Barca Universal
·23 febbraio 2025
Javier Tebas talks Olmo-Victor registration issue, Negreira case, Barcelona’s potential relegation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e43e3/e43e3e609831bef580714cf4dba6c119c643b522" alt="Immagine dell'articolo:Javier Tebas talks Olmo-Victor registration issue, Negreira case, Barcelona’s potential relegation"
In partnership with
Yahoo sportsBarca Universal
·23 febbraio 2025
La Liga president Javier Tebas recently spoke in detail with The Objective, where he addressed multiple issues, including his ongoing disputes with Real Madrid.
However, a key focus of his remarks was the financial situation at FC Barcelona. Due to La Liga’s financial regulations, the Catalan club has faced severe restrictions in the transfer market, preventing them from operating freely.
Tebas acknowledged concerns surrounding the club’s attempt to meet the 1:1 spending rule through the sale of VIP seats. While this arrangement helped Barcelona register some players, La Liga has not yet validated the registrations of Dani Olmo and Pau Víctor.
Their ability to play has only been possible due to a temporary ruling from the Higher Sports Council.
Tebas explained that Barcelona had appealed La Liga’s initial decision regarding their financial manoeuvres. The league had placed strict conditions on these deals, demanding that 40% of the agreed amount be paid upfront in cash.
Javier Tebas has asked for a fair resolution. (Photo by OSCAR DEL POZO/AFP via Getty Images)
Upon further review, La Liga’s Economic Control Committee found irregularities in the deal. One of the companies involved had a registered capital of just €3,000 and was run by an individual with an obscure background.
“This issue must be clarified well. FC Barcelona appealed to the internal bodies of LaLiga because we had denied them or put a very high guarantee in those contracts. They had to advance 40% of the contracts in cash,” he began saying.
“In the internal appeals filed by Barcelona, LaLiga’s Economic Control Committee applied the validation rule and found that one of the companies involved had a share capital of only €3,000 and was run by an unknown person, with several businesses of dubious origin.”
La Liga flagged this partnership as questionable since the connection with Barcelona dated back to May 2024.
Tebas emphasised that the matter had been escalated to the relevant internal bodies and the Higher Sports Council, insisting that this was part of La Liga’s standard procedures rather than a targeted action against Barcelona.
“All this was already in the writings we presented. This partnership had a relationship with Barça since May 2024, so it is not something new.
“We have transferred this information to our internal bodies and to the CSD in our written submissions. We are not doing anything special with the CSD; this is part of our normal process.”
Tebas has shared his thoughts on the Negreira case. (Photo by Arnold Jerocki/Getty Images For Sportel)
Regarding the ongoing Negreira case, which is yet to be fully investigated, Tebas sought to differentiate between the legal aspects in play. He noted that Barcelona, as an institution, could face accusations of sports corruption.
“We have to differentiate the crimes that are being investigated. Barça, as a legal entity, could be accused of sports corruption.”
La Liga has actively pushed for the investigation to continue, believing there is enough evidence to justify a formal trial.
The league argues that there are sufficient indications that Barcelona engaged in improper conduct, but the severity of any potential sentence will depend on the court’s findings.
“From La Liga, in fact, we have asked for the investigation to be completed because we believe that there is sufficient evidence to go to oral trial. We want the pending evidence to be finished and for the case to move forward,” he said.
Meanwhile, other accusations, such as mismanagement and document forgery, are primarily directed at individuals rather than the club itself.
“We believe that there are indications for Barça to be convicted of sports corruption, although the level of the sentence will depend on what is determined in the trial.
“As for the crimes of disloyal administration and document forgery, these are more linked to individuals who could have committed them.”
Tebas refused to talk much about the implications. (Photo by Arnold Jerocki/Getty Images For Sportel)
Tebas also discussed the potential consequences if Barcelona were found guilty of sports corruption.
He reaffirmed La Liga’s stance that the payments made to former referee official Negreira were intended to influence key footballing decisions, including promotions and relegations.
“We have asked that the case go to trial because we believe that there is sufficient evidence to determine that FC Barcelona committed a crime of sports corruption with, not just the mere offer, but the payment to Negreira with the intention of influencing promotions and relegations.”
From the league’s perspective, this alone constitutes sports corruption and should be brought to trial. Tebas has previously expressed this opinion in various forums, including La Vanguardia, and maintains that the evidence supports legal action.
“That, in our opinion, is already enough to consider that there is sports corruption. I have said it in several forums, including one in La Vanguardia in Barcelona, and I believe that there are sufficient indications to initiate an oral trial.”
Tebas said Barcelona will not be relegated. (Photo by Carlos Alvarez/Getty Images)
Despite these strong statements, Tebas clarified that even if Barcelona were convicted, the club would not face relegation from La Liga.
He explained that the current Sports Law has a three-year statute of limitations on such cases, meaning any administrative punishment is legally impossible.
While La Liga must follow the existing legal framework, Tebas reiterated that there is no concrete proof that Barcelona directly influenced referees through financial means.
“I don’t make the sports laws; I have to comply with what the Sports Law establishes.
“In this case, the statute of limitations for crimes is three years, and we cannot invent a different statute of limitations. So, no, there would be no administrative decrease for this reason,” he noted.
Source: Mundo Deportivo
Live
Live