Barça paid a former referee, Enríquez Negreira, for 17 years to provide arbitration advisory services and to share verbal technical videos, totaling around seven million euros. The responsibility lies with Barça members to scrutinize how every euro was used down to the last cent. For 17 years, presidents such as Gaspart, Laporta, Rosell, and Bartomeu did not halt the payments, until 2018. The core question for members is why that continued for so long. Between 2016 and 2018, Negreira served on the referees technical committee while Barça continued to compensate him for his services, signaling a clear conflict of interest. This issue touches not only Barça but also other First Division clubs, the RFEF, the Liga, the Higher Sports Council, and the Referees Commission. The implications are broad.
If Negreira warned about cutting the payments and did not, the matter needs clarification. If Barça decided to stop the practice coinciding with Negreira’s departure from the CTA, that decision should be explained. If Negreira was aware of irregularities, as indicated by the burofax, those disclosures require illumination. Most importantly, questions persist about how Negreira, given the compensation received over 17 years, risked signing the burofax and potentially incriminating himself if nothing irregular had occurred. To date, there is no documentary link proving that Negreira’s services influenced refereeing decisions in Barça’s favor. The inquiry remains open and the search for clarity continues.
Negreira’s affiliation with the CTA did not change the fact that Barça funded his activities. Whether the arrangements were legal or not, the situation is indefensible on ethical grounds and demands accountability. It is noted that although some aspects are declared prescribed at the administrative level, the same people who call for accountability at Atleti for a prescribed offense now advise that prescribed matters deserve punishment. The inconsistency has not escaped scrutiny.
If Barça wants to attribute blame to others involved, that stance could be pursued, but this would be better addressed in judicial venues. Questions remain about who signed the contract with Negreira and why four different Barça presidents did not end the collaboration. The silence of other clubs in the league may also be telling, as fans assess whether the standard applied to Barça aligns with how other teams are treated. In discussions about a Super League project, the perception that Barça operates under different rules persists, and that impression is challenged by figures such as Juve facing penalties for irregularities. The tension between honor and money remains evident.
For 47 years there has been the motto that the honesty of referees is not in question. Yet belief in integrity extends beyond referees to the members who influence appointments, and to journalists, politicians, and tradespeople who rely on fair play to maintain credibility. The question arises whether the CTA vice president, despite lacking influence over arbitration appointments, accessed the group’s reserved information through his position. As the controversy spreads through the arbitration body, one asks whether the CTA has taken steps to file a formal complaint. Leading figures who say they were unaware of the vice president’s power or even his role appear to be grappling with the reality of long-standing shadows. Negreira is described as someone who appeared to exist in the background, a costly figure in Barça’s accounts during the years of involvement with the CTA. The goal is to account for every euro spent.
For the fans, the Negreira case is seen as a potential iceberg emerging from a sea of skepticism. Some supporters believe that widespread corruption taints the sport, while others find it difficult to reconcile penalties for players who criticize referees with situations where a club paid significant sums to close observers within the refereeing framework. The challenge is explaining why a club that participated in a league for several years while compensating refereeing authorities might escape penalties that would be imposed on others for comparable concerns. The perception of fairness remains under strain.
The reality is that the payments themselves are legal in form but widely viewed as immoral. Even if Negreira intended to leverage leverage against the club, the sums paid contributed to a messy situation that found no administrative sanction because the matter was prescribed. The broader consequence is a public perception that football governance is compromised. Spanish arbitration is tarnished, suspicion persists, and the reputational damage to Barça is one that cannot be easily repaired. The ongoing narrative emphasizes reputational costs that do not disappear with time.
Citation: Goal
Related posts:
Negreira case: Barcelona’s payments, leadership silence, and the hunt for facts Enríquez Negreira and the high-cost bill to Barcelona: a thorough review Negreira case explained: Barcelona, referees, and governance in focus Barcelona Prosecutor’s Office Names Rosell, Bartomeu in Negreira Case; Probes Alleged Payments and Referee Influence CTA: Referees Defend Impartiality Amid Pressure and High-Profile Cases The Spanish arbitration debate grows as the season unfolds Barça’s Leadership Under Scrutiny: The Negreira Case and the Laporta Era Medina Cantalejo Speaks on Negreira Case and Referee Performance Negotiating Trust, Power, and Referee Governance in Spanish Football Barcelona Referee Case: Negreira Payments Under Scrutiny Barcelona’s Enríquez Negreira Payments: Key Questions and Unanswered Details Limitation Periods and Bribery in the Negreira Case