IFBB UNDER FIRE

 

IFBB UNDER FIRE!

NEW SCANDAL IN IFBB.

IFBB OFFICIAL SPEAKS.

Below is an independent, structured summary of the letter, distinguishing verifiable facts, allegations made by the author, legal interpretations, and conclusions that remain unproven.

Important: This assessment is based on the contents of the letter you provided. I have not independently verified the underlying Spanish registry documents, statutes, correspondence, financial records, or court decisions. The author's assertions should not be treated as established facts without reviewing the supporting evidence.

1. Executive Summary

The letter, written by Boris Presečki, General Secretary of the Croatian Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (CFBF), challenges the legal status, governance, disciplinary authority, and financial transparency of the International Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) and the European Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation (EBFF).

Its central argument is that the IFBB and EBFF operate using publicly available constitutions that allegedly differ from the statutes registered with the Spanish Ministry of the Interior.

According to the author, the registered statutes do not grant the organizations the same governance, disciplinary, and anti-doping powers described in their publicly available constitutions.

The letter consequently challenges:

• The authority of IFBB President Rafael Santonja to discipline or exclude members.
• The legitimacy of the IFBB's and EBFF's governance and election procedures.
• The legal basis for delegating anti-doping functions to the International Testing Agency (ITA).
• The treatment of the Croatian federation and its representatives.
• The financial transparency and potential conflicts of interest within the organizations.
• The accuracy of certain representations concerning the organizations' legal status and leadership.

The author also alleges irregularities involving other national federations, the appointment of officials, financial reporting, and Santonja's academic title.

Finally, the letter invites affected parties to consider collective legal action and questions whether the current leadership can lawfully continue to hold office following the scheduled elections.

Central issue: Does the constitution used by the IFBB for its international activities correspond to the legally registered statutes of the Spanish association, and, if not, what consequences follow for its decisions?

That question is important, but the letter does not, by itself, establish that the disputed constitutions are legally invalid or that all decisions made under them are void.

2. Distinguishing Facts, Allegations, and Legal Conclusions

The following classification distinguishes statements that can be objectively checked from claims that require further evidence.

A. Legal status of the IFBB and EBFF Claim 1: The IFBB is registered as a Spanish association.

Classification: Verifiable fact, subject to confirmation of the registry documents.

The letter identifies the IFBB with Spanish Registry Number 589776 and states that its registered purposes concern education, recreation, and advisory activities.

The author claims that the registered statutes do not expressly mention bodybuilding or fitness as sporting activities.

Evidence cited:

• Documents allegedly obtained from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior.
• Registered statutes bearing official verification codes.
• Apostilles attached to the documents.

What needs verification:

1. The exact legal name of the registered entity.
2. Its current registration status.
3. The complete text of its registered statutes and amendments.
4. The precise wording of Article 3.
5. Whether additional registrations, statutes, or legal entities are relevant to its international activities.

Important distinction: Registration as a private association does not, by itself, establish that an organization is prohibited from organizing bodybuilding competitions or governing its own sporting activities.

Nor does the absence of the word bodybuilding automatically mean that all of its activities are unlawful.

Claim 2: The IFBB uses a constitution different from its registered Spanish statutes.

Classification: Specific, verifiable allegation.

The author alleges that the constitution published on the IFBB website contains provisions that do not appear in the statutes registered in Spain.

The letter provides links to:

• A publicly available IFBB constitution.
• A historical version of the EBFF constitution.
• The alleged registered statutes, which the author says are attached to the original email.

This is arguably the most important factual allegation in the letter.

To establish it, the documents should be compared article by article.

The comparison should identify:

• Differences in membership rules.
• The composition and appointment of governing bodies.
• Presidential powers.
• Disciplinary procedures.
• Election procedures.
• Anti-doping provisions.
• Assembly notice requirements.
• Provisions concerning suspension and termination of membership.

What remains unproven: Even if the documents differ, it does not automatically follow that the publicly available constitution is fraudulent. That conclusion would require evidence about the document's origin, intended legal status, adoption, and use.

The letter's use of terms such as fictitious, falsified, and illegal goes beyond the fact that two documents may differ.

B. Disciplinary powers and member suspensions Claim 3: The IFBB President has no authority to discipline or exclude members.

Classification: Legal conclusion requiring further analysis.

The author argues that the registered statutes do not establish disciplinary powers equivalent to those described in the IFBB's publicly available constitution.

He alleges that Rafael Santonja has imposed disciplinary measures and excluded members without an adequate legal basis.

What must be established:

• The exact powers granted by the registered statutes.
• Whether validly adopted internal regulations supplement those statutes.
• Whether the association's members agreed to any applicable disciplinary rules.
• Whether Spanish law permits the relevant powers to be established through other instruments.
• Whether the particular sanctions complied with applicable procedural and substantive requirements.

The absence of an express disciplinary clause in the registered statutes would be relevant, but it would not, by itself, conclusively establish that every disciplinary measure is unlawful.

Claim 4: All long-term disciplinary sanctions imposed by the IFBB are illegal.

Classification: Unsupported generalization.

The letter concludes that all such sanctions are illegal because the registered statutes allegedly do not authorize them.

That conclusion is too broad without examining individual cases.

The legality of a sanction may depend on:

• The applicable rules.
• The authority of the body imposing it.
• The procedure followed.
• The nature of the alleged violation.
• The available appeal mechanisms.
• The law governing the relevant association and sporting relationship.

Assessment: A lack of authority could provide grounds to challenge particular sanctions. It does not establish that every sanction is automatically void.

C. Anti-doping authority and the ITA Claim 5: The IFBB lacked authority to delegate anti-doping functions to the International Testing Agency.

Classification: Legal argument, not an established fact.

The author argues that because the registered Spanish statutes allegedly lack anti-doping provisions, the IFBB could not have delegated anti-doping testing and related functions to the ITA.

This argument requires a more detailed examination.

Relevant questions include:

1. What authority did the IFBB possess under its registered statutes and other applicable rules?
2. What obligations did it accept under the applicable anti-doping framework?
3. What agreements or delegations were made with the ITA?
4. Which organization is responsible for each particular anti-doping function?
5. What rules govern the specific athlete or federation concerned?

The ITA's authority to conduct testing or administer anti-doping activities may arise from contractual arrangements, applicable anti-doping rules, and the relevant sporting framework.

Consequently, the alleged absence of an express anti-doping clause in the Spanish statutes does not, without further analysis, establish that the delegation was invalid.

Claim 6: The IFBB altered its publicly available constitution in August 2025 to shift responsibility for anti-doping irregularities.

Classification: Allegation requiring documentary evidence.

The author alleges that provisions concerning the appointment of the President of the Medical Commission were changed on August 20, 2025.

He further alleges that the changes were intended to shift responsibility to Dr. Alfonso Moran and enable the President to dismiss him unilaterally.

Evidence needed:

• Archived copies of the constitution before and after the alleged change.
• Reliable timestamps or other evidence establishing when the changes occurred.
• The relevant minutes or resolutions, if any.
• Evidence supporting the alleged motive.

Even if a change can be demonstrated, the allegation about its purpose remains separate and requires independent evidence.

3. Governance and Elections A. Composition of governing bodies Claim 7: The publicly available constitutions provide for governing bodies larger than those authorized by the registered statutes.

Classification: Verifiable documentary allegation.

The letter states that:

• The publicly available IFBB constitution provides for an Executive Council exceeding 25 members.
• The registered IFBB statutes provide for eight members.
• The publicly available EBFF constitution provides for a governing body of approximately 17 members.
• The registered EBFF statutes provide for eight members.

These numbers should be checked against the complete documents.

If confirmed, the discrepancy could raise questions about the legal basis for appointing or electing particular officials.

However, it would still be necessary to establish whether the publicly available documents apply to the same legal entities and whether subsequent amendments or separate organizational structures are relevant.

B. Presidential appointment powers Claim 8: Santonja appoints officials despite lacking authority under the registered statutes.

Classification: Allegation supported by a potentially verifiable legal question.

The author claims that the registered statutes require governing-body members to be elected by the relevant assembly and do not permit the President to appoint them personally.

If the documents confirm this, particular appointments could be open to challenge.

However, the letter does not identify every contested appointment or provide the resolutions needed to establish the circumstances of each one.

C. General Assembly notices Claim 9: Members were not given the required 15-day notice and agenda.

Classification: Allegation requiring meeting records and correspondence.

The author states that the registered statutes require members to receive advance notice specifying the date, location, and agenda of General Assembly meetings.

He alleges that the required notice was not provided.

If the relevant statutory provision and the absence of proper notice are established, this could raise a significant question about compliance with the association's rules.

Nevertheless, the further claim that all decisions adopted at those meetings are automatically unlawful requires legal analysis.

The consequences of a procedural defect depend on the applicable law, the seriousness of the defect, and the circumstances of the meeting and the decisions concerned.

D. The November 2, 2026, term-expiry claim Claim 10: Santonja's and Ralph Decelis's terms expire on November 2, 2026, and they will no longer be legally registered.

Classification: Prediction and legal assertion, not an established fact.

The letter states that their terms expire on November 2, 2026, and predicts that they will no longer be officially recorded in the Spanish Register of Associations.

To verify this, it would be necessary to establish:

• The applicable term limits and commencement dates.
• The relevant election and appointment records.
• The legal effect of the term expiry.
• The procedure for registering changes in the governing bodies.
• Whether the Spanish registry has taken or announced any relevant action.

An approaching term-expiry date does not, by itself, establish that the registry will refuse to record an individual or that the individual's subsequent acts will automatically be invalid.

4. Recognition by Spanish Sports Authorities Claim 11: The Spanish High Council for Sports does not register the IFBB as a Spanish sports federation.

Classification: Potentially verifiable official fact.

The letter reproduces a purported response from the Spanish High Council for Sports, the Consejo Superior de Deportes (CSD).

According to the quoted response, a search of the relevant register did not identify a Spanish sports federation under the name Federación Internacional de Fitness y Fisicoculturismo or a similar name.

If authentic, this would establish a limited but important point: the authority did not find an entity registered under that name in the specified register at the time of its inquiry.

It would not necessarily establish that:

• The international IFBB does not exist as a legal entity.
• The IFBB cannot organize international competitions.
• The IFBB cannot establish membership requirements for its own events.
• Every IFBB decision is invalid.
• The IFBB has no legal rights or obligations.

Key distinction: Recognition as an official national sports federation is different from registration as a private association and different again from recognition by international sporting bodies.

The letter's legal conclusions must account for these distinctions.

Claim 12: Bodybuilding is not recognized as a sport in Spain.

Classification: Broad legal claim requiring clarification.

The letter uses the alleged absence of an IFBB entity from the CSD register to support the broader assertion that the Spanish authorities do not recognize bodybuilding as a sport.

These are not equivalent propositions.

The absence of a particular federation from a register does not, by itself, prove that a sporting discipline has no legal recognition or status in Spain.

The precise legal status of bodybuilding and the applicable recognition framework would need to be examined separately.

5. IFBB's Relationship with IFBB Inc. in Canada Claim 13: The Spanish IFBB could not have been the natural successor to IFBB Inc. because the Canadian entity was dissolved in 2015.

Classification: Historical allegation with an incomplete legal argument.

The author claims that:

• The Spanish association was established in 2007.
• It was presented as the successor to IFBB Inc.
• The Canadian entity was not dissolved until June 18, 2015.
• Ben Weider continued to conduct business through IFBB Inc. in 2008.

The letter provides links to company-record websites and a historical webpage.

The dates and corporate records may be independently verifiable.

However, the dissolution date alone does not determine whether the Spanish association could have become a successor in 2007.

That would depend on the legal nature of the succession, the applicable corporate law, the relevant resolutions and agreements, and the meaning of successor in the documents concerned.

The distinction between a legal successor, an organization continuing sporting activities, and an organization claiming historical continuity is particularly important here.

6. Croatian Federation and National Representation Claim 14: The IFBB unlawfully prevented the Croatian federation's leadership from representing Croatia.

Classification: Allegation requiring evidence from both organizations.

The author alleges that the IFBB refused to recognize the leadership of the Croatian Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation, despite its election in Croatia and confirmation by the Croatian Olympic Committee.

He further alleges that Croatian athletes were prevented from competing under the Croatian national flag and anthem.

Evidence needed:

• The Croatian federation's election records.
• Relevant Croatian Olympic Committee documentation.
• The IFBB's recognition and membership rules.
• Correspondence between the parties.
• Decisions concerning Croatian representation.
• Competition rules and records showing the arrangements imposed on athletes.

Even if the Croatian leadership was lawfully elected under Croatian law, it does not automatically follow that the IFBB was legally required to recognize that leadership for all purposes under its international membership arrangements.

Conversely, the IFBB's internal rules would not automatically exempt it from applicable legal obligations.

The legal question is whether the IFBB's decisions were authorized, procedurally fair, consistent with applicable rules, and lawful under the relevant legal framework.

Claim 15: The IFBB President is attempting to install Filip Dropulić as Croatian federation president.

Classification: Allegation of motive and conduct, currently unverified.

The letter alleges that Rafael Santonja and Ralph Decelis are attempting to install a particular individual as president of the Croatian federation.

It also refers to alleged scandals, unlawful conduct, and court judgments involving that individual.

These claims should not be repeated as established facts without supporting documents.

A responsible assessment would require evidence of the alleged intervention and identification of any relevant court judgments.

7. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boris Presečki Claim 16: Santonja initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Presečki after an anonymous email became public in April 2025.

Classification: Specific allegation with potentially verifiable supporting evidence.

The author states that:

• An anonymous email raised allegations of irregularities and anti-doping violations.
• A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the same day the email became public.
• A lifetime ban was sought.
• He submitted an appeal.
• No response had been received for more than a year.

These claims can be checked against correspondence, dated decisions, the appeal submission, and the applicable disciplinary rules.

The sequence of events, if confirmed, could be relevant to assessing procedural fairness.

However, the timing alone would not establish that the proceeding was fabricated or retaliatory.

The absence of a response to the appeal could be significant, but its legal consequences depend on the applicable rules, the appeal body's obligations, and any available remedies.

Important: The letter's account represents the author's version of the events. The IFBB's response and the complete procedural record are not included.

8. Allegations Involving Other National Federations Claim 17: The IFBB improperly replaced the Georgian federation, sanctioned the Jordanian federation, and lost the Iranian federation to a competing organization.

Classification: Mixed claims requiring separate verification.

The letter refers to:

• A change in the Georgian federation's recognized leadership.
• Sanctions involving the Jordanian federation.
• The Iranian federation's departure from the IFBB and reported move to the World Bodybuilding and Physique Sports Federation (WBPF).
• Changes involving Indian bodybuilding organizations.

The cited announcements may help verify whether organizational changes occurred.

However, the fact that a federation changed affiliation or was sanctioned does not, by itself, demonstrate that the IFBB acted unlawfully.

Each case would need to be examined independently, including the applicable membership rules, decisions, reasons, and procedural history.

These examples may provide context, but they do not establish the central legal argument concerning the Spanish registered statutes.

9. Financial Transparency and Potential Conflicts of Interest A. EBFF tax identification Claim 18: The EBFF's tax identification number does not correspond to its status as a registered association.

Classification: Verifiable allegation requiring official tax and registry records.

The letter states that the Spanish Register of Associations does not show an official tax identification number for the EBFF, while invoices issued by the organization display the number V: 83519447.

The author infers that the entity may have an unclear or inconsistent legal status.

To evaluate this claim, the following would be required:

• The official registry extract.
• The entity's tax registration records.
• The relevant invoices.
• Confirmation of the legal entity to which the number belongs.
• An explanation of the Spanish tax identifier's classification and meaning.

The absence of a tax number from a particular association-register extract does not establish that an organization lacks a valid tax identification number or legal personality.

Conclusion: This is a legitimate verification question, but the alleged discrepancy does not yet establish wrongdoing.

B. Annual revenues and financial reporting Claim 19: The EBFF generates several million euros annually without adequate financial transparency.

Classification: Financial allegation requiring documentary evidence.

The author refers to an official credit report and raises questions about annual revenues and financial reporting.

The letter does not provide the underlying report, financial statements, accounting records, or a detailed reconciliation of revenue and expenditure.

The following should be obtained:

• The credit report and its methodology.
• Annual accounts for the relevant years.
• The entity's accounting and reporting obligations.
• Documents showing which legal entity received the funds.
• Any applicable statutory or regulatory reporting requirements.

An organization's legal reporting obligations depend on its legal form and applicable law.

The absence of public annual accounts does not, by itself, prove a legal violation.

C. Premises and possible related-party transactions Claim 20: IFBB or EBFF funds may have been used to pay rent benefiting the President's family.

Classification: Serious allegation of a potential conflict of interest, not proven by the letter.

The author states that the organizations have paid rent for premises in Las Rozas and that Santonja's wife owns property in the same area.

He suggests that the rental arrangement may have benefited the President or his family at the organizations' expense.

The letter does not establish that the rented premises are owned by Santonja's wife or a company she controls, nor does it provide the relevant lease agreements or rental amounts.

To substantiate the allegation, evidence would be needed of:

• The actual property owner.
• The contracting parties.
• The lease terms and rental payments.
• The market value of comparable premises.
• The approval process and any disclosure of related-party interests.
• The organizations' accounting treatment of the payments.

Even a related-party transaction would not automatically be improper. The critical questions would include whether it was properly disclosed, authorized, commercially reasonable, and consistent with the applicable duties of the governing body.

10. Academic Title and General Secretary Claim 21: Rafael Santonja improperly uses the title of doctor.

Classification: Allegation requiring documentary verification.

The letter cites a sports news article concerning Santonja's use of the title.

The allegation should be evaluated using reliable evidence about his academic qualifications, the institution concerned, and the circumstances in which the title was used.

A media report alone is not necessarily sufficient to establish deliberate deception.

Claim 22: William Bill Tierney performed the General Secretary's duties without holding the corresponding registered position.

Classification: Historical allegation requiring records.

The author claims that Jose Ramos Tomas Munoz was listed as General Secretary in the Spanish registry while Tierney actually performed the role.

To verify this, one would need:

• Registry extracts covering the relevant years.
• Appointment and resignation records.
• Minutes of governing-body meetings.
• Evidence of the duties performed by each individual.
• Any applicable delegations of authority.

A discrepancy between a registered officeholder and the person performing administrative work could raise governance questions, but it would not automatically establish that the latter lacked all legal authority.

11. Liability Under Spanish Association Law

The letter refers to Article 15 of Spain's Organic Law 1/2002 on the Right of Association.

It argues that governing-body members may face personal liability for losses caused by fraudulent, intentional, or negligent conduct.

Classification: Legal principle requiring precise application.

The provision is relevant to the responsibilities of association governing bodies. However, the letter's description of liability should not be treated as a complete statement of the law.

In particular, the existence of a board position does not automatically make every board member personally liable for every disputed decision or financial loss.

The relevant legal analysis would need to consider:

• The exact statutory provisions.
• The conduct attributable to each individual.
• The applicable standard of fault.
• The existence and amount of actual damage.
• The causal relationship between the conduct and the damage.
• Any applicable defenses or other legal requirements.

The assertion that all board members must necessarily pay the full amount of every loss from their personal assets is too categorical without examining the circumstances and applicable legal rules.

Similarly, the letter's references to potential multimillion-euro lawsuits and a joint action should be understood as statements of intended legal action, not evidence that liability has already been established.

12. European Union Law and Sports Governance

The letter invokes European legal principles and refers generally to judgments of the European Court of Justice in 2024 and 2025.

Classification: Potentially relevant legal framework, but insufficiently specified.

The letter does not identify the particular judgments, case numbers, or precise legal holdings on which it relies.

That makes it impossible to determine from the letter alone whether those judgments support its conclusions.

European Union law can be relevant to sporting rules, particularly where they affect competition, market access, or other matters within the scope of EU law.

However, it does not follow that every internal sporting decision is automatically governed by every EU principle in the same way.

The analysis must identify:

1. The relevant judgment.
2. The legal rule established by that judgment.
3. The sporting decision being challenged.
4. The connection between that decision and the applicable EU legal framework.

The allegation of discrimination against the Croatian federation also requires evidence that comparable cases were treated differently without an adequate justification.

Assessment: The legal argument may be worth investigating, but the letter does not provide enough detail to establish the alleged violations.

13. Claims About Pending Investigations and Future Consequences Claim 23: Spanish and international institutions have been alerted to irregularities.

Classification: Assertion about procedural developments, requiring confirmation.

The author states that multiple institutions have been notified.

This could be verified through copies of complaints, acknowledgments of receipt, reference numbers, and official correspondence.

A complaint being submitted does not establish that its allegations are true or that an investigation has confirmed wrongdoing.

Claim 24: Changes to the Spanish Register of Associations will soon be suspended.

Classification: Prediction requiring official evidence.

The letter predicts that the processing of changes to the register will be suspended pending clarification of alleged irregularities.

No formal suspension order or official notice is reproduced in the text.

The prediction should therefore not be presented as an established decision by the Spanish authorities.

Claim 25: A collective lawsuit will be initiated.

Classification: Statement of intent.

The author invites affected parties to contact him regarding a proposed joint claim for compensation.

The letter does not establish that proceedings have been filed, that a court has accepted the case, or that a particular collective-action procedure is available under the applicable law.

The procedural route, standing, jurisdiction, and individual claims would need to be assessed by qualified legal counsel.

14. The Most Important Distinction: What the Evidence Could Actually Prove

The letter sometimes moves directly from a factual allegation to a broad legal conclusion.

The following examples illustrate the difference.

If the evidence establishes…	It could support…	It would not automatically establish…
The published constitution differs from the registered statutes.	Questions about which document governs the Spanish association.	That the published document is fraudulent.
The registered statutes do not expressly provide a particular disciplinary power.	A challenge to the legal basis for a specific sanction.	That every IFBB sanction is void.
The IFBB is not registered as a Spanish national sports federation.	A distinction between private-association status and official national-federation recognition.	That the IFBB cannot organize international competitions.
A General Assembly did not receive the required notice.	A possible procedural challenge to the meeting or its decisions.	That every decision is automatically null and void.
A related-party rental agreement exists.	A need to examine disclosure, authorization, and commercial terms.	That the arrangement constitutes fraud or financial misconduct.
A person is absent from a particular registry extract.	A need to check the relevant registration requirements and records.	That the person has no authority under any other valid arrangement.
A complaint has been filed with an authority.	Confirmation that an allegation was formally submitted.	That the authority has confirmed the allegation.
A federation changes its international affiliation.	Confirmation of a change in sporting relationships.	That the previous federation acted unlawfully.

15. Final Summary: The Strongest and Weakest Parts of the Letter Strongest points to investigate

1. The alleged discrepancy between the registered statutes and the publicly available constitutions.

This is the central documentary issue. If the documents differ materially, the consequences should be examined under the law governing the relevant legal entities.

2. The legal basis for disciplinary decisions.

Specific sanctions may be challengeable if the decision-maker lacked authority or failed to follow applicable rules and procedures.

3. The validity of governing-body appointments and election procedures.

The registered statutes, meeting notices, minutes, election records, and appointment resolutions could provide objective evidence.

4. The treatment of the Croatian federation.

The Croatian election records, Olympic Committee documentation, IFBB decisions, and correspondence could help establish what happened and which rules applied.

5. Financial governance and potential conflicts of interest.

Lease agreements, accounting records, tax documentation, and related-party disclosures could establish whether there are genuine compliance issues.

Weakest points as currently presented

1. The assertion that all IFBB disciplinary sanctions are illegal.

This is an overly broad conclusion without case-specific legal analysis.

2. The claim that the IFBB cannot conduct or delegate anti-doping activities.

This requires examination of the applicable anti-doping framework and the specific agreements and rules involved.

3. The assertion that the absence of registration as a Spanish sports federation invalidates the IFBB's international activities.

These are distinct legal questions.

4. The allegation that the disputed constitution is deliberately falsified or fraudulent.

A difference between documents does not establish intent to deceive.

5. The claim that the President and all governing-body members will necessarily be personally liable for substantial damages.

Liability must be assessed against the applicable legal requirements and the evidence concerning each person.

6. Predictions about the Spanish registry's future actions.

These should not be presented as confirmed unless supported by official decisions or correspondence.

16. Recommended Next Steps

If the purpose is to prepare a credible legal complaint or communicate with international sports organizations, I would prioritize the following:

1. Obtain certified registry documents for both the IFBB and EBFF, including their complete registered statutes and amendments.
2. Compare the documents article by article against the constitutions published on the organizations' websites.
3. Obtain the records for specific disputed decisions, including disciplinary sanctions, appeals, elections, and governing-body appointments.
4. Verify the CSD's response and establish precisely what it confirms about registration and recognition.
5. Collect financial evidence before making allegations about tax status, revenue, rental arrangements, or conflicts of interest.
6. Identify the specific European court judgments relevant to the claims of arbitrary exclusion or discrimination.
7. Separate each complainant's alleged harm from general criticisms of the organizations, identifying the decision, evidence, applicable rule, and remedy sought.
8. Have a Spanish association-law specialist review the evidence before asserting that particular decisions are void or that named individuals have incurred personal liability.

Overall conclusion

The letter raises several potentially significant questions about organizational governance, the relationship between registered statutes and publicly available constitutions, disciplinary authority, election procedures, and financial accountability.

However, it also contains serious allegations and legal conclusions that cannot be accepted as established merely because the author states them or refers to official documents.

The most defensible approach is to establish the documentary discrepancies first, identify the legal consequences second, and assess individual allegations of misconduct separately.

That approach would produce a stronger, more credible submission than treating all the allegations as proven or asserting that every IFBB decision is automatically illegal.