UEFA should argue well for a future and hypothetical penalty against Barcelona

Yesterday UEFA announced the opening of an investigation in Barcelona, ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Negreiraand relies on article 34 of the Disciplinary Code.

But at any time it is not a file but an investigation in the Barça club and the one in which they are now assigned since UEFA two disciplinary inspectors in charge of collecting information from Barcelona Soccer Club and the Spanish Football Federation or where the inspectors consider within the goal open to the club and club Negreira.

Information where UEFA may act differently.

The first, and more favorable for the Barça club, is that it considers that the information collected by these inspectors is not enough to open a disciplinary file that ends up punishing the player. Barcelona. The second can leave the specific opening of a file pending, depending on how the investigation itself evolves or even waiting for the criminal procedure opened in Spain to close.

And the last, and most undesirable for Barcelona, ​​​​​​is that this information process leads to a disciplinary file.

The UEFA collect penalties in article 6 thereof Disciplinary Code from warning, reprimand, deduction of points, withdrawal of titles or even withdrawal of license by UEFA.

But usually, as we’ve been telling you since last March 11 in MD, it’s not until the end of May or the beginning of June when UEFA can act. As long as the disciplinary file is opened and based on article 4.2 the Regulation of the Champions League which reads as follows: “If, on the basis of all the factual circumstances and the information available to it, UEFA concludes to its full satisfaction that a club is directly and/or indirectly involved, since the beginning the force of paragraph 3 of article 50 of the UEFA Statutes, that is, on April 27, 2007, in any activity aimed at fixing or influencing the result of a match at the national or international level, UEFA will declare that said club is ineligible to participate in the competition Such ineligibility will only take effect for one football season In making its decision, UEFA may rely on a decision of a national or international sports body, arbitral tribunal or a state court UEFA may refrain from declaring a club ineligible to participate in the competition if it is satisfied that the effect of a de sion taken in relation to my The same circumstances of fact by a national or international sports body, arbitration tribunal or state court has already had the effect of preventing that club from participating in a UEFA club competition.”

It will go directly to the Appeals Committee

The process, as we tell you, is as follows. Once the competition is over, the Barça team will receive documents for entering the competition for the next season from the highest body. Something he can do, if he continues like this, is as a League champion.

Those documents already have the Barcelona should contact UEFA if you are immersed in a procedure as established in the aforementioned article 4.2 mentioned above. The logical thing is that the Barça club puts it on the record, especially when it already has the accusation of the prosecutor made yesterday.

It is in receiving the same when the self UEFA He has to decide what steps he adopts based on a hypothetical file as a result of the investigation he opened on the Barça team.

Always in the event that this file ends up excluding the Barça club from European competition for the next season, in the event that it goes directly to the UEFA Appeals Committee. And this organism will determine it. An argument that UEFA should fully argue for the reasons for sanctioning the Barça club. Any punishment.

Because Barcelona will always have the option to go to TAS, as the last legal sports example. Although it is true that TAS has collected and accepted that there may be sanctions when the cleanliness or image of a competition is not guaranteed; there are also precedents where CAS has overturned UEFA decisions on big clubs.

The former Manchester City, PSG or Fenerbahce

There are three clear precedents that determine that, in the event of a UEFA sanction, it must be well argued because otherwise it is exposed to the TAS nullifying it.

For example, in July 2020 when TAS considered that there was not enough conclusive evidence to confirm all the conclusions of the Chamber of Adjudication of the Financial Control of UEFA Clubs that sanctioned the City of Manchester with an initial sanction of two years of ineligibility in Europe and a fine of 30 million euros for non-compliance with economic controls. Sanction that TAS left without effect in terms of suspension and reduced to 10 million euros. It also considered that “most of the alleged violations reported by the Cfcb Adjudication Chamber were not founded”, in reference to the overstatement of sponsorship income allegedly made by the City to balance its accounts.

But there is another notable precedent and this is the case of PSG. A year ago CAS closed the file opened by UEFA against the French team for alleged violation of Financial Fair Play. The TAS admitted the appeal presented by the PSG to reopen the file on September 19, 2018, considering that it was not done within the period provided by the regulations. The decision that nullified the possible penalty after paying 222 million for neymar and another 180 for mbappe in the summer of 2017.

The oldest precedent is also similar to what is currently happening at the Soccer Club Barcelona. In July 2013, TAS overturned the penalty imposed by UEFA for exception initially three years and then reduced to two in European competitions for Turkish clubs. Sanction which is due to the alleged match plot of the Turkish club in 2011.