Barcelona’s Bribery Blunder
As Spain celebrates its success in the European Football Championship, its most iconic club, FC Barcelona, is in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. In May, an appellate court in the country struck down a bribery charge against the sports association. The charge was leveled in connection with news that the team’s former presidents had paid $7.7 million to a vice-president of Spanish football’s refereeing committee, José María Enríquez Negreira. The team, along with Negreira and the ex-officials, still face charges of corruption, breach of trust, and false business records.
FC Barcelona maintains that the payments, made over the course of eight years, were consulting fees. However, the arrangement raises several red flags for impropriety, including the sheer size of the payments, and that Negreira was involved in assigning referees to matches and evaluating their performance. Moreover, it is not clear exactly what the nature of the consultation was, as top-level referees typically do not engage in consultancy work, and any consulting agreement was strictly verbal.
Xavier Estrada Fernández, a top-level goalie, has filed a criminal lawsuit against Negreira, alleging sporting fraud. According to Fernández, the system that Negreira used to assign referees to international matches employed a corrective index which has been dubbed the “corruption index” by other retired referees. Fernández alleges Negreira controlled the rating system of the referees to favor those close to him, meaning those willing to favor FC Barcelona as well. He claims that since he did not go along with the plan, he was rated poorly on that system.
However, there is no evidence that Negreira himself paid referees to influence matches or otherwise interfered with their officiating, and the subjective nature of many calls makes it hard to argue what, specifically, may have unfairly benefited FC Barcelona.
Because bribery is secretive by nature, its elements have always been notoriously hard to prove in court. This is driving the outcry over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in Snyder v. U.S., which interpreted a government ethics law to allow an Indiana mayor to accept a $13,000 payment from a city contractor on the basis that it was a gratuity, not a bribe.
A bribe entails giving or offering a thing of value in exchange for something that the recipient might not normally do. In the case of a gratuity, there is no need to demonstrate what the intent or effect of the payment is, just that it has some connection to the recipient’s duties. Gratuities can be given before the event in question. This means bribery is much harder to prove because it is difficult to prove intent. As a result, fewer bribery charges are brought.
Although there are some serious red flags with Barca’s case, there is no explicit “smoking gun” linking the purpose of the payment to any actions Negreira took. Barca has not shown what Negreira’s consultancy contract was for and has only said that Negreira gave insider knowledge about some referees. Notwithstanding that this seems to resemble improperly buying confidential information, it still does not rise to the level of manipulating refereeing outcomes.
Even if the elements of bribery are not alleged, the payments between the former directors and Negreira could still be seen as gratuities because they are clearly in connection with his refereeing role. Although seemingly less severe than bribery, gratuities are still quite problematic. For example, in 2010, a judge in the U.S. landed in hot water after he received multiple bags of popcorn after he dismissed parking tickets given to a delivery driver of a popcorn company. Despite seeming trivial, a gratuity like this could signal to future defendants that they can “buy” a favorable outcome with this judge. Here, it’s quite easy to see how payments totaling $7.7 million can result in favorable treatment.
The charges that FC Barcelona faces are quite severe. Legal and ethics frameworks describe how accepting gratuities is problematic and prohibit doing so because it completely taints the institution. Because of these payments, the past 17 years of games are pulled into question. In fact, the judge has opened a door for all soccer teams that have played against the club during the years under investigation to privately prosecute. As a result, the soccer club Real Madrid is now taking legal action against Barca because these payments signal Barca has had an unfair advantage from 2001 to 2018. If only a goalie could save FC Barcelona from the consequences they are about to face.
J.D. Candidate, The George Washington University Law School, Class of 2026