![\"\"](\"https:\/\/valloni.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Spain-FC-Barecelona-Alvarez-Case-VALLONI-2026-1024x576.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
By Pablo P\u00e9rez, Counsel, VALLONI Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland<\/strong><\/p>\n On 27 October 2026, the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), fined FC Barcelona (Barcelona) \u20ac602 (around Sw.Frs. 557) following a complaint by Atl\u00e9tico de Madrid (Atl\u00e9tico) concerning the attempts by Barcelona to secure Atl\u00e9tico player Juli\u00e1n \u00c1lvarez (Alvarez).<\/p>\n Although the financial penalty is small, the decision raises a big question in professional football: at what point does exploring the possibility of a transfer become an unauthorised approach to a player who remains under contract with another club?<\/p>\n The facts of the complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n The RFEF disciplinary proceedings centred on a telephone conversation, on 15 May 2026, between Anderson Lu\u00eds de Souza, known as Deco, the Barcelona sporting director, and Fernando Hidalgo, the representative of \u00c1lvarez, who is under contract with Atl\u00e9tico until 2030.<\/p>\n According to the findings of the RFEF Disciplinary Committee (the Committee), Hidalgo told Deco that Atl\u00e9tico would be prepared to listen to offers for \u00c1lvarez and claimed to have permission to explore his possible departure. The Committee, however, did not consider that such authorisation had been established.<\/p>\n A message sent by the Atl\u00e9tico chief executive, Miguel \u00c1ngel Gil Mar\u00edn, to Hidalgo, on 18 May 2026, confirmed that the agent had received information about the Barcelona valuation of the player. This did not, in the assessment of the Committee, amount to authorisation to negotiate the player\u2019s departure.<\/p>\n On 28 May 2026, the first written communication from Barcelona to Atl\u00e9tico followed. Barcelona maintained that it had informed Atl\u00e9tico of its interest, but received no response, and has now announced its intention to appeal the Committee decision.<\/p>\n The distinction between these two accounts is important. The issue is not simply whether Barcelona expressed an interest in \u00c1lvarez, but whether the steps taken before notifying Atl\u00e9tico breached the RFEF Disciplinary Regulations (the Regulations).<\/p>\n When does an approach become a breach?<\/strong><\/p>\n Transfer negotiations rarely begin with a formal offer. Football clubs routinely rely upon agents and intermediaries to establish whether a player might be available; assess a potential transfer fee; and explore the commercial feasibility of a deal. Such preliminary enquiries are a normal feature of the football transfer market.<\/p>\n The difficulty arises when these contacts move beyond gathering information and become part of a process to recruit a player who remains contractually bound to another club.<\/p>\n The Committee considered that the conversation between Deco and Hidalgo, together with the subsequent involvement of the agent, was sufficient to establish an infringement of the Regulations. In their view, the fact that the initial contact was made through an intermediary did not remove the obligation of Barcelona to notify Atl\u00e9tico beforehand.<\/p>\n This is an important distinction for clubs and sporting directors. An intermediary\u2019s assertion that he has permission to negotiate cannot necessarily be treated as proof that the current club has authorised those negotiations. Equally, receiving a player\u2019s valuation does not automatically confer a mandate to negotiate his departure.<\/p>\n The Committee decisi\u00f3n, therefore, highlights the importance of verifying an intermediary\u2019s authority and ensuring that the appropriate written communication takes place at the correct stage of the process.<\/p>\n Why so low a sanction?<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite the Committee decision that Barcelona had breached its obligations under the Regulations, the Committee classified the infringement as minor under Article 133 of the Regulations, and imposed a fine of \u20ac602 (around Sw. Frs. 557).<\/p>\n The Committee did not consider that the requirements for a serious infringement under Article 93 of the Regulations to have been established, particularly regarding the elements of awareness and repetition. This explains why a dispute involving two major Spanish football clubs and a high-profile international player resulted in such a small financial penalty.<\/p>\n Atl\u00e9tico also referred the complaint to FIFA, which declined to examine the complaint on lack of jurisdiction grounds. The domestic disciplinary proceedings, therefore, remained the relevant forum for the sanction imposed by the RFEF.<\/p>\n The significance of the Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n The announced appeal by Barcelona is significant beyond the amount of the fine. The club challenges the disciplinary assessment of its conduct, whilst the Atl\u00e9tico complaint reflects the importance that football clubs attach to controlling the process through which their contracted players may be approached.<\/p>\n The appeal will provide an opportunity to scrutinise the evidence and the interpretation of the Regulations. In particular, the distinction between preliminary contact; the communication of a valuation; and actual negotiations are central to determining the case.<\/p>\n