Laporta’s Testimony: A Pivotal Moment in the Negreira Case

On December 12, FC Barcelona president Joan Laporta appeared as a witness in the ongoing Negreira case, a significant development in a legal saga that has spanned over two years. Under the scrutiny of Judge Alejandra Gil, Laporta’s testimony focused on the controversial payments totaling more than €7.3 million made to José María Enríquez Negreira between 2001 and 2018. With the investigation nearing its conclusion, Laporta’s statements have raised more questions than answers regarding the nature and purpose of these payments.

Laporta emphasized that he had never met Negreira or his son personally and claimed that he inherited these payments from previous administrations. He insisted that the payments were maintained based on recommendations from the sporting directorate, as they were tied to technical reports concerning referees. According to Laporta, approximately 629 reports were provided by the club during later periods, but he mentioned that older documents were often destroyed every five years, leaving a gap in records prior to 2014.

Key Assertions and Inconsistencies

During his testimony, Laporta stated unequivocally that FC Barcelona had never received favorable treatment from referees, asserting, “They did not help us at all,” and described the team as a global example of fair play. He further claimed that any increase in payments could be attributed to a rise in matches and competitions during his first term from 2003 to 2010, which he alleged he was unaware of at the time.

However, his defense has been met with skepticism. Critics point out that Laporta did not clarify why Barcelona had accepted a tax agreement in 2021 categorizing these payments as “liberalities,” a term often associated with unsubstantiated gifts or gratuities. Additionally, he failed to explain how certain technical reports contained sensitive information about referees that would typically require internal connections within the refereeing body.

Weakening Defense Amidst Testimonies

Laporta’s defense echoes statements made earlier this year when he presented evidence at a press conference aimed at justifying the payments to Negreira. At that time, he showcased an array of documents, including 629 reports and 43 CDs, claiming these were legitimate technical advisory services unrelated to any attempt to manipulate match outcomes. However, this narrative faced further scrutiny following testimonies from Javier Enríquez Romero, Negreira’s son, who revealed discrepancies regarding the financial arrangements.

Javier disclosed that while he had prepared reports for Barcelona from 2013 to 2018 for a modest sum of €70,000 annually, this figure pales in comparison to the millions paid to his father. He denied any connection between his work and the substantial sums received by his father from the club and claimed ignorance regarding how those payments were structured.

The implications of these testimonies suggest a bleak outlook for both Laporta and FC Barcelona as they face potential criminal charges. Notably, former coaches Luis Enrique and Ernesto Valverde corroborated this skepticism by stating they had never seen or utilized the reports in question.

The Spanish Penal Code requires proving corrupt intent rather than demonstrating that payments altered competition outcomes. This means that even without direct evidence of manipulation, circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction if deemed credible by the judge. Legal experts believe that the inconsistencies in Laporta’s defense combined with existing evidence could lead to serious repercussions for FC Barcelona.

As this case unfolds, it remains uncertain whether Laporta’s testimony will ultimately shield him and the club from legal consequences or seal their fate in what has become one of football’s most scrutinized scandals.