By Pablo Pérez, Counsel, VALLONI Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland
The Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), on 27 October 2026, has fined FC Barcelona (Barcelona) €602 following a complaint by Atlético de Madrid (Atlético) concerning the attempts by Barcelona to secure Atlético player Julián Álvarez.
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?
The facts of the complaint
The RFEF disciplinary proceedings centred on a telephone conversation, on 15 May 2026, between Anderson Luís de Souza, known as Deco, the Barcelona sporting director, and Fernando Hidalgo, the representative of Álvarez, who is under contract with Atlético until 2030.
According to the findings of the RFEF Disciplinary Committee (the Committee), Hidalgo told Deco that Atlético would be prepared to listen to offers for Álvarez and claimed to have permission to explore his possible departure. The Committee, however, did not consider that such authorisation had been established.
A message sent by the Atlético chief executive, Miguel Ángel Gil Marín, 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’s departure.
On 28 May 2026, the first written communication from Barcelona to Atlético followed. Barcelona maintained that it informed Atlético of its interest, but received no response, and has now announced its intention to appeal the Committee decision.
The distinction between these two accounts is important. The issue is not simply whether Barcelona expressed an interest in Álvarez, but whether the steps taken before notifying Atlético breached the RFEF Disciplinary Regulations (the Regulations).
When does an approach become a breach?
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.
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.
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 Atlético beforehand.
This is an important distinction for clubs and sporting directors. An intermediary’s 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’s valuation does not automatically confer a mandate to negotiate his departure.
The Committee decisión, therefore, highlights the importance of verifying an intermediary’s authority and ensuring that the appropriate written communication takes place at the correct stage of the process.
Why so low a sanction?
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 €602.
The Committee did not consider that the requirements for a serious infringement under Article 93 of the Regulations to have been established, particularly the elements of awareness and repetition. This distinction explains why a dispute involving two major Spanish football clubs and a high-profile international player resulted in such a small financial penalty.
Atlético 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.
The significance of the Appeal
The announced appeal by Barcelona is significant beyond the amount of the fine. The club challenges the disciplinary assessment of its conduct, whilst the Atlético complaint reflects the importance that football clubs attach to controlling the process through which their contracted players may be approached.
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 remains central to determining the case.
Conclusion
The Barcelona–Atlético case illustrates that transfer negotiations require more than commercial judgement. Clubs must also consider the regulatory consequences of the methods that they use to explore a potential signing.
For sporting directors and agents, the practical lesson is clear: establish the scope of an intermediary’s authority; document communications carefully; and notify the player’s current club before any steps are taken that may amount to negotiations.
Whether the Barcelona appeal will be successful, of course, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the case serves as a timely reminder that even preliminary transfer discussions can carry disciplinary consequences when the line between exploring the availability of and pursuing a contracted player is crossed.
The Author may be contacted by e-mail at ‘