Spanish court overturns ex-Barcelona star Dani Alves’ rape sentence

In a shocking turn of events, a Spanish appeals court has overturned the rape conviction of former Brazilian football star Dani Alves, citing “shortcomings” and “inaccuracies” in his trial. The decision has ignited a fierce debate, with critics arguing that wealth and celebrity status once again appear to have influenced the justice system.

Alves, who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison last year for allegedly raping a young woman in a Barcelona nightclub bathroom, had been released on bail in March after posting a staggering one million euros ($1.1 million). The court’s ruling, which rejected an appeal from prosecutors seeking a harsher nine-year sentence, means Alves’ conviction has been annulled, and all legal restrictions against him lifted.

The verdict has drawn widespread condemnation, with many questioning whether an ordinary person would have been afforded the same leniency. Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had previously criticized the Spanish court for allowing Alves to buy his way out of jail, stating that “money cannot undo the crime that a man commits by raping a woman.”

The trial itself was marked by disturbing testimony from the alleged victim, who described being violently forced into sex while begging Alves to stop, leaving her in “anguish and terror.” Meanwhile, Alves maintained his innocence, insisting the encounter was consensual and dismissing claims of violence. However, his credibility came under scrutiny after he initially denied knowing the woman before later admitting to the sexual encounter when CCTV footage contradicted his story.

Many legal experts and women’s rights activists have expressed outrage over the ruling, viewing it as yet another example of a system that disproportionately favors powerful men. “This sends a dangerous message to victims of sexual violence,” said one activist. “If a footballer with money and influence can walk free, what hope do ordinary women have in seeking justice?”

As controversy rages on, the ruling raises troubling questions about whether justice is truly blind—or if, in cases involving the wealthy and famous, it simply looks the other way.