I should start by saying that I'm not a web accessibility expert. I work in web development and deal with accessibility features regularly, but I've never had formal training in the field. To practice and learn, I ran a series of accessibility audits, and at the same time explored whether there's any correlation between digital quality and success on the soccer field (though I presumed superior finances would drive both). And honestly, analyzing the web standards of top‑level clubs just sounded like a fun challenge. All of this is to say: take this article with a grain of salt. It's one person running tests, with the level of scientific rigor you'd expect from that. And yes, just like AI, I can make mistakes. Each team has a card like the one shown below, providing the core results at a glance. The surrounding text includes commentary and a short summary of what the card reveals. All numbers are rounded to keep things readable.  I started with automated tools (the criteria and process are described at the end of the article), but those results felt incomplete. So I added a more "human" layer by manually testing and scoring accessibility features. These may not be the criteria everyone uses, but they're the ones I followed. If you prefer different ones, I encourage you to run your own tests and write about them. I'd genuinely love to read it. Here are the results… Alavés If I recall correctly, this was the only home page with a form in it (not counting the search box), and that introduced some new issues that took points from them. Automated accessibility tests gave a high score (e.g., all images had alt attribute) but manual test proved things were not what they seemed (e.g., all images had alt attribute with "null" as value). Using the screenreader there were a lot of "link, image, null" messages. Site: https://deportivoalaves.com/es/ Athletic Athletic's site relies heavily on images that contain text (many of them with alt=""), including several inside links that have no other content. Combine that with long, non‑skippable sections that seem to go on forever, plus a menu that remains reachable even when hidden, and the accessibility score takes a predictable hit. On the positive side, the site handles zoom surprisingly well. Site: https://www.athletic-club.eus/ Atlético The language menu on Atlético's site is confusing when using a keyboard. You can open it normally, but then you're forced to tab through the entire main menu before reaching the popup with alternative languages (this happened with several teams). It's not a feature people use often, but the one time you need it, the experience shouldn't be disorienting. The site follows the reduced‑motion setting strictly, which is rare: if reduced motion is enabled, all animations and transitions stop completely. Site: https://www.atleticodemadrid.com/ Barcelona Overall, Barcelona's site performed reasonably well compared to the rest of La Liga… but given the club's history, resources, and global reach, the results feel underwhelming. Especially considering the types of issues that surfaced: a poor heading hierarchy, a sticky header that consumes half the screen when zoomed, and focus indicators that clip or jump to hidden elements creating confusion. Site: https://www.fcbarcelona.es/es/ Betis Betis' homepage presents several accessibility challenges: carousels that animate and slide even with reduced‑motion enabled, menus that open but can't be reached until you tab through a sea of unrelated items, and a noticeable amount of text with low contrast against its background. In their defense, green is a notoriously tricky color when it comes to contrast… but still. I expected more from a team like Betis. Site: https://www.realbetisbalompie.es/ Celta I liked the grid in the header of Celta's website, and the page performed decently in automated tests. But manual testing quickly brought the score down: no level‑1 heading, and only a single level‑2 heading (buried at the bottom in the merchandise store)? The page is in Spanish, yet somehow the button labels appear in English (the risks of copy‑paste)? And videos in the video carousel that aren't reachable via keyboard navigation? Site: https://rccelta.es/ Deportivo The 95 in structure can be misleading. The site earned it thanks to strong automated test results and only three HTML errors. Unfortunately, structure is the metric with the least weight, and the manual tests (which carry the most weight) yielded the lowest score of any team. Issues included faint or missing outlines, images with alt attributes equal to the file name (ouch!), or components that only worked with a mouse. And that's just to name a few; the list goes on. Site: https://www.rcdeportivo.es/es Elche Elche's landing page is so minimal that it earns points almost by default because many of the tested metrics simply don't apply (note to self: revise grading criteria for next year). There are some nice touches: gradients used to boost contrast, and a carousel that respects reduced‑motion settings (the same widget many other teams use). But there are also questionable choices; most notably, the page doesn't contain a single heading! Site: https://www.elchecf.es/ Espanyol Espanyol was the only team to score below 50 overall (a failing grade in Spain). From missing outlines to menus accessible only by mouse, to images without alt attributes and a broken navigation that traps the keyboard, the site struggled across the board. It failed every automated test except Lighthouse… which brought the scores up! Site: https://www.rcdespanyol.com/es/ Getafe There are a few teams that use the same white‑labeled web template, customized only with club colors. Out of the box, it delivers solid SEO results and decent accessibility. But it also serves as a reminder that content and authoring choices can break even the most accessible template. Getafe seems to be one of the clubs using it, and fortunately, they handled their content reasonably well apart from some things: no proper headings (none at all, to be precise) and a handful of related screen‑reader issues… but little beyond that. Site: https://www.getafecf.com/ Levante Levante's landing page is a good example of how my scoring criteria can favor simpler pages with limited content. With little text, few images, and only a handful of widgets and components, the site is easy to use largely because of its simplicity. Still, there's room for improvement: making proper use of HTML landmarks and hierarchical elements (the page has only a single heading!) and ensuring that outlines don't break would improve accessibility. Site: https://www.levanteud.com/ Málaga Another example of a template that could be far more accessible if the content followed suit… but it doesn't. The homepage suffers from missing headings, clipped outlines, and poor image labeling. Still, Malage homepage's simplicity and low volume of content worked in its favor during scoring, landing the site in a respectable second place Site: https://www.malagacf.com/ Osasuna The disappearance of outlines across most elements on Osasuna's site dealt a major blow in manual testing. And that wasn't the only issue: carousels autoplay without pause or focus control, ignore reduced‑motion settings, and oddly mix Spanish content with English controls. These problems compounded to drag the score down. Overall, Osasuna's homepage has significant room for improvement, placing the team in the lower half of the accessibility rankings. Site: https://www.osasuna.es/es Racing Racing de Santander's homepage earned the highest score in manual testing, despite getting average or below‑average results in automated checks. "It's not easy being green" proved true here: the club's colors didn't help with contrast, and issues like missing headings, questionable alternative text values, and animated micro‑interactions that ignored reduced‑motion settings all dragged the score down. Yet, the site's simple structure and limited content balanced things out. Site: https://www.realracingclub.es/ Rayo Vallecano These results weren't terrible (compared to other teams), but given the club's history and background, I expected more. Accessibility testing showed solid scores in both manual and automated checks, and SEO management was strong. The weaknesses came from structural issues: too many HTML errors, no headings, and most images with empty alt attributes (many of them decorative, though). As with other template‑based sites, many of these shortcomings are content‑related and could be fixed with closer attention to detail. Site: https://www.rayovallecano.es/ Real Madrid The low score in structure came from numerous invalid HTML errors (a metric weighted heavily in that category.) Beyond that, the results were strong: only minor focus issues with inconsistent or missing outlines, tabbing sequences that didn't match the visual order, and minimal overlapping when zooming in. Despite having one of the most content-heavy homepages, Real Madrid's accessibility scores outperformed those of clubs with simpler sites. While there's still room to grow, that is commendable. Site: https://www.realmadrid.com/es-ES Real Sociedad Real Sociedad's score could have been higher (up to 60), but a grading decision brought it down: the site blocks automated requests, so a couple of my tests couldn't run and therefore couldn't get points for them. To keep things consistent, I used the lowest score recorded by any team in both blocked metrics. Visually, the site looks polished and neat, but digging deeper, many problems arise. The tabbing experience was problematic to the point of being partly unusable: outlines disappearing or clipped, inconsistent focus styles for similar elements, and components breaking when tabbing through them (looking at you, carousel). Add to that animations and transitions running even with reduced‑motion enabled, or the use of <div> elements as buttons, and the score speaks for itself. Site: https://www.realsociedad.eus/es Sevilla Sevilla FC's site stood out for its handling of modals and panels (e.g., the Esc key actually closed them, and the focus looped in them avoiding wandering around.) The font choice is artistic and full of character, but readability suffers, and text can feel confusing at times. Still, Sevilla earns an honorable 5th place overall. Site: https://sevillafc.es/ Valencia Valencia's website has far more content than most teams, and while that doesn't automatically mean more issues, it does create more opportunities for error… which is exactly what happened here. But not always! Some of the issues were independent of content: not a single element showed an outline when focused, tab order didn't match the visual order, and headings were used for styling rather than defining the document hierarchy. Also, carousels and components animate and autoplay even when reduced‑motion settings are enabled. The result is a messy homepage that needs some major updates. Site: https://www.valenciacf.com/ Villarreal Villarreal achieved some of the best overall results, finishing in third place(just hundredths of a point behind the second team.) Valid HTML, excellent performance scores, and solid manual test results helped offset weaker outcomes in automated accessibility checks. Still, issues with color contrast, empty buttons, and inconsistent focus and outline strategies held the site back. Addressing these areas could lift Villarreal into the first place. Site: https://villarrealcf.es/es/ And the winner is… As an Atlético de Madrid supporter, it pains me to admit that the winner is Real Madrid. They ousted Málaga and Villarreal by just 1.1 points each. Although Real Madrid came out on top and remains a serious contender for the title, I didn't find any meaningful correlation between web accessibility scores and on‑field performance. That would have been surprising anyway (about as logical as claiming that the decline of pirates causes global warming.) One detail did catch my attention: the top four teams from the previous season all ranked within the top seven for SEO. Coincidence, or a hint that digital visibility matters more than we think? (At least, to bring fans and money with them, that can be used to sign better players?) Overall, the results weren't terrible, but La Liga teams still have plenty of room to grow in the web accessibility department. Many of the issues were straightforward to detect and, more importantly, relatively easy to fix. So, what happened? As a final thought, web accessibility may not decide championships, but it does decide who gets to join the game and enjoy the teams. Build accessible websites, everyone! Grading and Weighting Criteria This study evaluates the web accessibility of La Liga's first‑division soccer teams, focusing exclusively on the homepage, on desktop, and in Spanish‑language versions. To generate metrics, I used a mix of automated, semi‑automated, and manual tools: WebAIM Wave (extension): accessibility feedback and scoring. Lighthouse (in‑browser): accessibility, performance, usability, SEO, and structure data. GTMetrix: performance and structure analysis, combining Lighthouse with proprietary scoring. Accessibility Insights for Web (extension): manual accessibility testing guidance. Axe DevTools (extension): manual accessibility testing guidance. VoiceOver: screen reader evaluation. W3C HTML Validator: HTML error counts. All tests were performed in Chromium on a Mac, except for VoiceOver, for which I used Safari as the browser. Scoring Framework The evaluation was divided into four weighted categories: Manual accessibility testing: 50% Automated accessibility testing: 25% Performance testing: 15% Structure & SEO testing: 10% Performance impacts usability and accessibility, while proper structure and best practices boost accessibility by default. That's why these categories are included, even at lower weights. I initially weighted the categories as 35–30–20–15, but later adjusted to 50–25–15–10 to prioritize accessibility testing (especially manual checks) in order to emphasize the "human side" of the user experience. This update in weights changed the ranking, but not by much. The following sections explain how each category was scored. Manual Accessibility Testing (50%) My initial weight for manual accessibility testing was 35%, so I created 35 distinct metrics: 1 metric, 1 point. Later, I adjusted the weighting (after testing the sites), but I kept the 35 metrics and simply pro‑rated them. Within this category, I tested seven different groups. Each site began with 35 points, and for every issue identified on the page, I deducted one point (only once per issue). There were a few exceptions to this rule, which I'll explain later. Outline/Focus (5 points) Missing (some): -1 Inconsistent Outline: -1 Clipped: -1 Outline overlaps text/content: -1 Hidden elements get focus: -1 If outlines are missing across all elements (or for a considerable number of them), this section automatically receives a score of 0. Tabbing (5 points) Not in order: -1 CTAs not tababble: -2 Cannot exit modal/dialog: -2 This is the only section in which a metric has a value larger than 1. Typography (5 points) Low line height/Text lines too close: -1 Wide paragraphs: -1 Difficult to identify links/CTAs: -1 Justified text/Wall of text: -1 Use headings for styling: -1 Color (5 points) Low contrast on image (text or CTAs): -1 Low contrast on video (text or CTAs): -1 Use colors for status: -1 Missing visual label in form: -1 Missing high contrast: -1 I defined the metrics before starting the tests. I had in mind high‑contrast mode as implemented in Windows, but I couldn't replicate it on Mac. As a result, this metric became a free point for each team, ensuring that no site ended up with a score of zero. Low motion (5 points) Video autoplay: -1 Auto carousel: -1 Parallax effect: -1 Micro-interactions movement: -1 Marquee/Ticker: -1 Zoom at 200% (5 points) Horizontal scroll: -1 Elements overlap: -1 Unreadable text (no change): -1 Clipped/broken menus: -1 Sticky header/footer fill most of the screen: -1 Screen reader (5 points) Live regions not updating: -1 Read more button/links (or similar): -1 Landmark navigation: -1 Update/error announcement: -1 Proper alts/labels: -1 Automated Accessibility Testing (25%) For automated accessibility testing, I used two tools: WebAIM Wave and the Lighthouse A11Y results. Wave scores accessibility on a scale of 0–10, while Lighthouse uses a scale of 0–100. To normalize the results, I multiplied Wave scores by 10 and then averaged them with Lighthouse scores, giving each tool an equal 50% weight in the calculation. Performance Testing (15%) For performance evaluation, I used two tools: GTMetrix and the Lighthouse Performance results. I averaged both scores, giving each tool an equal 50% weight. GTMetrix results tended to be lower than Lighthouse's, largely because GTMetrix loaded the page fresh each time, while Lighthouse (running in‑browser) preserved my cookie settings, language selection, and other modes. In practice, GTMetrix measured a first‑load experience, while Lighthouse reflected a page already loaded with user context. Structure & SEO Testing (10%) For this category, I combined several elements and weighted them differently. On one side, I averaged the GTMetrix structure score, Lighthouse best practices, and Lighthouse SEO results. Together, these accounted for 50% of the category. The remaining 50% came from the W3C HTML Validator, worth 5 points in total, awarded as follows: 0-5 errors: 5 points 6-10 errors: 4 points 11-20 errors: 3 points 21-30 errors: 2 points 31-50 errors: 1 point 50 or more errors: 0 points Perhaps the weight for valid HTML was too high, but many accessibility and usability features depend on proper markup. For that reason, I chose to emphasize it. I liked combining different tools to avoid relying on a single source of truth. In some cases, this approach backfired: certain teams blocked specific tools, or sites were tested with a fresh reload each time, producing lower scores and a worse user experience. Still, I think that ultimately helped balance the results. To be honest, I expect to hear criticism of my method and the metrics I tested, and that's a good thing. I will learn better methods and metrics, adopt better practices, and improve the grading and weighting criteria for next year.