In the Sixth Division of the Barcelona Court, the case brought by the former Barcelona players, including the prominent figures linked to the club, concluded with multiple acquittals. The proceedings addressed allegations of corruption and fraud connected to the signature of Neymar da Silva, who was part of Santos at the time, involving the Barcelona side. The outcome placed emphasis on the distinction between alleged wrongdoing and the absence of proven criminal intent in several key claims, shaping how the court viewed the broader controversy surrounding this transfer window.
Known publicly as the Neymar 2 case, the central issue revolved around the transfer of the renowned striker. Barcelona paid 60 million euros to N&N Consultoria Esportiva during the 2011 to 2013 period, while Santos Club de Fútbol received a further 25 million euros, broken down into 17.1 million for the transfer and 7.9 million for a preferential option. This option reportedly included promises to the player’s youth system and a schedule of friendly matches, of which only one match was ultimately played. The court scrutinized the reliance on these components and how they were structured within the transfer agreements, weighing whether they reflected legitimate sports management or ulterior motives.
Additionally, the Brazilian investment fund DIS—acting as the private prosecutor—faced questions about the extent of its compensation. DIS claimed a substantial stake, having owned 40% of the striker’s transfer rights, yet the fund ultimately received only 6.8 million for the entire operation. The court examined whether DIS was harmed by the transactions in a manner that would sustain criminal charges, while acknowledging the civil damages claims that could still arise even if criminal liability did not attach to the defendants. The decision highlighted the nuances between civil injury and criminal responsibility within high-profile football transfers.
The ruling also cleared Neymar da Silva’s father, Neymar Sr., who oversaw the family business representing the player, and Odilio Rodrigues, a former Santos manager, from criminal liability in relation to these agreements. The judge’s assessment indicated that the evidence presented did not demonstrate a direct criminal scheme carried out by these individuals in the way that the law requires to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution pursued an acquittal for Bartomeu, arguing that no convincing evidence showed a crime linked to the transfer operations. As the case advanced, the prosecutor ultimately withdrew charges against several defendants, signaling a narrowing of the legal focus. In their final report, the DIS request against the actor’s mother, Nadine Gonçalves, and N&N’s manager did not proceed, though lingering charges remained for other involved parties. This development reflected the court’s careful evaluation of whether specific actions met the threshold for criminal liability while acknowledging the possibility of civil recourse should damages be proven.
DIS had initially sought prison sentences for the parties involved: 2.6 years for Neymar and Bartomeu, who served as Barça’s vice president of sports at the relevant time, and 4 years for Rosell, the father of the player and then-president of the Catalan club. The prosecution also pursued a sentence of 2 years for Odilio Rodrigues, the former head of Santos. In addition, DIS requested fines amounting to 57.48 million euros for FC Barcelona and N&N, along with a parallel fine of the same magnitude for Santos FC, signaling the gravity with which the prosecutors viewed the alleged irregularities.
However, the court’s sentencing note, as reported by EFE, did not establish that any of the agreements aimed to undermine DIS’s profit expectations. The court stated that the evidence failed to prove a goal to deliberately harm the investor, particularly in the context of the contracts designed to secure Neymar’s signing with FC Barcelona. This nuance underscored the difficulty in proving intent to defraud under the circumstances and highlighted the limitations of the charges tied to the individual corruption claim. The decision also found that the DIS entity could suffer civil damages but may not be classified as a direct victim of the specified crime. The judge’s reasoning reflected the broader challenge of translating complex football financial arrangements into criminal liability under the applicable laws.
Regarding the charge of improper fraud, the court emphasized that contracts cited as potentially simulated must demonstrably serve to harm DIS. Without clear evidence of a deceitful contract that harmed the investor, the crime could not be established. The ruling also noted the absence of evidence showing that Neymar was offered a bribe or that he was asked to sign with Barcelona under improper terms, reinforcing the absence of criminal conduct as defined by the court. The decision thus focused on the absence of concrete indicators of bribery or deceit, narrowing the scope of criminal liability in the case and leaving room for civil or regulatory responses if warranted by other facets of the transfer arrangements.