Is Barca’s bizarre Frenkie de Jong dispute a “trick” to save costs, or does it have a legal basis?

In a dramatic and sometimes logic-defying summer of off the pitch business, Barcelona’s ongoing dispute with its star midfielder, Frenkie de Jong, almost certainly stands out as its most bizarre.

The club have reportedly told de Jong that they want to annul his existing deal, and revert to the contract he was on before. Barca allege that the terms given to him by the previous board involved criminality and were illegal.

De Jong is reported to have reduced his salary in the previous two seasons to help Barca during the financial trauma caused by the pandemic. Around €18 million of reduced wages was then to have been spread over the subsequent four seasons.

The subplot is that Barca are still in severe financial difficulty and need to cut costs and raise cash in order to fulfil LaLiga’s financial control regulations and register players before the season’s start. In other words, it would appear that they don’t want to pay up to de Jong, and are possibly trying to use the dispute to leverage his departure.

The case nevertheless raises all sorts of legal questions. What would it take for the current Barca-board to legally win a case claiming that they don't owe Frenkie de Jong the deferred wages, because the contract was “illegal” or false when it was signed? If the de Jong contract was illegal, doesn’t that cast doubt on their ownership of other players signed in the same timeframe? Moreover, how can this be Frenkie de Jong’s problem? Isn't he a victim in a a battle between the former and the current boards of the club?

Lengthy process

Jessie Engelhart, partner of Sensato Sports Law, questions both the motivations behind Barcelona’s stance and also whether it will get the desired results. While Barca appear to be using the case to bring down their outgoings in order to satisfy LaLiga’s financial controls ahead of the new season, she sees “a very difficult and lengthy process” for the club that could take “several years”.

“These contracts passed several stages of legal control, both internally by the club’s legal services and compliance department and externally through audits and La Liga’s legal department,” she says.

“Due to the significant repercussions for the innocent parties involved (the players) of declaring such contracts void and the timing of these notifications, I believe it won’t play out in Barca’s favour.”

Questionable motivations

However Englehart raises bigger questions about Barca’s motivations, describing “the intentions behind these allegations questionable.” She points out that the new board performed a thorough audit of the club and due diligence when they first arrived at the club in 2021.

“The fact that De Jong was only informed of this alleged illegality now, when the negotiations between the player and the club have almost reached a climax due to the financial pressure on the club and their wish to extinguish the players contract, makes the intentions behind these allegations questionable,” she says.

“Intentions are one thing, but the facts and legality / illegality of the execution of these contracts are a separate thing, all of this together with the alleged evidence of which we do not have any knowledge at the moment, would have to be taken into account and it would be up to the judge to finally decide on this, which is a process that could take several years and therefore not be of much benefit to the club as it concerns a rather urgent matter.”

Cost cutting tactic?

Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez, sports department director of Valencian practice, Ruiz-Huerto & Crespo, says that it is difficult to make a legal judgement on the case, mostly because Barcelona haven’t actually articulated what “illegal activity” has taken place. He believes that it is simply a tactic to move the player on and cut costs.

“The core of Frenkie De Jong case lays on the need for FCB to receive money and to avoid huge employment contracts. Thus, the club is trying to make the contract signed by the player with the previous president as null and void,” he says.

“It seems a bit – or better, a lot – difficult to understand how a contract reviewed by the counsels of both parties, the LaLiga and the Spanish FA could be null and void. I don’t see how.”

Wider implications

Ian Laing, counsel at Edinburgh based Lombardi Associates, says that if  the de Jong contract was illegal it surely casts doubt on their ownership of other players signed in the same timeframe.

“All players who agreed new contracts at that time reportedly accepted similarly restructured contracts and so one would expect that if the club has legitimate concerns regarding the legality of De Jong’s new contract, they likely have similar concerns in respect of the legality of the others,” he says.

He suggests from publicly available information that “it appears the allegations are aimed at the former board, rather than toward the player.” 

“The previous administration deny all of the allegations and if they are correct, that there was no impropriety, the current board will, of course be bound by the terms of the contract agreed between the club and De Jong,” he says.

 “Regardless of whether the new board view it as a commercially bad deal, they are bound to honour it.  There is a fine line between bad management and mismanagement, a bad commercial decision and an illegal manoeuvre.”

Moment of need

Pérez suggests that de Jong is being punished by the club when he has in fact acted virtuously in the past – reducing his salary during the pandemic to help Barca’s perilous financial situation, in exchange for deferred payments in future seasons.

“The player was helping the club in a particular moment of need and he did it on being requested by the club and then, after what was understood by both parties that the Covid issue was not going to be anymore a problem, recover his losses of those two seasons. This is a clear and neat agreement and I do not see where the illegality stands,” he says.

“Furthermore, a lot of other contracts with several player were signed on the same or similar basis, so what about those?”

The lawyer is scathing about Barcelona’s behaviour, concluding: “The only thing that we can see here is that the club is trying to pressure the player to be transferred to another one while the “illegal” issue is only a trick.”

Ian Laing believes that it may ultimately end up before a dispute resolution body – but that there will be only one outcome.

“A deferral will be the result of a contractual agreement and, provided there is no proven illegitimacy, any dispute resolution body asked to assess such a dispute will, in all likelihood, seek to ensure parties comply with their contractual obligations.”