The ongoing battle between LaLiga and Cloudflare over the piracy of sports broadcasts has been escalating for months, but the focus is no longer solely on “who is right,” but rather on how the measure is being applied. LaLiga argues that decisive action is necessary to stop illegal streaming. Cloudflare, on the other hand, claims that the chosen method — IP blocking via ISPs — ends up affecting thousands of legitimate services and turns each match into a kind of “roulette” for businesses and users.
This clash isn’t new, but it’s becoming increasingly visible. In Spain, LaLiga has judicial backing to order blocks related to pirated content distribution, a framework that has been reinforced through appeals and court decisions in commercial courts. The technical (and political) problem is that, when blocking by IP in an environment where many websites share infrastructure (CDNs, reverse proxies, hosting), the impact can extend to sites unrelated to football.
LaLiga vs Cloudflare: the underlying conflict
LaLiga maintains that a significant portion of illegal streams rely on infrastructure that makes it difficult to identify the origin of the content, and accuses Cloudflare of not effectively responding to notifications with technical details. Cloudflare responds that its role isn’t hosting content, but providing security and performance services, and that complaints should be directed at the hosting providers or those controlling the illicit service. Meanwhile, users end up paying the price: blocks that end up affecting legitimate websites and digital services that, coincidentally, share network resources or IP addresses with targeted objectives.
The key issue is that IP blocking is not a “surgical” intervention. It’s more akin to blocking an entire street because a specific portal is involved in illegal activity, risking blocking access to businesses, residents, and services that are completely unrelated.
Judicial backing exists, but the debate is now about proportionality
In 2024 and 2025, the judiciary has provided legal support for these measures, reinforcing the view that IP blocking is a legitimate tool in combating audiovisual piracy. However, the real debate for the tech industry revolves around whether the remedy is proportional and whether it’s being applied with sufficient mechanisms to prevent collateral damage.
This is where the controversy deepens: when companies and users report outages and access issues coinciding with match times, the blocking ceases to be an “inter-plateform” matter and becomes an issue of internet quality and service continuity.
Why is IP blocking so problematic in 2025?
Modern internet infrastructure is built on shared layers:
- CDNs and security services (such as WAFs, DDoS mitigation, or caching) that aggregate thousands of websites.
- Multi-tenant infrastructure where a single IP may serve as the “entry point” for multiple domains.
- Constant rotation and reassignment of resources by cloud providers.
As a result, when blocking is executed at the network layer without sufficient granularity, it can “break” access to perfectly legitimate services. This isn’t just theory — critics of these measures point out that broad application often produces these collateral effects.
Comparison Table: Approaches to Stopping Illegal Streaming (and their Collateral Damage)
| Approach | How it works | Precision | Risk of “overblocking” | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IP blocking (network layer) | Blocking an IP associated with the target | Medium-low | High | Quick to implement | Can disable legitimate services; hard to audit |
| Domain/URL blocking | Blocking a specific domain or routes | Medium | Medium | More targeted than IP blocking | Easy to evade by changing domains; depends on implementation |
| Take down at source | Removing the content where it’s hosted | High | Low | Tackles the “core” of the problem | Requires cooperation and time; jurisdictional complexities |
| Geoblocking with informational page | Limited to a country with a notice (e.g., interstitial) | Medium-high | Medium-low | More transparent; facilitates complaints | Not always applicable; users may evade |
| Selective fingerprinting/blocking (streaming signals) | Technical detection of abuse patterns | High (if well implemented) | Medium-low | Reduces collateral damage | Requires technical investment; risk of false positives |
The conclusion for a tech-focused audience is clear: there is no silver bullet, but rather approaches with varying social and technical costs. In a country where the digital economy depends on availability, “broad-spectrum” blocking measures carry reputational and operational costs that can no longer be ignored.
What companies and administrators should focus on now
As the dispute continues, here are some practical lessons for those operating web services:
- Monitor incidents and correlate them with match times.
- Have alternate IPs and routes (multi-CDN or multi-provider redundancy, when feasible).
- Prepare a communication plan for customers in case of service degradation.
- Document technical evidence (traces, timings, ASNs) to support escalation of complaints.
This isn’t about “taking sides,” but about recognizing that IP blocking, when used repeatedly as a tool, can become an operational risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can blocking an IP affect legal websites?
Because many sites share infrastructure (CDNs/security/hosting). An IP can act as a “front” for hundreds or thousands of different domains.
Is IP blocking legal in Spain for this case?
There are court rulings supporting IP blocking linked to the distribution of pirated content within this conflict’s framework.
What long-term alternative is more effective?
Takedown at the source and technical cooperation with providers tend to reduce collateral damage, though they are slower and more complex to coordinate.
How can a small business protect itself if its website “goes down” during matches?
Through monitoring, redundancy (if justified), and technical documentation for complaints. Sometimes, changing architecture (multi-CDN) can reduce exposure to broad blocks.
Sources: bandaancha, Cloudflare Blog, and Cloudflare Transparency Report