The case involving Aleksandar Nikolov has already garnered significant media attention – both in Italy and Bulgaria. A statement made by the Bulgarian national during a live Twitch broadcast, related to the separation between Lube Civitanova and Iranian volleyball player Porya Hossein, was widely disseminated, and in subsequent publications by some media outlets, it was presented in a framework of tension between the player and the club.

To understand the real scale of what happened, a clear distinction is necessary betweenwhat was originally said,the media translationandthe interpretationsthat shaped the public uproar.

The Context

Aleksandar Nikolov is not giving an interview or making an official statement. This was an informal conversation on a streaming platform, outside of a journalistic environment, in which he answered a question about an already concluded issue. The broadcast lasted nearly 40 minutes and primarily contained gaming, chat, and informal conversation, without a focus on volleyball topics.

How the question was posed and how the audience reacted

Upon reviewing the entire broadcast, it is striking that the question about Porya Hossein appears suddenly during the stream. In the 26th minute, an anonymous user with a pseudonym asks the direct question:"Are you allowed to talk about Porya?"– a formulation which, in itself, implies the existence of a restriction or sensitivity around the topic.

The reactions in the chat immediately following Aleksandar Nikolov's answer are indicative – comments such as "Lube drama???“, „woaahh“, „oh damn“, „oh wow“, which clearly indicate that the moment was perceived as potentially scandalous even in real time.

The stream itself, however, continued at its usual pace, with no development of the topic and no subsequent comments from Nikolov. Subsequently, this short excerpt, taken from the general context of the hour-long broadcast, was disseminated in the public space.

How it was presented in some of the media

Formulations such as these were adopted in publications:

• "Lube lied"

• "The club presented Poryia as a problem"

• "Lube behaved badly"

These interpretations imply institutional blame and open opposition – implications that do not directly stem from the original statement.

What Aleksandar Nikolov actually said – original and accurate translation

Original (English, as spoken):

“Yeah bro, I'm gonna say one thing: Lube fucking did him wrong, because they're lying.
He didn't leave like they said he left.
Everybody knew he was leaving, he asked to leave, and everything was done right.
But Lube made it seem like a bad thing when it wasn't.”

And the conclusion:

“I'm not happy with how Lube handled the situation.”

The most accurate translation into Bulgarian, without artificial exaggeration:

I'll say one thing – he was treated unfairly because not everything was said as it happened. He didn't leave the way it was presented. Everyone knew he was leaving, he himself had asked for it, and everything was settled normally. But the situation was presented as if it was something negative, when in fact it wasn't.

And:

"I am not satisfied with the way Lube approached it."

Where is the difference

In the original statement Nikolov:

• does not speak of a "scandal";

• does not accuse specific individuals;

• does not question the decision to part ways;

• comments onthe manner of public presentation, and not the fact of the departure itself.

The difference between "not everything was said as it happened" and "Lube lied" is not linguistic, but editorial. This is no longer a translation, but an interpretation aiming for a stronger effect.

Why this matters

Aleksandar Nikolov has an active contract with Lube until 2028 and is a key figure in the team. In this context, any artificial intensification of his words creates tension that he did not actually formulate.

The facts are clear:

• he spoke;

• he spoke informally and emotionally;

• he spoke about communication, not about blame;

• the rest is a matter of presentation.

Reactions on social media and where the line is drawn

In parallel with the media coverage, a wave of empathy for Aleksandar Nikolov also appeared on social networks. Some fans describe his words as a "courageous gesture" and a defense of a teammate, and in the comments, the thesis of opposition between the player and the management is increasingly promoted, including speculations such as "who will leave – Nikolov or general manager Beppe Cormio".

However, these reactions remain in the realm of emotional interpretation. In Nikolov's statement itself, there is no appeal, no ultimatums, and no personal attack against leading figures in the club. The transformation of the situation into a "player versus director" duel is a product of social media, not of genuinely stated positions.

What follows – hours before the match with Padua

All this happens hours before Lube's home match against Padua, with Aleksandar Nikolov expected to be on the court. The Bulgarian international missed the last Champions League match due to flu, but is now available to the coaching staff in a crucial phase of the season.

At this moment, a potential public reaction or sanction from the management would have a negative rather than a disciplinary effect. Such a move would demotivate a key player, shift the focus from sporting goals, and deepen the sense of conflict where it is primarily a communication problem.

Practice shows that in such situations, an internal resolution of the issue is most often sought, rather than public gestures. In this sense,the lack of an official comment remains the strongest position for the club, letting the game, not words, do the talking.

Volleyball has a habit of quickly setting priorities. And the best answer – both for Lube and for Aleksandar Nikolov – remains the one on the court.

Currently, there are no official statements from Aleksandar Nikolov, his family, or the club. According to editorial information, a tactic of refraining from comment has been chosen to prevent the situation from escalating further.