A heartfelt speech by Croatia national football team coach Zlatko Dalić, delivered in a church after Mass, has sparked political debate following criticism from an ‘hypocritical’ politician.
Dalija Orešković, a member of the political platform Centar and former head of Croatia’s Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest.
Social commentator Andrija Klarić described the exchange on his social media platforms as “one of the clearest demonstrations of political hypocrisy seen in recent times.”
Dalić’s address took place in a basilica, within a distinctly religious and private setting. His audience consisted of churchgoers and believers who, according to Klarić, shared faith in God, the values of the Church, and a sense of community.
In his remarks, Dalić stated that the Croatian team embraces “the values of faith, family, patriotism, and love for the homeland,” and expressed pride when seeing these values in young people.
Klarić stressed that the event was not political in nature, noting that Dalić did not speak at any political party gathering, nor did he propose laws, reforms, or public policies. Instead, he described the speech as “a message from the heart” consistent with the setting in which it was given.
Orešković responded publicly via Facebook, criticising Dalić’s views.
According to Klarić, her criticism did not directly engage with the substance of Dalić’s statements, but instead targeted his personal background, origin, and worldview.
Klarić summarised Orešković’s criticism and offered counterpoints:
1) Birthplace – Orešković noted that Dalić was “born in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Klarić argued that this was inconsistent with liberal political positions promoting open borders, freedom of movement, migration acceptance, and the idea that nationality is secondary to personal identity. He questioned why Dalić’s Livno origins would become an issue given his sporting achievements and faith.
2) Accusations of Division – Klarić stated that while Orešković accused Dalić of fostering division, she herself used the term “we Croats” in a way that, in his view, implied her own definition of legitimate Croatian identity. He said her comments appeared to question Dalić’s “Croatian-ness” because of his beliefs and values.
3) Public Expression of Faith – Orešković allegedly portrayed public displays of Catholic faith and identity as “kitsch,” “plastic,” or a “parade,” suggesting such expressions should remain private. Klarić countered by highlighting liberal principles that support the public expression of personal identity, questioning whether they apply selectively.
4) Symbolism – Klarić claimed that Dalić was targeted not for his specific statements but because he represents values—tradition, faith, nation, and family—that parts of the political scene oppose. He argued that media outlets amplified Orešković’s remarks by emphasising Dalić’s birthplace and repeating his quotes from the church setting, not for analysis but for discreditation.
Klarić went on to accuse Orešković of using the incident as a calculated political marketing move to regain relevance.
He outlined a four-step process: identifying a popular figure, discrediting them, appealing to one’s established audience, and gaining visibility through controversy. He argued that attacking Dalić was a deliberate attempt to spark a public reaction, which media outlets readily facilitated.
Klarić concluded that Dalić neither threatened anyone, nor proposed restrictive measures, nor singled out individuals. He said the coach simply expressed his beliefs in a religious space, yet faced public insults as a result.
He asserted that freedom of speech and the right to personal identity should not be limited to those who align with European Union political norms. “Faith is not shameful, patriotism is not fascism,” he said, adding that someone from Livno can love Croatia as much as—or more than—someone born in Zagreb.
Klarić framed the controversy as a test of whether truth and decency still hold public value and warned against what he called “ideological trampling on national symbols.”
