Barcelona enters a new phase of a long-running case as an appeal was filed with the Barcelona Court on Monday. The challenge targets the judge’s ruling in the Negreira case, which involves the club, its former presidents Sandro Rosell and Josep Maria Bartomeu, and two former executives, all accused of bribery. Barça argues that José María Enríquez Negreira, the former vice president of the Technical Referees Committee, cannot be classified as a public official and that the organization does not perform work that creates public obligations toward citizens. The club contends that the judge’s reasoning relies on a retrospective timeline dating back to 2001, asserting that payments to Negreira began then. This view, according to Barça, risks magnifying the charges and wrongly assigns the defendant’s status to other boards and administrations, regardless of any prescription that could apply to the crime, if any. [Cited: Barcelona Court case analysis, 2024]
The core accusation describes bribery as an offense committed by public authorities or officials who receive or solicit gifts or payments to perform actions contrary to their duties. The judge maintains that Barça paid more than seven million euros over seven years to the former head of the referees or his son, bringing Negreira into the orbit of the alleged crime. In this framing, the Technical Committee is portrayed as a body performing public-like functions. This suggests that Enríquez Negreira fulfilled public duties as vice president of the committee, implying his status as a public official for criminal purposes. [Cited: Bribery statutes and case documents, 2023–2024]
Barça’s legal team, led by Cristóbal Martell and Marc Molins, disputes this interpretation. They argue that Negreira cannot be deemed a public official since his appointment was made by the president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, an authority described as non-authoritative and even unofficial. The legal note emphasizes that while the RFEF is a private-law association performing certain public tasks by delegation, those powers are narrow and strictly bounded by law. The CTA and its vice president are not among the bodies that undertake delegated public duties. [Cited: Defense filings, 2023–2024]
Negreira’s appointment is described as lacking the formal express selection process associated with public office. It is argued that he did not attain public office through a conventional electoral process, as understood by doctrine and jurisprudence for publicly elected positions such as mayors or councilors. The document asserts that the person who appointed him was the president of the RFEF, and that this arrangement does not confer official status that would be considered public authority. The defense cites a Supreme Court decision that rejected the notion that the president of a sports federation holds official or assimilated status. If the president is not the one who appoints Negreira, the argument questions whether Negreira’s appointment creates a public-law relationship with the state. While acknowledging that the RFEF can exercise public administrative functions, including disciplinary powers, the defense maintains that these powers are limited to technical aspects of members’ performance and do not cover the conduct at issue under sports law or disciplinary regulations. The position is that current actions do not amount to the fulfillment of a public duty and therefore do not align with the charges under discussion. The defense further states that any supposed public responsibilities connected to the RFEF are constrained and do not translate into Negreira’s case as a public official for criminal purposes. [Cited: Supreme Court rulings, 2022–2024]