FC Barcelona is one of the most reputable sports clubs in the world, due to its history, trajectory and brand value. But what do we understand by reputation? It is the perception that the different audiences have of a brand, and it has an important economic value, since it is an asset that generates competitive advantages as a factor of trust, distinction, attraction and loyalty. The knowledge of the payments to Enríquez Negreira has led to a crisis with a reputational cost for the club due to its public importance, the possible impact on the entity’s values, and the degree of impact on the different audiences that surround the club.

The public importance of the case is obvious, after almost two months of intense media coverage. The possible impact on an element as identitary as the club’s values, its commitment to honesty and fair play, also adds magnitude to this crisis, especially in the case of Barça, which has as one of the pillars of its identity the projection of values ​​through sports competitiveness. Finally, we must consider the impact on their audiences, such as partners, fans, players, coaches, managers or employees, but also on others such as investors, sponsors, referees, competition organizers, rivals or the media themselves.

Since the dissemination of the case, all audiences have made a move and three positions have been decisive up to now: that of the media, which have led the narrative of the case, based on its evident informative interest, but which have carried it, in many cases, to the field of disqualifications and defamations; that of the great sports rival, Real Madrid, who has asked to appear in the case as an accusation as the injured party; and that of the organizers of the competitions, especially UEFA, which opened an investigation that could mean the temporary exclusion of Barça from European competitions.

Meanwhile, Barcelona members and fans are experiencing the case with concern, uncertainty and feeling both attacked and defenseless before the media trial, especially the one that comes from Madrid. The crisis thus moves to the field of emotions, one of the pillars of football as a social phenomenon, which determines its particular perception of crises, very different from that of any other industry.

In this complicated context, a question arises: why has Barça taken nearly two months to give public explanations? Because the crisis was not identified internally and has forced the club to act reactively, and because it has prioritized the internal analysis of the matter and the preparation of its legal defense before its public defense. That is why the lawyers have demanded control of the information expressed from the club, also of their timings, since nothing can go against the procedural defense strategy of the case. To add complexity, the matter has an unprecedented element in an internal key, the affectation of four presidential terms, and requires coordination between the different defense strategies.

FC Barcelona, ​​for various and complex reasons, lives with crises almost naturally, to the point that it considers them practically part of its daily reality. And when crises become routine, their costs are underestimated to the extent that the brand’s ability to overcome them is overestimated.

The true reputational cost of this crisis cannot be determined until the club has explained itself and until justice resolves the case. Having said this, Barça currently faces three major challenges: its legal and public defense, the restitution of its reputational cost and the necessary reflection on this type of event, its benefits and its costs. FC Barcelona, ​​as an institution that transcends the field of sport and that demands excellence in its performances, should only do what it can explain.