Official statement

Today, LALIGA has learned of the CSD (Higher Sports Council) Resolution, which resolves the appeal lodged by FC Barcelona and the players Dani Olmo and Pau Víctor on January 7, 2025, challenging the denial of preliminary visa and registration of said players by LALIGA and the RFEF (Spanish Football Federation). After reviewing the Resolution, which upholds the appeal based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction by the Monitoring Commission of the Coordination Agreement, LALIGA considers it necessary to make the following observations:

1.     LALIGA believes that the decision communicated today is not legally sound, for the following reasons, among others:

 

a.     The refusal of the preliminary visa for the renewal of licences or for new registrations is the result of the automatic application of player registration rules. In this context, the decisions made by the Monitoring Commission of the RFEF-LALIGA Coordination Agreement on January 4, 2025, were limited to acknowledging the legal impossibility of processing new licenses, thereby affirming the literal application of the federation’s regulations. This falls within the competences of the commission. This is further confirmed by the fact that FC Barcelona appealed against the decision of the Budget Validation Body (OVP), preventing the issuing of the preliminary visa to Competition Management through the LALIGA MANAGER platform.

In any case, the decision by the Monitoring Commission did not override decisions already made by the competent LALIGA and RFEF bodies. In this case, the decision of LALIGA Competition Management through the LALIGA MANAGER system, which is not the subject of the current appeal. Therefore, the Monitoring Committee did not deny FC Barcelona's applications, but confirmed the rejection of the preliminary visa made through the LALIGA Manager system, along with the legal opinion of the RFEF issued on December 31, 2024, regarding new player registrations.

 

 

b.     It is important to remember that the licenses of both players automatically expired on December 31, 2024, at the end of the agreed duration between the players and the Club. Therefore, no federation action is required to cancel these licenses.

The CSD's authority regarding licenses is limited to reviewing the issuance or denial of licenses, not their cancellation or extension (as stated in articles 116.3.a and 117 of the Sports Law), which is the case here. This is backed by numerous judicial rulings and even decisions issued by the CSD itself, which contravene its previous ruling, confirming that this matter is not subject to administrative review.

c.      Furthermore, the CSD resolution disregards established administrative and judicial doctrine stating that a declaration of absolute nullity must be evident, when the authority is clearly assigned to another body (or none at all), and does not apply when a prior legal interpretation is needed, or when regulations do not specify which body holds the authority. In this regard, sports legislation does not assign authority for preliminary visas and the issuing of licences to any specific body within professional leagues or Spanish sports federations. The CSD’s resolution does not mention which internal LALIGA or RFEF body would have the authority, so there can be no “manifest incompetence” to justify a declaration of nullity..

d.     On the contrary, LALIGA and RFEF’s actions in this case have been limited to the objective and literal application of the applicable regulations, carried out by their respective internal bodies which have been exercising these functions peacefully and consistently over time.

2.     The CSD issued its resolution nearly three months after the appeal was filed, using the full legal deadline, and without addressing the request for urgent lifting of the precautionary measure, adopted on January 8, 2025, made by LALIGA in its statement of allegations filed on January 22, 2025. 

This delay contrasts with the extraordinary speed at which the precautionary measures requested by FC Barcelona and the players were granted - within just 24 hours - without prior hearing from LALIGA or the RFEF, thus violating the principles of contradiction and defence.

3.     These measures were granted without meeting the legal conditions and procedural guarantees, thus compromising the integrity of the competition. They also contradict established case law of the Supreme Court and and previous rulings by two courts that denied precautionary measures (namely, the December 23, 2024 order from the Commercial Court No.10 of Barcelona and the December 30 order from the Court of First Instance No.47 of Barcelona).

LALIGA reiterates its commitment to legality, fair competition and the objective application of the regulations on financial fair play and player registration. For these reasons, and as LALIGA does not consider the resolution legally valid, it will file an immediate appeal.