Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Neymar, Rosell and Bartomeu over 2013 Barcelona transfer | OneFootball

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Neymar, Rosell and Bartomeu over 2013 Barcelona transfer | OneFootball

In partnership with

Yahoo sports
Icon: OffsAIde

OffsAIde

·23 April 2026

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Neymar, Rosell and Bartomeu over 2013 Barcelona transfer

Gambar artikel:Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Neymar, Rosell and Bartomeu over 2013 Barcelona transfer

Spain’s Supreme Court has upheld the Barcelona Provincial Court’s acquittal of Neymar Da Silva Santos Júnior, and former Barcelona presidents Sandro Rosell and Josep Maria Bartomeu, over the forward’s 2013 signing. According to El Periódico Mediterráneo, the complaint by investment firm DIS for business corruption and simulated-contract fraud was dismissed.

DIS bought, on 6 March 2009, economic rights derived from the player’s federative rights for five million Brazilian reais while Neymar was at Santos. Barcelona agreed a pact for him to join once free, targeted for 2014, then advanced the move to 2013 amid fear of Real Madrid interest, paying a transfer fee from which DIS received its share.


Video OneFootball


The Second Chamber found the accusation inconsistent and that there was no contemporaneous intent to defraud DIS, a requirement for criminal liability. It concluded the club made a sporting decision to secure the signing, then brought it forward and paid a fee.

Although DIS held 40% of the economic rights, it did not own the federative rights, which enable a transfer while a contract is in force. Under FIFA rules, those pass only when selling and buying clubs agree a transfer.

For the Santos to Barcelona transfer, DIS received 6,840,000 euros, equating to 40% of the 16.1 million euro fee. The court found no evidence that earlier agreements hid a plan to defraud, even if the move was accelerated by a year.

The ruling states that negotiations with contracted players fall within sporting regulation rather than criminal law, and there was no corruption between private parties or sham contracting because the agreements and intent were real. Any dispute would belong to civil or commercial jurisdictions.

It added that criminality in a contractual breach turns on intent, which was absent, and DIS was paid once the transfer occurred, not before. The contracts were future options dependent on the player becoming a free agent, and a player is free to choose his club once out of contract.

Lihat jejak penerbit