Defense leader Josep Maria Bartomeu presented a detailed briefing in the Negreira case, challenging Real Madrid’s role as a private plaintiff. As the former Barcelona president stated to the magistrate, the claims of wrongdoing were not grounded in evidence, and he asserted that the white club did not suffer a direct injury in the events under investigation. This stance was echoed by La Razón and corroborated by the Iberian press outlet El Periódico, which noted the absence of a victimized position on the part of Real Madrid within the context of the ongoing inquiry into the 7.5 million euro payment. The defense argues that the facts do not establish harm that would justify Madrid’s involvement in the lawsuit, countering public accusations of impropriety while defending Barcelona’s integrity through the optics of the dispute between two football giants.
According to the allegations, admitting specific accusations by every football club without a defensible basis would render the investigative process unmanageable. The defense notes that Real Madrid was permitted to appear in the proceedings, a point emphasized by lawyer Fuster-Fabra, a prominent supporter of Espanyol, and by references to pivotal football institutions such as the Professional Football League and the Spanish Football Federation. The argument frames a broader pattern of clubs and governing bodies appearing in legal actions tied to officiating decisions and competitive outcomes, underscoring the contentious nature of refereeing influence in a high-stakes league landscape.
offended party
In a letter from Bartomeu’s attorney, Jose Maria Fuster-Fabra requests the judge dismiss the case or exclude Real Madrid from private prosecution, mirroring a prior move that had the club insist on its status as a harmed party to trigger a specialized line of prosecution. The defense contends that actions in this dispute may have, intentionally or not, favored one of the main contenders in the hierarchy of clubs by influencing refereeing decisions and, consequently, match results. The contention is that the club under Florentino Pérez headed stewardship faced a potential injury to its competitive standing, which the law recognizes as a basis for certain procedural rights in the case. This framing is used to challenge the perceived procedural bias and to question the legitimacy of measures that could tilt the competition in favor of Barcelona.
The letter from the defense asserts that both the Professional Football League and the Royal Spanish Football Federation are integral players in this complex landscape. These organizations regulate the competitions in which Real Madrid participates, and the defense argues that their involvement has already shaped aspects of the case. In addition to Madrid, another party connected to the Madrid camp has expressed an intention to participate as a private prosecutor. This individual is Luis Jose Saenz de Tejada Vallejo, a longtime member of the Madrid circle who served as a judge until his dismissal by the Supreme Court after a sentence of nearly three years in prison on a separate criminal matter. The argument highlights the possibility that a former judge, now entangled in related disputes, could influence the process through the private prosecution route. The narrative situates Vallejo alongside broader concerns about legal accountability and the potential for personal histories to intersect with contemporary sports litigation.
Throughout the defense’s filings, the emphasis remains on procedural legitimacy, the legitimate scope of private prosecutions, and the extent to which institutional affiliations may bear upon judicial outcomes. The strategy centers on reframing the dispute as one driven by careful legal analysis rather than by partisan advantage, seeking to reassure observers that the proceedings can proceed in a fair and balanced manner. The overarching aim is to protect the perceived integrity of the competition while ensuring that the legal process remains accessible to all parties who claim a direct interest in the matter. In this light, the case positions the institutions and individuals involved at the intersection of sport and law, a domain where reputations, governance rules, and accountability mechanisms all come under scrutiny.