A Netflix documentary on France’s 2010 World Cup shambles has caused shockwaves across the country.
The piece, called “Le bus, les Bleus en grève” (The Bus, the Blues on Strike) recounts France’s most infamous World Cup under Raymond Domenech.
France’s players went on strike when Nicolas Anelka was dropped from the squad after a half-time fight with the coach.
France were then eliminated in the first round in what was called the ‘Knysna Affair’ named after the South African town that they stayed.
While the documentary is based largely off Domenech’s diary notes at the time, a number of new allegations surface, including one where he suggests Ribery was a dressing room ‘mole’.
Things went cataclysmic when a fight between the coach and Anelka hit the press, with all parties agreeing the story that came out wasn’t accurate.
And Domenech thinks he knows who’s at fault for the false headline.
“It all started with a discussion with Ribery in the mixed zone at the end of the match,” Domenech says at the end of the film.
“And Franck supposedly said, ‘Oh damn, the coach at halftime with Nico, things got heated.’
“From there, the journalists started digging. So they called the brothers, the agents, all the contacts they had with the players… And that’s how the whole story got screwed up.”
Ribery has since responded to the claims on social media, writing: “Mama Mia Domenech, I love you very much, just…
“I’m keeping the real story for later.”
Thierry Henry also targeted
Ribery wasn’t the only one targeted by Domenech, with Thierry Henry and Yoann Gourcuff getting a hard time when the coaches diary notes are show.
The former coach says of Henry ‘he’s a ‘run-of-the-mill lion who’s only interested in himself.’
On Gourcuff he claims ‘First a mild case of autism, then an idiot.’
William Gallas is accused of ‘always sulking, I won’t put up with it much longer.’
And Patrice Evra ‘The best thing for him would be to keep quiet.’
Meanwhile the main man Anelka is simply: “A real jerk.”
Domenech responds
Domenech has since put out a statement, criticising the documentary as sensationalist and saying he was denied a right of review.
“Sixteen years later, this was supposed to be a documentary of explanation, reflection, and measured analysis,” he wrote.
“Instead, it was an extremely violent indictment against me personally. It was a completely biased and nauseatingly partial film.
“We had decided, as a prerequisite for my participation, that I would have the right to review everything. This was ultimately denied to me with complete impunity and the utmost dishonesty.
“I would never have approved such a version because it reflects neither what I said (choose the juiciest excerpts, cut, edit, arrange and you have a sensationalist film whose only purpose is to “stir up trouble” to boost ratings and discredit a man), nor who I am.
“I am hurt and betrayed: it feels like a violation of my soul.”
Leave a Reply