Will Messi’s tragedy be repeated with Lewandowski?
In August 2021, Barcelona did not renew Lionel Messi’s contract because he surpassed the spending cap set by La Liga. The missed opportunity to resolve the club’s financial hurdles in advance—allowing the signing of the summer’s marquee player—remains a central question for fans and analysts alike.
A year later, Barcelona faced a similar dilemma with Robert Lewandowski and the other star arrivals this summer, totaling 164 million euros. The only real difference was that Barcelona continued to move players off the books by August 31 and pressured some teammates into salary concessions to satisfy La Liga’s requirements.
Yet the handling of these issues has raised serious concerns about the club’s strategy and its long-term credibility.
De Jong scandal
Under President Joan Laporta, the Barcelona administration identified four straightforward avenues to ease the financial strain:
1) sell selected TV rights to generate quick cash for this summer’s transfers;
2) sell Frenkie de Jong, a 25-year-old midfielder, for around 80 million euros while also pressuring him to relinquish approximately 20 million euros the club still owed him from a previous agreement (the player had already delayed 16 million euros in 2020 during the pandemic);
3) offload a few more players for smaller sums, with targets including Memphis Depay, Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, and Marc-Andre ter Stegen;
4) require high-earning players to take substantial salary cuts.
So far, only the first option has materialized: Laporta sold a 25% stake in Barcelona’s TV rights to Sixth Street for 25 years. That deal could yield 667.5 million euros if paid upfront, but over a quarter of future TV revenue would be sacrificed for the next quarter-century, and the rising value of TV rights suggests several hundreds of millions in potential revenue could be lost. The move was intended to fund immediate transfers and potential titles, while preserving long-term liquidity.
Critics argued that the club prioritized short-term buys over sustaining a robust financial base, a stance that risked long-term stability for immediate naming rights and player acquisitions. Gary Neville, a former player and commentator, described the situation as risky for a giant with substantial debt.
The other three elements of the plan faced sharper challenges, especially the proposal to sell de Jong. The club owes him about 20 million euros, yet has pressed him to forgive the debt and seek a move elsewhere. This tension sits oddly alongside high-profile signings such as Lewandowski, the young defender Jules Kunde, winger Rafinha, and midfielders Frank Kessier and Andreas Christensen, who joined at significant cost. While Christensen and Kessier arrived as free agents, their salaries remain substantial, and Barcelona invested heavily in the squad overall. There was even speculation about further acquisitions, including a potential 100 million euro bid for Bernardo Silva from Manchester City.
De Jong’s refusal to forgive the debt has intensified the conflict, with the club reportedly pursuing aggressive tactics to push him out. According to reports, a formal notice cited potential contractual violations tied to the 2020 extension that delayed certain payments, raising questions about the legal basis for pursuing a departure and debt forgiveness. The club’s leadership now faces questions about the legality and ethics of its approach.
The public record on these developments remains unsettled, and it is unclear which claims, if any, will withstand scrutiny. Weeks have passed without a decisive move, and De Jong has shown no intention of leaving. He has also signaled readiness to respond forcefully if pressed, and the broader football community has offered support as the dispute unfolds.
Commentary from observers has been mixed. Some voices argue that the club’s aggressive negotiating posture risks alienating players and damaging its reputation, while others contend that hard bargaining is a necessary part of stabilizing finances. Advocates of players’ union perspectives emphasize the importance of fair treatment and the need for sport bodies to avoid coercive tactics. The situation has sparked debate about the balance between financial health and sporting success.
Experts note that Barcelona’s leadership has often insisted that the club must protect its economic interests, even at the expense of personal relationships with players. This has led to a broader discussion about the role of governance in modern football and whether big clubs should adjust how they manage debt and sponsorships to safeguard long-term stability.
As the dispute continues, questions remain about the repercussions for Barcelona’s reputation and for De Jong’s future. Some observers worry about a broader pattern where star players feel pressured to accept unfavorable terms to support the club’s broader strategy. Others caution that pushing a valued player out could undermine team chemistry and fan confidence in the club’s management.
In the end, the case underscores a wider dynamic in top-tier football: the tension between aggressive financial maneuvers and the need to maintain trust and stability within the squad. The outcome could influence how other clubs approach debt, contracts, and high-profile signings in the coming seasons.
Lawyers are also on Jong’s side
Legal experts have weighed in on De Jong’s situation, with some arguing that the midfielder did not commit a crime by accepting a contract extension under pressure to help the club during a difficult period. The point emphasizes that the primary obligation was to assist the club at a critical moment, with a reasonable expectation of reward in return, such as a longer contract or improved compensation in later years.
Analysts caution that if Barcelona pursues litigation, the process could drag on for years and potentially end without a resolution that benefits either side. There is a broader concern that aggressive legal action could harm Barcelona’s standing in the football community. The involvement of player unions or federations could further complicate the matter, given the possibility of disputes about the legality of certain contractual terms.
Some legal voices suggest that responsibility for any contractual irregularities would rest with earlier club leadership and the former board rather than with the player. The potential consequence could be a renegotiation of terms rather than a punitive outcome for De Jong, with the debt remaining a factor in the broader negotiation.
Current analyses point to the possibility that a dispute over the contract could lead to a partial reversal of terms but not necessarily a departure for the player. If that happens, the debt might persist, maintaining a financial obligation while the sporting landscape continues to shift around the club.
Ultimately, the public reaction to the club’s tactics remains mixed, with some supporting a tough stance and others lamenting the reputational cost. The question remains whether high-earning players will continue to back a team that appears to leverage threats and litigation in negotiations.
Notably, observers ask whether top players will still consider Barcelona when leadership signals a willingness to back aggressive, debt-driven strategies, and whether such tactics will deter future stars from joining a club that appears willing to threaten its own players.
Attribution note: insights reflect ongoing coverage and commentary from industry observers and sports law voices.