“They’d have to be mad to try that.”
Soon, another leak from Messi’s
camp claimed that the€700m buyout
clause did not apply in the final season
anyway. In which case, the risk would
not be so high. But it still didn’t mean
he could walk away for free – and there
was no way of being sure what level a
fee would be set by tribunal. Even if he
is in the final year of his career, what
price the world’s best player?
What the legal posturing did was
apply pressure on Barca to let him go,
to negotiate a settlement with him or
his suitors. He had just one season left
on his deal so could definitely walk for
free in nine months’ time and begin to
openly talk to clubs fromJanuary1. The
economic benefit of releasing him might
also be attractive to Barcelona: facing a
severe financial crisis, it would be natural
for them to feel the urge to recover
money while they still could, and to
save almost€100m in wages annually.
Nor did it really make sense to force
himtostayagainsthiswill.Koemanhad
said that he only wanted players who
wanted to be there. The relationship
with the club was in tatters (especially
with its president, although he is set to
be gone by next summer). And that was
the point: the saddest thing wasn’t so
much that Messi might leave as the
fact that he even wanted to.
That it had come to this, that things
were so bad that someone who hadBartomeu, “broke his word.” Delivering
a burofax in August was a way of
communicating his decision formally.
Formally and legally, in fact: this was
now admissible in court, if it came to it.
Messi had served notice via a document
that was stamped, dated and signed for.
He was no longer a Barcelona player.
Within an hour, though, Barcelona had
sent a burofax back saying: “Yes, you
are.” In their response, the club insisted
that they wanted Messi to stay and lead
a new generation and a new team
under coach Ronald Koeman. They
informed him that he remained under
contract and should he walk away they
would demand the€700m stipulated
in his release clause.
How could their positions be so
different? Simple, really. According to
the deal that Messi signed in 2017, at
the end of every season he could walk
awayforfree.Allhehadtodowas
communicate that decision byJune10.
He had done that now. The problem
was it was August 25.
Messi’s lawyers argued that because
of the extraordinary nature of the
season, that date should be postponed,
pushed back until competition was
completed. The letter of the law was
one thing, the spirit of it another. As he
would later say: how could he formally
communicate his intention to leave on
June10 when at that point Barcelona
were still playing for the league title
and hadn’t even restarted the
Champions League yet?
A legal battle had been set up with
an uncertain conclusion, although
everyone knew the date on the clause
was likely to be binding. In any case,
court cases are slow – too slow to
resolve something like this during
a transfer window.
One option for Messi was to walkaway unilaterally and request that
FIFA issue an International Transfer
Certificate pending a resolution of the
case, heard either by a FIFA tribunal or
civil courts. FIFA would do so, but it was
a risky strategy for him: if Messi was
able to convince a court that he had
successfully triggered the release clause
despite missing theJune10 deadline, he
would be a free agent. If he lost, then
he and the club that signed him could
face fines or bans, and the prospect of
being forced to pay€700m for what he
had done. As one sports lawyer put it:SPECIALREPORT
Defeat...Barca’s
8-2 loss to Bayern
Munich looked set
to be Messi’s final
game for the clubOutcry...Fans
gathered outside
the Nou Camp to
protest Bartomeu’s
presidency