BarcelonaAt Sunday’s meeting of delegates, the board will ask members for permission to amend Barça’s statutes. It will be a new change: the fifth in this century and the seventh since the president of the entity is elected by universal suffrage among the entire social mass. It doesn’t seem a coincidence that every board has had its big letter. Sometimes, under the pretext of adapting to current regulations, both of the Generalitat and of the Consell Superior d’Esports. And often so that each management team can change the rules of the game and be able to better manage the entity. President Joan Laporta already amended the statutes in 2009, in the final stretch of his first stage at the club. Now he will do it again. In between, the changes made by former presidents Sandro Rosell (2013) and Josep Maria Bartomeu (2018). And, back, the two modifications made by Josep Lluís Núñez (1981 and 1992) and that of Joan Gaspart (2001).
Substantial changes will come in the economic aspect, especially in Article 67, which obliges the directive to reimburse any losses in two years and not to exceed a debt ceiling equivalent to a figure “that does not exceed the amount resulting from not to double the debt (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) “. Two conditions that, if not met, force the executive to resign and leave the club in the hands of a manager. This article 67 became famous in 2013, when Rosell included it under the pretext of including a control mechanism to ensure Barça’s economic viability. Interestingly, Josep Maria Bartomeu, Rosell’s heir to the presidency, tried unsuccessfully to tweak it in 2018, in that chaotic assembly in which he also failed to change an issue as sensitive as the club’s coat of arms.
Laporta’s reasons
Now, with an exaggerated debt – caused, in part, by the change in accounting criteria, which gave the board more room to spend – Laporta’s board intends to temporarily invalidate this article. It would be through a transitional provision that it would be without effect when the club once again had a positive net worth. Currently, and as explained by the CEO Ferran Reverter, due to the poor economic management of Bartomeu, and also the effects of the pandemic, the ebitda required in article 67 of the statutes is not met.
It will not be the only significant change. If the members endorse the change (66% in favor of the assembly is required), the terms of office will be five years (now six), with the asterisk that these regulations would enter into force once the term has ended. current (in 2026). They also propose eliminating the powers granted by the World Confederation of Supporters Clubs, increasing the ceiling of directors on the board to 25 or the possibility of opening membership processes electronically. Voting will not be point by point, but joint. Therefore, either everything is approved or nothing is approved.
Sixteen different statutes
All the statutes that the club has had throughout its history can be found on the Barça website. In all there are sixteen. Those on Sunday, if they get the green light, will be the seventeenth. The oldest document is a manuscript dating from 1902, three years after the entity was founded. Then they would be renewed and adapted to the passage of time and the size of the entity in 1911, 1921 and 1932. During the Franco regime there would be up to six updates (1950, 55, 59, 64, 67 and 73 ), and the next six come from the Transition.
Precisely in 1981, three years after Núñez won the first elections with a universal census among the entire social mass, changes were made to adapt the club to the political context of the time, especially in terms of democratization. However, with regard to Barça’s strict organization, substantial changes came in 1992. That year, the president’s term was extended from four to five years and the censorship vote was introduced, which until then had not been was planned. In addition, and in accordance with the requirements of the CSD, a 15% guarantee is imposed on managers.
One of the points that serve to explain that Núñez was perpetuated in power was, apart from his management, that he had a carte blanche to call elections whenever he wanted. This ends in 2001, with Gaspart as president, when the statutory amendment leaves in writing that the elections must be at the end of the term. Also that year it returns to the four years of mandate and the maximum of two consecutive mandates is established. Those who would force, for example, that Laporta could not run for re-election in 2010.
The president and the accounts
A year before he had to resign, Laporta pushed for a statutory reform that would extend the president’s term to six years, adapting to the decree of the Generalitat – he, however, did not accept it. Also in electoral terms, and scalded by what had happened in 2003, when the 10 days of June that he was in office counted as a whole year, he added to the Magna Carta a nuance because this time interval produced by an early resignation not taken into account. A measure that tore up Rosell when he reformulated the statutes, in 2013. Finally, in 2009 Catalan was imposed as Barça’s own language and its preferred use in all the club’s activities, and sanctions against members were tightened. that they commit violent acts and it is specified that it is necessary to have Catalan civil neighborhood to be president. A requirement that is still in force today.
Rosell, apart from the famous article 67 that regulates debt, is also protected by a decree of the Generalitat to tighten the conditions of the vote of censure. If until then you needed 5% of the social mass, now you will need 15%, while to be president, you will need a minimum of ten years of membership, and five to be part of the board. Finally, the change of 2018, the year that did not end up voting for the change of shield due to the rejection among the partners and also the year that the delegates rejected the request to eliminate the ceiling of 10% of the debt to when applying for credits. Instead, they did accept a series of social changes, such as adding more restrictions to the censorship vote. Coincidentally, it was this initiative, a vote of censure, that would bring down its board of directors just a year ago now.
.
