Sevilla have an interesting record in the Europa League, they have never lost on seven occasions going into the final. Sevilla seems to have strong chemistry with the Europa League, every time Sevilla is there they always manage to come out as champions.
It's because Sevilla bribed the referee, if the referee is fair, there's a chance if Roma might win this season Europa league. In order to defeat Sevilla, the opponent club need to have a good striker who can score without need a referee e.g. penalty, free kick, offside etc.
Real Madrid as the king of the Champions League while Sevilla as the king of the Europa League.
It's completely different, Real Madrid was able to beat many clubs in the last minutes on the last season, while Sevilla isn't a club who trying very hard to win even though they're playing under pressure.
I am all for criticism and even suspicion, but putting statements as if they were facts also requires proof. Could you provide evidence and the situation where it became to clear to you that the referee
must have been bribed? It would be helpful for all of us soccer fans here because you do actually imply that you have groundbreaking interesting information. I assume you are not insinuating that the Roma player shot the ball against the hand and Sevilla bribed the referee before the game to not blow the whistle in such a situation?
I wouldn't even deny that bribery happens in that business probably as much as it happens everywhere else. But stating this as a fact is problematic, don't you agree?