Madrid’s Real Classified in Ruling Over League Revenue Dispute
The court order scrutinizes and dismisses the claims raised by the football club against the National Football League and its president, Javier Tebas, regarding alleged corporate crimes connected to how income from broadcasting and exploitation rights for top-flight matches is allocated.
In a decision issued by the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s National Court, Real Madrid CF had appealed a prior dismissal ruling issued by investigating judge José Luis Calama. The Third Department affirmed the rejection of that appeal, confirming that the earlier judgment stood as written and that the preliminary inquiry did not warrant moving forward with the suspected offenses as described by the club.
The National Court likewise upheld the rejection of Real Madrid’s complaint against LaLiga and Tebas concerning the distribution of television revenue for league matches. The body of the decision argues that the alleged crimes do not arise from a direct, individual act by the defendants; instead, they stem from an agreement crafted within the Supervisory Body for Audiovisual Rights Management and the administration of the Primera División, where all participating clubs and publicly represented entities in the league were involved.
Specifically, the proposal underlying the agreement was passed with four votes in favor, one abstention, and one vote against within the Supervisory Body. It subsequently received approval from the Board of the Primera Division with eighteen votes in favor, two abstentions, and one vote against. The court’s order also notes that the claims of the complainant—unfair administration, embezzlement, corporate corruption, and the imposition of unlawful contracts—do not align with a conventional criminal pattern. The magistrates concur with the lower court and the Public Prosecution Service that the described facts do not meet the criteria of a criminal anomaly within this context, and thus the appeal is unfounded.
In reviewing these points, the chamber emphasizes that the contested actions were the product of a collective governance decision rather than a single, deliberate act by any one defendant. The ruling highlights the systemic nature of governance protocols in professional football’s broadcasting rights landscape, where multiple stakeholders participate and approve revenue-sharing mechanisms that affect all teams in the league. The decision reflects a strict reading of the legal standards for criminal involvement in corporate governance within the sports industry, contrasting with the broader concerns raised by the complainant about how value from audiovisual rights is allocated across clubs and related entities.
The court’s analysis reinforces the principle that decisions approved through established, multi-party governance processes may not constitute individual criminal behavior merely because the resulting economic arrangements are contested or controversial. As the case moves through the judicial system, the emphasis remains on whether the facts, viewed in isolation or as part of an institutional framework, reveal the specific criminal conduct described by the complaint. The ruling aligns with the assessment of the lower court and the Public Prosecution Service in considering the material facts and their alignment with legal definitions of wrongdoing in this domain.
Overall, the chamber’s decision closes the door on the particular criminal charges brought by Real Madrid in this matter, underscoring the importance of distinguishing between disagreements over governance outcomes and actionable criminal acts within the management of broadcast rights in professional football. The outcome underscores the need for careful legal scrutiny of how league-wide revenue-sharing agreements are formulated and the limits of criminal liability when such agreements are adopted through representative bodies with broad participation and voting procedures.
Citation note: The case illustrates ongoing debates over governance, transparency, and enforcement in the economics of football broadcasting rights, with conclusions that financial arrangements aligned with league-wide governance structures may not necessarily implicate individual officers or entities in criminal wrongdoing.