--Advertisement--
Advertisement

Barcelona face corruption charges for ‘buying referee favours’

Barcelona face corruption charges for 'buying referee favours' Barcelona face corruption charges for 'buying referee favours'
Barcelona face corruption charges for 'buying referee favours'

Barcelona have been charged with corruption over the alleged payments the club made to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, a former vice-president of Spanish football’s refereeing committee.

In February, there were reports that the Spanish club allegedly paid Negreira and Dasnil 95, a company he owns, a reported total of 8.4 million euros (£7.4m) between 2001 and 2018.

On Friday, the public prosecutor’s office said Spanish prosecutors filed a complaint against the Catalan giants and two of its ex-presidents for allegedly paying bribes to the senior refereeing official to influence match results.

According to Reuters, prosecutors claimed that under a secret agreement and “in exchange for money”, Negreira favoured Barcelona “in the decisions taken by referees in the games played by the club, as well as in the results of the competitions”.

Advertisement

A top Barcelona official was also quoted to have said that the club expected the complaint.

The official, however, said it was “nothing more than an absolutely preliminary investigative hypothesis” from the prosecutors and that “now is when the judicial investigation properly begins.”

The official added that “the club will fully cooperate with the investigation in all means necessary” and “reiterates that they have never bought any referee nor have tried to influence any official’s decisions.”

Advertisement

Last month, Barca refuted the allegation in a statement.

The club also said it paid an external consultant that supplied them with “technical reports related to professional refereeing”.

It described the consultation process as “a common practice among professional football clubs”.

A Barcelona court heard on Friday that the club, its former officials, and Negreira had been indicted for “corruption”, “breach of trust” and “false business records”.

Advertisement

A judge is yet to decide whether to take up the case.

Add a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected from copying.