Official statement

LALIGA has today learned of the ruling by Commercial Court No.10 of Barcelona rejecting the request for the provisional registration of Dani Olmo until June 30, 2025, on the grounds that none of the necessary conditions for the adoption of an interim measure have been met. In view of this ruling, LALIGA wishes to clarify the following:

-      The order upholds the full legal conformity of denying a player's registration on the basis of Article 77 of the LALIGA Budgeting Rules (NEP), under which, in the event of a long-term injury to a player, Clubs may replace that player with another. The ruling states: “LALIGA provided a reasoned interpretation of Article 77 of the NEP, and more importantly, it’s the same interpretation applied to every other team in the competition. In fact, it’s the same interpretation applied to FC Barcelona in July 2024 regarding the cases of Araújo and Iñigo Martínez”. And adds: “Thus, LALIGA has established budget balance rules by exercising the power conferred on it by law”. The ruling also stresses that: “The purpose of allowing additional spending is so that a long-term injury does not weaken the team’s competitiveness, not to use a long-term injury to allow the registration of players whose salaries exceed the limit, which is what FC Barcelona is attempting”.

-      LALIGA, and as the ruling itself also acknowledges, stresses that the decision not to register Dani Olmo was initially taken by LALIGA's Budget Validation Body and subsequently confirmed three times: by LALIGA's Financial Fair Play Committee, LALIGA's Social Appeals Committee, as well as by the UEFA Second Instance Licensing Committee of the RFEF.

For all these reasons, LALIGA welcomes that, in response to requests for interim measures of this nature, a provision of the NEP, which has to date been applied uniformly to all Clubs, has not been set aside, since doing so could severely undermine the equality of conditions of the competition rules.

This principle has guided LALIGA’s actions at all times, particularly given that Spain’s Sports Law itself has underscored how Financial Fair Play has “proven truly useful in ensuring the viability and integrity of the competitions.” Courts have also explicitly upheld these mechanisms in the past. Clear examples include the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court endorsing the NEP, or the denial of player registrations (as in the Pedro León case, in which the Provincial Court of Madrid revoked the interim measure initially granted by the Commercial Courts concerning the player’s prior registration, considering that “the budget balance rules that limit the cost of registered squads serve a legitimate objective, which is to combat excessive debt among clubs and SADs” and “seek to encourage the sustainability of professional football”).