Is Joel Huiqui losing control at Cruz Azul? Assistant coach video sparks controversy

A defeat to Monterrey in Matchday 9 of Apertura 2026 at BBVA Stadium was enough to push Cruz Azul into a ruthless debate. The source of the storm was not the score but a short video clip. In it, assistant coach Facundo Oreja stands in the middle of the players during a hydration break, pointing to the pitch and giving instructions. Within hours, the phrase “Huiqui loses control” spread across social media. Fate is not decided in the press conference — but it starts being written there. The issue did not start with the video. Cruz Azul entered Apertura 2026 as the defending champion. After the title, Joel Huiqui signed a contract extension, a move that reinforced his position. Soon after, he added two assistants: Facundo Oreja and Juan José Martínez de Escobar. The club framed the changes as adjustments to strengthen the sporting project. However, Oreja previously worked under Martín Anselmi, the former coach who led Cruz Azul to the Clausura 2026 final and the Apertura 2026 semifinal. The name Anselmi was enough to raise questions about loyalty and boundaries. The video was recorded during a scheduled hydration break, a common feature in warm-weather leagues. Staff are allowed to approach players and deliver instructions. An assistant speaking to the players is not unusual. Even in clubs with a very strong head coach, assistants often relay information during natural stoppages. Watching Cruz Azul this season, I have seen no tactical sign that Oreja is running the team instead of Huiqui. Crucially, the original article itself admits that the clip proves neither a change in decision-making nor a change in command. This self-limitation matters. A story built around the question “is the coach losing power?” is undermined when the author does not believe in the premise. The reporter is simply describing a routine interaction. There is no xG data, no pressing numbers, no spatial dominance statistics. No player has complained publicly. No internal source has leaked. All we have is a hydration-break clip and a famous pundit. Ricardo Ferretti moved the story from social media to mainstream television. On Futbol Picante, the former coach argued that Huiqui should not allow an Anselmi-linked assistant to appear that way. Ferretti's comment was normative: he expressed discomfort with the image, not a report of a concrete incident. But because Ferretti has credibility, his words extended the story. Huiqui then denied the claims. He said there was no imposition from the board and that he remains the main person in charge. The blind spot is our willingness to treat a short clip as absolute evidence. What evidence supports the claim that Huiqui has lost authority? None. The silence of the dressing room is itself a signal. If there were a real conflict, voices from inside would surface. Collapse is not the end of the tunnel. It is the largest data set life provides — but here, even the data of collapse is absent. The timeline also weakens the imposition theory. Huiqui was extended after winning the title. That was the moment of maximum leverage. A board that wanted to impose its own staff member would not choose the moment when the coach had just strengthened his standing with a trophy. Bringing back Oreja, who knew Anselmi's philosophy, can be read as a move to preserve continuity. In Mexican football culture, retaining a familiar staff member is a technical choice, not a political attack. Why does the story stay hot? Because modern football is written through emotions and reputational traps. A rhetorical question on television, a social media clip, a coach's denial — all form an attention cycle independent of reality. In Liga MX, this cycle can be fast and ruthless. Big clubs like Cruz Azul, Monterrey and Club América live under a microscope. But that also means the story will die if results return to normal. The strongest data here is invisible: the absence of real instability. No key player demands to leave. No strange player statement. No sudden change in the starting lineup that forces questions. The structure remains stable even when the noise is loud. The risk is reputational, not structural. Cruz Azul has broken no rules, committed no financial violation, and shown no dressing-room rupture. The only thing damaged is image. Watch the next two or three matches. If Cruz Azul wins, the controversy disappears. If Cruz Azul loses, the “loss of control” story will return — not because of new evidence, but because the narrative frame is already in place. At that point, what is threatened is no longer tactics but Huiqui's survival. The space on the pitch is larger than any great man who has stood there. A coach's authority is not protected by press conference statements, but by results and correct decisions on the pitch. If I had to summarize: Huiqui may not have lost control, but if the board does not clarify Oreja's role publicly, the story will not fade. Every future defeat can be read through the “loss of control” lens. The fate of this season is still being written — not on social media, but in news conferences and on the pitch. That is why the question “Is Huiqui losing control?” is the wrong question. The right question is: can Cruz Azul distinguish between a media storm and a real problem?