There's an old saying that it's money that makes the world go around. Another is money talks. Money is a poweful tool in sports. It can essentially determine how well a team will perform in the particular competition they compete in.
However, it can potentially corrupt both the higher ups and athletes. Despite it not being true, they still believe that they can do anything and they are entitled to everything they believe they signed up for. There are three recent stories to prove this.
The UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has said Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich, must "pay up now" to victims of the war in Ukraine or face court action. Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea Football Club, pledged in 2022 that the £2.5bn he made from the sale of the club would be used to benefit victims of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
There has been a delay in releasing the funds, which are currently frozen in a British bank account, due to a standoff over how exactly they should be used. Sir Keir Starmer told the Commons on Wednesday: "My message to Abramovich is clear: the clock is ticking."
The government wants the money to be used for humanitarian aid but Abramovich insisted it should be used for "all victims of the war" – meaning that Russians could also benefit. The oligarch cannot access the money under UK sanctions but the proceeds from the Chelsea sale still legally belong to him.
Updating MPs, Sir Keir said the UK had issued a licence, "to transfer £2.5bn from the sale of Chelsea Football Club that's been frozen since 2022."
In a warning to Abramovich, he said: "Honour the commitment that you made and pay up now and if you don't, we're prepared to go to court and ensure that every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin's illegal war."
Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the BBC that Roman Abramovich "needs to honour that commitment, pay that money." Asked if a legal battle could drag out the process for years, Cooper said: "I'm urging him not to try and pursue further court action."
She confirmed the government will take the matter to court if he does not act.
The Treasury said that under the terms of the licence, the money must go to "humanitarian causes" in Ukraine and can' benefit Mr. Abramovich or any other sanctioned individual. The government first threatened to sue Roman Abramovich in June.
Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said: "It is unacceptable that more than £2.5bn of money owed to the Ukrainian people can be allowed to remain frozen in a UK bank account."
Roman Abramovich – a Russian billionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas – was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he wouldn't benefit from the sale. He is alleged to have strong ties to Russian President, Vladimir Putin, something he has denied.
It is understood that Abramovich has 90 days to act before the UK considers taking legal action.
On Thursday, EU leaders are set to review proposals to use proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine's huge budget and defence needs. Russia has fiercely opposed the proposals.
Through all the threats to sue by Sir Keir Starmer's government, Roman Abramovich has stayed silent and still sanctioned. The Russian's approval is needed to release the funds of the Chelsea sale to help the victims of the war in Ukraine.
The pressure - raised through the year and ratcheted up on Wednesday from Westminster - hasn't seen him give any indication about complying with the government's demands.
As someone who rarely spoke publicly during his 19 years owning Chelsea, being largely quiet since being forced to sell up in 2022 after being sanctioned over his alleged links to Vladimir Putin, is not unusual. Especially when speaking out could be risky for him and his family.
Roman Abramovich has never condemned Russia's war on Ukraine or called for it to end - and he has never supported it publicly. There has only been an attempt to link him to peace talks early in the all-out war in 2022, while Turkey is reported to be one of his preferred bases.
Earlier this year in January, it was reported that Abramovich has been living in exile in Turkey, having been sanctioned by both the UK and the European Union (EU) in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The billionaire himself had previously revealed his wish to return to Stamford Bridge one day to "say goodbye" to Chelsea supporters, having owned the club from 2003 to 2022.
Wednesday's government news release was headlined: "Government gives Abramovich final chance to pay £2.5bn to Ukraine or risk court action."
Delayed accounts for Chelsea's former parent company from the Abramovich era were recently released, indicating he might not want to release all the sale proceeds, and there is actually £2.35bn in frozen funds.
There is not the same assurance from a 2022 statement on Chelsea's website, which said: "I will not be asking for any loans to be repaid." In fact, it says he would, "gift the net proceeds of sale, after allowing for other balance sheet items."
The accounts show there are £1.54bn of loans owed by the Fordstam former Chelsea parent company to Roman Abramovich's companies. If they were to be repaid, there would be £923m for humanitarian causes.
When asked about this, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said: "It's clear that £2.5bn of the proceeds from the sale … was the commitment that was made as part of the agreement at that time."
While Mr. Abramovich has always said "all victims of the war in Ukraine", the government says it will only consider a proposal to send the cash to "the most vulnerable in Ukraine." The government does now say: "Any future gains earned by the foundation can be spent more broadly on victims of conflict worldwide."
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has been devastating and has resulted in many nations around the world sending aid to Ukraine, though the United States of America has urged Volodymyr Zelensky to give up areas of Ukrainian territory in order to accelerate a potential ceasefire.
The United Nations estimate around 12.7 million people within Ukraine need humanitarian funding and the government said "the impact this funding could have in meeting these needs cannot be overstated."
Meanwhile, Kylian Mbappé has won the battle against his former side, Paris Saint-Germain (PSG).
The French justice system has ruled in favour of the footballer and has ordered the Parisian club to pay him around €60 million in outstanding salaries and bonuses. A resounding victory that closes one of the most tense chapters of his time in Paris.
The dispute had its origin in Mbappé's final months as a PSG player. The forward claimed the salaries for April, May, and June 2024 and a bonus that the club refused to pay. For PSG, those payments were part of a prior verbal agreement; for Mbappé, that agreement never validly existed.
The relationship between both parties deteriorated as the months went by. There were controversial sporting decisions, public tensions, and a strained atmosphere that ended up taking the case to the French courts.
This Tuesday the judicial decision became known and it was forceful. The court ruled in favor of Mbappé and ordered PSG to pay him nearly €61 million. In addition, the ruling is immediately enforceable, which means that the club must pay the amount even if it decides to appeal.
Not only that. The judges also rejected all of PSG's claims, which sought up to €450 million for alleged disloyal behaviour by the player. The court didn't accept that argument and made it clear that the footballer's labour rights had to prevail.
Mbappé's lawyers showed their satisfaction after learning of the ruling. Although the amount granted is slightly lower than what was initially claimed, they consider that the main objective has been met: to collect the salaries that the club owed. Those around him describe the ruling as historic, since they understand that it strengthens the position of players against major entities.
They even hinted that it would be an elegant gesture for PSG not to appeal the decision, although everything suggests that the club will study that option in the coming days.
This court ruling puts the definitive finishing touch on the relationship between Mbappé and PSG. The forward is already looking to the future from Madrid, focused on sporting matters and with this legal issue solved in his favor. For the French club, by contrast, the ruling represents an economic and symbolic blow.
To make matters worse for the Ligue 1 champions, they were forced to publish the result of the ruling on their website, where it will stay on the homepage for a month - something Mbappé’s lawyers took particular delight in.
"Kylian wasn’t fighting a personal battle. Kylian was fighting a battle of principle," lawyer, Delphine Verheyden, explained.
"When you work, you deserve to be paid. By requesting these posts on PSG’s homepage, the idea is that this deserves recognition."
Beyond the money, the case leaves a clear reflection: not even the great powers of European football are above the law. Mbappé leaves PSG without a transfer fee but with a legal victory that closes a period marked by tensions and disagreements.
"He’s relieved and he’s happy. I’ve represented him for 10 years; he’s determined and passionate about his work. He’s satisfied and glad it’s over. He’s got great confidence in the work done by his team."
Another of the player’s lawyers, Thomas Clay, told RMC: "They managed to establish a narrative that they are now seeing backfire on them. Why didn’t they pay? Out of price. They couldn’t accept their star player was going to Real Madrid."
Despite the celebrations of Mbappé and his camp, PSG still have a month to appeal the ruling, which could drag the legal battle out for several more months.
Antoine Sappin, a labour law specialist for Ascent Avocats, explained to L’Equipe that PSG had largely managed to limit the damage in this case and suggests the club willn't do that.
"They were not convicted on the sensitive points, such as compensation for undeclared work, damage for psychological harassment or even the reclassification of fixed-term contracts as permanent contracts," he said.
"Since PSG were ordered to pay the minimum amount – even though €61m for an employee is a completely exceptional award, perhaps even the biggest handed down by an employment tribunal – there is a significant rusk that PSG, if they appeal, could be ordered to pay much more. The judges of the Court of Appeal are professional judges, and they will rule based on the law rather than equity."
Breakdown of the payments
Signing bonus €37.7m
Paid leave on signing bonus €3.7m
Back pay €17.25m
Paid leave on back pay €1.75m
Ethics bonus €1.5m
Paid leave on ethics bonus €0.15m
FC Barcelona is under legal scrutiny after being officially charged with corporate corruption in the long-running Negreira Case. Spanish authorities accuse the club of fraud, marking a major development in an investigation that has unsettled Spanish football.
The case centers on payments made by Barcelona to José María Enríquez Negreira, who served as vice president of the Technical Committee of Referees (CTA). Between 2001 and 2018, the club allegedly paid around €7.2 million to companies linked to Negreira and his associates.
These payments were labeled as, "refereeing advisory services" but investigators suspect they may have been intended to influence match officials in favour of Barcelona. The judge overseeing the case, from Barcelona’s Court of Instruction No. 1, has confirmed the charges and ordered the club to submit original contracts with Dasnil 95 SL and Nilsad SCP.
The documents reveal that the two companies used to mutually transfer funds. However, Barcelona previously claimed in 2021 that it had no records of these agreements, raising further questions about transparency.
Real Madrid has decided to join the legal proceedings in the Negreira case as a private accuser, arguing that the club was harmed by Barcelona’s long‑running payments to former referee Enriquez Negreira.
These payments, made over 17 years, are now under investigation to determine their purpose and impact.
Real Madrid president Florentino Perez confirmed in recent general assemblies that the club will pursue the case until the end. He stated clearly that if it is proven that Barcelona’s actions were meant to influence refereeing decisions, accountability must follow.
Lawyers stressed several troubling points. Payments to Negreira increased by 800% over time, raising questions about their justification.
They also pointed to the role of Negreira’s son, who was reportedly paid for preparing reports that coaches never saw. According to the accusations, these payments were disguised and funded from other sources, while the supposed work was never delivered.
Investigators are also examining why Barcelona hid these transactions from tax authorities. They want to understand the origin of the money and the real reason behind the arrangement, since the official explanation about “technical reports” does not match the evidence.
The Negreira case has already shaken Spanish football, raising doubts about fairness and transparency. With Real Madrid now directly involved, pressure on Barcelona and its leadership, including president, Joan Laporta, is set to intensify.
Barcelona president, Joan Laporta, appeared in court to testify in the much-discussed Negreira case, a scandal that has raised accusations against the Catalan club for corruption and suspicious payments to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, former vice-president of the Referees' Technical Committee.
During his testimony, Laporta categorically denied any connection with Negreira or his inner circle. "In fact, I don't know Negreira or anyone from his circle. I have never had any kind of relationship with them. We paid for reports, in no case to favor Barcelona. We didn't need favours," Laporta said.
He added that the payments were inherited from the previous administration and were based on the advice of the club's sporting directors.
"We inherited those payments. I asked the sports directors and they told us to continue with the reports. We don't have the reports from the first phase because they are destroyed every five years. Their cost didn't have to go through the board's control, it was a big deal," he further stated.
Former Barcelona coaches, Luis Enrique and Ernesto Valverde, also testified via video link, denying they were informed of, or involved in, any relationship with Negreira. "We were not aware of the refereeing reports from Negreira," the former Catalan bench leaders said.
The evidence is expected to have great weight in the ongoing legal process, which has shocked Spanish football and is being closely followed by public opinion.
Florentino Pérez used Real Madrid’s traditional Christmas lunch with the press to deliver one of his most forceful public interventions of the year, centering his message on what he described as "the most serious case in football today": the Negreira scandal.
Speaking on Monday at Real Madrid City, the club president combined institutional reflection with pointed criticism of Spanish football’s governing bodies; while also touching on refereeing decisions that affected Real Madrid in their recent match against Alavés.
Pérez made it clear that Real Madrid has no intention of letting the Negreira case fade from public scrutiny. He expressed disbelief that football institutions have suggested moving on, particularly given the scale and duration of the alleged misconduct.
"The Negreira case is the most serious case in football today,” Pérez said. “How is it possible that the president of the referees asks us to forget it? How can we forget the biggest scandal in the history of football?"
The Real Madrid president emphasised that more than €8 million were allegedly paid over nearly two decades for referee-related services, raising serious questions about sporting integrity.
"We know that more than eight million euros were paid for referee reports," Pérez said. "And to top it off, the coaches never even received them. Who can believe that money was paid for reports the coaches weren’t even aware of?"
Pérez went further, warning of the broader consequences for Spanish football, suggesting that the damage may extend far beyond one club.
"It’s possible that some clubs have been relegated because of the Negreira case,” he said. “Our football has been damaged, and justice must be served."
Javier Tebas appeared on Marc Vidal's podcast, Mission 2050, to discuss all the issues affecting La Liga: the fight against audiovisual fraud, television rights, the football prize, the Negreira case, the Superliga, his relationship with Real Madrid and much more.
In recent days, the 'war' between Real Madrid and the leaders of La Liga has been re-activated due to the referees, whom the royal club accuses. Another topic where the parties 'fight' among themselves is the "Negreira Case," which involves Barcelona and Real Madrid demanding that they be punished.
Tebas was recently asked about this case and the accusations of Real Madrid president, Florentino Perez, who said that the Los Blancos president knows nothing about this matter.
"The Real Madrid president is completely uninformed about this whole situation. He said it was because Laporta was questioned and La Liga asked a question during their turn. But of course, those of us who are lawyers specialized in criminal interrogation know that the judge asks questions first, then the public prosecutor, then the first party to appear, then the next one and then the next one," Tebas initially said.
"We were the third party to appear, the prosecutor asked 19 questions. He already had enough to say. Then an arbitrator asked two questions and we asked one. There were no more questions left and the last person to ask was the Real Madrid lawyer."
"Why was he the last one to ask questions? Because he was the last one to show up, which took him two months. Because at that time Barcelona was an ally because of the Super League and there were doubts about showing up. Now that they have left the Super League, they are behaving like champions."
"But what's more, the twelve questions he asked had already been answered by Luis Enrique and Valverde in previous questions. It's all a farce, a mistake," concluded the La Liga leader.
The 12 questions asked
1. The first stage is unclear to me. "Were you informed that these payments were being made to companies linked to Mr. Enriquez Negreira?"
"I was informed that there were payments for technical analyses related to refereeing and scouting. And that these services were useful."
2. "Were you aware of this, did you know about it, or was it explained to you?"
"I’ll say it again. I won’t go into details. The president doesn’t go into details on these issues, and we set the guidelines. We’re told that we have to go one way, and we don’t get into the details of whether a company was being paid."
3. "My specific question is, who decides on this type of increase [in payment]?"
"Well…I understand the sports department recommends that these payments continue. Who decides? It was about continuing to compile some data. I don’t know the details. Given the amount involved, the executive team had the autonomy to continue these payments. Payments under €1m don’t even reach the board of directors these days."
4. "Was this information known to the board of directors?"
"I had been informed. But it’s information that isn’t discussed in the board meeting because of the amount involved."
5. "How could FC Barcelona have known that it was making payments to companies linked to the vice president of the CTA?"
"Ask them. The details you’re referring to are in itemised invoices that are reflected in Barcelona’s accounting records. The auditors have determined that there were no irregularities."
6. "How many verbal agreements, for amounts in the range of €500k, does FC Barcelona have or make?"
"Things have changed. Back then, I imagine verbal contracts were, I won’t say common, but they could happen. I don’t know if this particular contract existed or not, because I didn’t see it. I’m referring to the contract for technical officiating advice. But I can tell you that everything is stricter now. My obsession in this presidency is compliance. This has now changed dramatically."
7 and 8. "I’m going to ask you specifically about two invoices from your time in office."
“Your talking to me about an invoice from 20 years ago, and you’ll allow that I don’t remember it. I don’t know about the other one. He might be referring to a scouting report.”
9. "During the 2008-2009 season, Mr. Javier Enriquez was coaching Fenerbahçe. Could he have prepared the reports while serving as Fenerbahçe’s assistant coach?"
"I don’t know. Ask Mr. Enriquez."
10. "I’m asking about Mr. Carles Naval. Mr. Carles Naval is the delegate, isn’t he? Is he the one who found or had in his possession the 647 reports that have surfaced?"
"I know they turned up at the back of the closet, and I don’t know if it was Carlos or someone from the sports department who found them. Fortunately, so that there’s no doubt about it."
11. "Have you reached any conclusion that this contract wasn’t awarded directly, but rather that a third party, through their companies, received or withheld sums totaling €1m?"
"Regretfully, but I can’t answer that. I wasn’t president. But I think compliance did a good job. At that time, they investigated the invoices and the services provided."
12. "Has FC Barcelona analysed whether Mr. Contreras’ [deceased Barcelona Director] companies actually provided services? And if they didn’t, have they made any claims against those companies?"
"I imagine that we will draw some conclusions from this whole process, and depending on those conclusions, the club will defend its interests. I wasn’t president then, so I can’t give you any specifics."
The amounts expressed in the aforementioned stories is mind boggling. I remember the Roman Abramovich story when it happened. I remember when the latter stated that the amount that he got would go towards Ukraine.
It's absurd that he goes against his word. The money he "received" would really benefit Ukraine. He should put his alledged allegiances aside and honour what he said. Those who desparately need help should always get it in any way possible.
I believe the Mbappé case is really unnecessary. He's already earning millions while plaing at Real Madrid. Hence the extra money is dumbfounding. It's just plain greed that drives this case.
I prefer not to chip in the Barcelona case. It's more of a political matter. All I will say is that Real Madrid should butt out of the matter. It doesn't involve them.