion to mount itself on its back. And the crossing started well, but exactly halfway through the frog felt the sting. Desperately, she asked the scorpion why it had bitten her, knowing that, in addition to not being able to cross the river, she would end up dying. And it was then that he replied that he had even tried, but that it was impossible for him to go against nature because, no matter how hard he tried, a scorpion would always be a scorpion. And that's it. Here in my case, a lioness will always be a lioness and there is no point in trying to be anything else. Because I can be objective in analyzing facts and moves, but I can never be impartial. Even if I want to and even if I try hard, sportingism will always end up being noticed. And that's exactly why I think it's best to accept it and that's it — and yes, another excellent option would be not to read the comments to my columns, but there's something sadistic in me that compels me to open Pandora's box every week. But ahead. This week, despite there being a big game, I decided to write about a topic that has nothing to do with the Portuguese championship. And what theme is this? The call that has been growing in Spain for football to be banned in school playgrounds. And yes, you read that right. There is even a movement, supported by a political party, that wants to ban football in schools as it is considered one of the biggest promoters of gender inequality. Podemos, the Spanish party that took this initiative, for example, in Sant Antoni (Ibiza), then claims that football in schools perpetuates patriarchal models. And why? Firstly because it occupies an important part of the playground, often ending up centralizing it - and this, according to supporters of the ban, ends up pushing girls and boys who don't like football to the margins and perpetuating the idea that whoever physically dominates the space has the power. Secondly because, according to them, traditional gender roles are reproduced when boys play and girls are left aside, apart from what is most important. Now, according to this current of thoughtplaygrounds should be seen as a social laboratory where future behaviors are shaped and, therefore, by allowing football we are teaching children that those who are in charge are the physically strongest boys who, therefore, deserve the center of the space. The solution they propose? The ban, of course. Look, I find this all so ridiculous that it almost seems bad to have to refute these arguments. Still, I feel like I can't remain silent in the face of such an aberration. Having said that, it is important that someone urgently explains to these people that if football pitches occupy 80% of the playground space, perhaps the problem lies in the size of the playgrounds. But yes, I understand the fascination with ideological shortcuts to the detriment of pedagogical solutions. What I no longer understand is how in 2026, so-called feminist women say that football is for boys. And even more so in Spain, where women's football is going through a particularly strong and happy phase. Honestly? It seems to me that when they say these things, what these groups do is reinforce the stereotypes they say they are fighting. We live in a society where childhood obesity is a scourge and football played at recess is the only time for sport for many children. And yet there are those who consider banning it out of pure ideology, politicizing recreation and instrumentalizing childhood. Is it too much to ask that they leave the kids alone? I don't know what school these people or their children went to, but there was always a football field at mine and there was always room for everyone. Those who liked football played, whether they were boys or girls, and those who didn't did something else — from jumping rope, playing catch, painting or reading a book. And no, we didn't grow up traumatized by replicating models from the other lady's time or thinking that we are inferior because the boys occupied the football field. Football has many positive things. Things these people chose not to see before. It's by playing football at school (because, unfortunately, very little is played on the street anymore) that many kids learn fundamental values such as respect for the rules, the importance of team cooperation, conflict resolution, self-control training and frustration management. And these values, which are gained there with friends, with hair stuck to the forehead from sweat and face flushed from the heat, serve for a lifetime. Whether we are boys or girls. I understand, I swear I understand, the logic that football cannot take up the entire playground. And that is why I argue that recreational spaces should be increased and that trees, green spaces and spaces for other activities or modalities should be added to them. But banning football? And after football, what are we going to ban? Rugby, which also tends to be played more by boys? And then basketball? And handball? The best thing, perhaps, is to ban all sports and that's it. When we have all the kids who are obese and deeply sedentary, we will be satisfied. It's just that, at that point, everyone may be at high risk of a cardiovascular event, but at least these people feel like they gave patriarchy a kick. And that, as you can see, will be the only kick they will ever give in their lives. Because a ball, I guarantee you, these people never kicked with certainty. On the podium I know I'm already a little late, but I couldn't help but bring to this symbolic podium the National Handball Team that achieved its best result ever in a European Championship by taking fifth place with a last-second victory against Sweden. With this result, Portugal guaranteed direct qualification for the next world championship and confirmed itself as a powerhouse in the sport. Congratulations, team! On the bench I confess that until now I have been undecided about whether or not I should include Mack Hollins here, the New England Patriots player who arrived at the Super Bowl locker room dressed as a prisoner and with a mask on his face reminiscent of Hannibal Lecter. I've seen several different justifications for his attire, some more noble than others, but it still really seems to me, even due to the player's lack of statements, that there was no message in the character, but just a desire to be spoken about as is, in fact, his prerogative. And Hollins's excessive need for attention complicates things a little for me, I confess. Want spotlight? Score touchdowns. For a show outside of the game, the organization had already hired Bad Bunny.
