Estelle Cruijff, the niece of the late Johan Cruijff, has publicly revealed a painful chapter from her past, detailing the moment she discovered her then-husband, former football star Ruud Gullit, was having an affair. The revelation came during an appearance on the SBS6 program Het Waren 2 Fantastische Dagen, and has sparked considerable discussion in the Dutch media, including criticism from commentators who question the appropriateness of airing such private matters.
Cruijff described a moment etched in her memory, stating, “I didn’t really have luck in love.” She recounted returning home with her children to find Gullit with another woman in their living room. “I fell completely into a hole when I got divorced,” she said, directly attributing the infidelity to the breakdown of their marriage. The impact on her children was also significant, with Cruijff revealing that her daughter gained fifteen kilograms as a way of coping with the trauma.
The disclosure isn’t a recent one; Cruijff revisited the experience in an interview with Shownieuws, acknowledging the enduring pain. “You don’t forget it quickly. Everything fades with time, all wounds heal with time, but time isn’t always on your side,” she explained. The lingering emotional toll suggests the separation, which occurred in 2013 according to earlier reports, continues to resonate years later.
The public airing of this personal history has drawn criticism from some corners of the Dutch media. During a segment on Vandaag Inside, analysts Driessen and Derksen expressed disapproval of Cruijff’s decision to share such intimate details. Driessen questioned the relevance of the information to the public, calling it “ridiculous” and arguing that such private matters should remain private. Derksen predicted Gullit would be unhappy with the revelations.
Driessen further emphasized his concern, noting Gullit’s consistent refusal to engage in tell-all narratives about his personal life. “Ruud has had so many offers to write a book about his private life, but he doesn’t and he says, ‘I will never do that.’ And this is just thrown on TV,” he stated, highlighting a perceived double standard.
The incident underscores the complexities of navigating public and private life, particularly for individuals with high public profiles. Cruijff’s willingness to share her experience, while understandably painful, raises questions about the boundaries of public disclosure and the potential consequences for all parties involved. The reaction from Vandaag Inside’s commentators suggests a societal discomfort with the airing of such personal grievances, even years after the fact.
The timing of Cruijff’s renewed discussion of the affair is notable. Her appearance on Het Waren 2 Fantastische Dagen, a program that brings together celebrities for intimate conversations, provided a platform for her to revisit this difficult period. The show’s format, designed to foster open and honest dialogue, seemingly encouraged Cruijff to share details she had previously kept more private.
While Cruijff has indicated that time has softened the edges of the pain, her continued ability to recall the precise date and circumstances of the discovery – at 10:30 PM – speaks to the lasting impact of the betrayal. She even likened the memory to the national observance of Remembrance Day in the Netherlands, suggesting its significance is deeply ingrained in her consciousness.
The situation also highlights the often-unequal power dynamics in public discourse surrounding infidelity. While Gullit has maintained a consistent silence on the matter, Cruijff has now publicly shared her perspective, potentially reshaping the narrative surrounding their separation. Whether this will lead to further discussion or a renewed focus on the couple’s past remains to be seen.
The debate sparked by Cruijff’s revelations extends beyond the specifics of her personal life. It touches on broader questions about the role of the media in reporting on celebrity relationships, the ethics of public disclosure, and the lasting impact of infidelity on families. The incident serves as a reminder that even seemingly public figures are entitled to a degree of privacy, and that the consequences of violating that privacy can be significant.
