The hearing devoted to the trial between Didier Deschamps and Daniel Riolo was to clarify the gray areas surrounding the departure of Karim Benzema before the 2022 World Cup. But another element suddenly captured attention: a comment from the Blues doctor, Franck Le Gall, which surprised by its tone and content. An outing which went well beyond the expected medical framework of his testimony… without it creating, in the moment, the uproar that one might have expected.
A condescending statement that questions
The tipping point comes when he talks about the Aspetar clinic in Qatar, where Benzema’s MRI was carried out. “50 years ago, Qatar was a rock. Chalabi is not a reference. It’s not the good Lord, like Aspetar,” he says. A judgment that is both condescending and unnecessarily derogatory, targeting an establishment that is nevertheless recognized worldwide for its expertise in sports medicine. This sentence, pronounced at the heart of an already sensitive affair, immediately raised eyebrows among observers and journalists present.
This slippage, perceived by some as tinged with prejudice towards a country regularly caricatured in the French football ecosystem, recalls embarrassing precedents. The “quotas” affair revealed in 2012 had already exposed discriminatory tendencies within the authorities. That such comments resurface, in a public legal framework, testifies to the persistent unease.
A controversy which almost eclipses the Deschamps – Riolo standoff
The heart of the hearing, however, focused on the version of the facts concerning Karim Benzema’s injury in November 2022. Deschamps recounted in detail the night where the attacker, “disgusted”, allegedly told him “it’s dead” before deciding to leave Qatar. Riolo maintains that the coach did not tell the whole truth. The judgment will be rendered on January 30, 2026.
But Le Gall’s intervention changed the climate of the session. Rarely has a technical testimony aroused so much underlying tension. The contrast between the expected clinical precision and the perceived verbal charge acted like an electric shock.
A declaration that promises long-term repercussions
In a context where the FFF is trying to clean up its image after several years of internal crises, this type of comment should not go unanswered. Between clumsiness and assumed prejudice, the line is narrow. And the idea that these words could have gone almost unnoticed in the moment further reinforces the discomfort. The public debate will not fail to take up this issue: when a selected doctor authorizes such an outing in full public view, an entire institution finds itself exposed.
