There’s not much merit to Athletic Club complaints over proposed Nico Williams transfer to Barcelona

The recent clamor from Athletic Club regarding FC Barcelona’s pursuit of Nico Williams, even as the Catalan giants prepare to meet his release clause, smacks of sour grapes rather than legitimate grievance. While it’s understandable for a club to feel protective of its homegrown talent, Athletic Club’s complaints, particularly when a legally stipulated release clause is involved, lack substantial merit.

At the heart of the matter lies Nico Williams’s contract, which he willingly signed with Athletic until June 30, 2027. Crucially, this contract includes a release clause; a common, mandatory, and legally binding feature of player agreements in Spanish football. This clause, reportedly set at €62 million, is a pre-agreed valuation that, when met, allows the player to effectively “buy out” his contract, thereby forcing the selling club to accept the transfer. Athletic Club themselves set this figure, acknowledging it as a legitimate exit route for the player. To complain when a club is simply fulfilling the terms they themselves established is, quite frankly, a contradiction.

Athletic’s primary public grievance seems to pivot on two points: Barcelona’s financial fair play (FFP) compliance and the perceived “tapping up” through public statements and pre-agreements with the player’s agent.

Firstly, regarding FFP, Athletic has reportedly lodged a complaint with La Liga, questioning Barcelona’s ability to afford the transfer and register Williams under the “1:1 spending rule.” While Barcelona’s financial woes are well-documented, it is La Liga’s prerogative, not Athletic’s, to audit and enforce FFP regulations.

If Barcelona is found to be in breach, La Liga will act. Until then, assuming a club cannot make a transfer before they attempt to do so and La Liga weighs in, is premature and, again, not a basis for a “fair complaint” against the transfer itself.

But even more importantly, Barcelona may have problems registering Williams if they are not in compliance with La Liga’s FFP rules. But that does not prevent Barcelona from buying out his contract in the first place; it only stops him from playing for them this coming season.

Athletic do have somewhat of a point when talking about “tapping up” Williams, but even then, it’s not enough to prevent the transfer from going through. Public statements by Barcelona officials (like director Deco and president Joan Laporta) and rumors of pre-agreements with Williams’s agent could be considered somewhat dubious from a decorum standpoint, but they do not seem to have crossed any clear legal line.

While direct club-to-player contact without permission is generally forbidden, engaging with a player’s agent to agree on personal terms *before* triggering a release clause is a widespread practice in modern football. Once a release clause exists and a buying club signals its intent to meet it, the player is legally free to negotiate personal terms. Criticizing Barcelona for doing what every other club does in similar circumstances - especially when a player explicitly desires the move - is disingenuous.

Barcelona’s public expressions of interest, while potentially irritating to Athletic and possibly considered poor etiquette, do not invalidate the enforceability of a release clause.

In essence, Athletic is upset that a player they value highly is choosing to leave via a mechanism they themselves put in place. Their complaints are rooted in frustration over losing a key asset and possibly a sense of territoriality, rather than any genuine legal or ethical transgression on Barcelona’s part that falls outside the widely accepted (even if sometimes unwritten) norms of modern transfer dealings.

When a club inserts a release clause into a contract, they implicitly accept the risk that a rival club might one day meet it. To cry foul when that exact scenario unfolds undermines the very concept of such clauses.

Click here to read article