News, Reviews, Headlines for the world of Tennis (tennis news)
 | Barca were right to waive Williams` release clause. Tebas revealed confidential information to Athletic and intimidated the agent. CENAFE Chapter Galan on Niko12-01-2026 |
Miguel Galan has spoken out about Nico Williams` demands for his Barcelona contract. Athletic previously announced the extension of the agreement with the 22-year-old winger, who was claimed by the Catalans, until 2035. It was reported that Williams demanded Barcelona`s right to leave if there were registration problems, but the club did not agree to this condition.
Barcelona were right to waive the unacceptable release clause.
Javier Tebas, while president of La Liga, made public statements that Barcelona would not be able to register Nico Williams. He also held meetings with Athletic management at which he allegedly disclosed confidential information. Against this background, the player`s agent, influenced and intimidated by Tebas, asked for a release clause in case the player was not registered - this request was rejected by the Barcelona board of directors, led by Joan Laporta, as they considered such a clause to be an unjustifiable risk of losing €60 million.
In addition, the deadline for registration was requested to be July, which the Catalan club also considered unacceptable.
Felix Tainta, the footballer`s agent, stopped the operation due to an impossible demand. The agent was a factor that hastened the demise of the operation, which appeared to be closed, as he acted to protect the interests of Athletic, especially since the agent maintains financial interests associated with other players of this club.
Assume that the inclusion of a release clause with a July 30 deadline is agreed upon as requested by Representative Nico Williams. I believe there would be no inconvenience in such a case, given that Barcelona currently comply with the 1:1 rule and would have the legal and regulatory options to register the player, but cannot take the risk of putting it in writing. By leaving minimal uncertainty regarding the possibility that registration will not occur, the club will be exposed to significant risks. In particular, if the player`s inability to register ultimately prevented integration into the squad - despite the payment of €60 million equivalent to the release clause - a situation would arise in which the club would pay that amount without receiving the player in return.
Similarly, having a release clause limited to a specific date, provided that the club has already paid the specified amount, could be construed as negligence or even malicious action on the part of the Barcelona board if it significantly affects the financial condition and administration of the club.
Consequently, the guarantees requested by the player`s representative are indirectly included in the payment of the amount of 60 million euros. That is, the payment of the specified amount implies a contractual obligation that in principle guarantees the registration of the footballer, since the payment represents an economic consideration prior to registration. On the other hand, it is unacceptable to put such a significant amount at risk, including the release clause. Although the likelihood that a player will not be able to register is minimal (approx.