Laporta forces fresh legal test for Perez’s Negreira allegations

Barcelona president Joan Laporta has moved the dispute over the Negreira case from the media to the courts after challenging Real Madrid president Florentino Perez over comments accusing the Catalan club of corruption and buying refereeing influence.

Perez must attend a conciliation hearing before the Madrid courts on 25 November. Barcelona is not simply seeking an apology. It wants him to withdraw specific statements or identify the referees, matches and evidence behind his allegations. If its demands are not met, the club says it will file a criminal complaint against him.

What is the Negreira case?

The original investigation concerns payments made by Barcelona over several years to companies linked to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira and his son. Negreira was formerly vice-president of the Technical Committee of Referees, and investigators have examined payments exceeding 7 million euros during the period under review.

Barcelona says the money was paid for technical reports and advice about referees, rather than to secure favourable decisions. The club has produced hundreds of reports and related materials which it says resulted from those services.

However, investigators have questioned the value of the work and whether it was used by the club. Some coaches said they were unaware of the reports or had not used them.

A report by Spain’s Civil Guard said its investigation had not established at that stage that an amount exceeding 7.5 million euros had genuinely been paid for the consultancy work described by Barcelona. It also found no clear evidence that the reports had been used by the club’s departments. Cash withdrawals from companies linked to Negreira were recorded, although their final destination was not fully established.

The report did not conclude that the money had been used to buy refereeing decisions, but treated that possibility as one of the lines of inquiry. Several referees who gave evidence to the Civil Guard did not establish direct influence over competition. Some believed Barcelona may have sought a sporting advantage through its relationship with Negreira, while others said such influence was impossible or had not occurred.

A Spanish tax authority report published in 2026 also said it had found no evidence that Barcelona’s money went to referees or was used to influence match results. It did, however, refer to repeated cash withdrawals from Negreira’s accounts and said the ultimate purpose of some payments remained unresolved.

In May 2024, Barcelona’s court removed the bribery charge from the case, ruling that Negreira did not qualify as a public official under the legal definition required for that offence. The investigation into possible sporting corruption continues.

Perez’s comments

Perez described the Negreira affair as “systematic corruption” and “the biggest scandal in history”. He also said Real Madrid had been “robbed” of seven La Liga titles because of refereeing decisions and claimed Barcelona “always benefit” from refereeing.

Barcelona says those remarks go beyond raising questions about the case and amount to direct accusations that damage the club’s reputation. The 25 November hearing is a procedural step before a possible criminal defamation complaint.

Under Spanish law, defamation involves accusing someone of a crime while knowing the allegation is false or showing reckless disregard for the truth. A defendant can avoid punishment by proving the crime attributed to the other party.

Laporta has therefore focused on the difference between what investigations have established and what Perez stated as fact. The hearing will not decide the Negreira case itself, but it could force Perez to clarify or substantiate his claimsor consider withdrawing them.