After a decade of financial misery, it appears that Valencia CF’s problems are finally over. The foreign takeover by Singaporean billionaire Peter Lim will be concluded in the upcoming weeks, and the construction on the new stadium will resume after five years on hold due to a lack of money. On 3 June Bankia, the Spanish bank that “saved” Valencia CF in 2009 by providing a loan of €81 million, gave the green light for the takeover. However, appearances can be deceiving. Indeed, Valencia CF has been the subject of numerous Spanish Court decisions since March 2013, the latest dating from 22 May 2014. The cases concern a guarantee given by the local authorities and whether this guarantee should be relied upon since Valencia CF is incapable of repaying its debt. Meanwhile, the European Commission announced that it will soon reach a final decision regarding the formal investigations into alleged State aid measures granted to the club. Strangely enough, the Spanish Courts are showing little interest in the pending Commission Decision and Mr Lim seems to be ignoring it as well. True, EU institutions have so far never sanctioned public authorities of Member States for granting aid to football clubs, but the evidence in this case is so damning that it will be difficult to overlook. Our aim in this blog-post is to disentangle the legal complexity of a case fought both at the national and the European level.  

Saving Valencia CF with public money

The aid measure has its origins in 2009, when Valencia CF, aiming to reduce the clubs total debt of €596 million and continue the construction works on a new stadium, decided to sell new shares for a total capital injection of €92 million. Unfortunately, club members only subscribed €18 million in shares. The majority of the shares were acquired by La Fundación del Valencia Club de Fútbol, (a foundation especially created by the club for this purpose) becoming majority shareholder of the club (70%) for the sum of €75 million. The money was loaned by BANCAJA, the largest financial institution of the autonomous region of Valencia. The loan was later increased to €81 million in November 2010. The Fundación and BANCAJA also agreed that the revenues for the old “Mestalla” stadium, which was for sale, would go to the bank. Furthermore, on 26 August 2009, the Instituto Valenciano de Finanzas (hereafter: IVF[1]) had issued a guarantee on the controversial loan.[2] In case of a default by the Fundación, the IVF was to pay back to the bank the outstanding amount. In return, the IVF would receive an annual premium of 0.5% and the Fundación is prevented to selling shares without the previous consent by the IVF.[3]

In September 2012, Bankia (the new name of the bank following a merger in 2010) was forced to restructure the deal it had with the Fundación. Bankia was suffering heavily from the financial crisis and, after being rescued by the Spanish Government, was forced to decrease its financial debt by increasing its liquidity and reducing its real estate portfolio. Thus, Valencia CF was to negotiate the refinancing of its debt, given that the Fundación was unable to repay the loan to Bankia.

By February 2013 the total of Valencia’s debts reached €387 million owed to different creditors, including the €81 million it owed to Bankia. In light of the guarantee issued, the Consell de la Generalitat de la Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia (the local government of the autonomous region of Valencia, also known as the Generalitat) was asked to transfer €4.8 million to Bankia to cover interest payments. Even worse, the Generalitat might have to bear the full debt of €81 million the Fundación owed to Bankia. As a result, the Generalitat would hold 70% of the shares in Valencia CF, thereby making the football club state-owned.[4]

Claiming that the guarantee breached both Spanish and EU law and should therefore be declared void, two club shareholders lodged a complaint against the local government of Valencia.[5] In its judgment, dating from 8 March 2013, the Administrative Court of Valencia annulled the guarantee, arguing inter alia that the operation would not generate benefits for the IVF and that the restrictions placed by the public authorities on the selling of shares by Valencia CF will distort competition.^[6] Finally, the duty to evaluate whether the operation was subject to EU State aid rules had not been complied with.^[7]

This last argument by the Administrative Court is no surprise, in light of the blatant State aid. Indeed, both the press and Members of the European Parliament quickly jumped onto the allegations that State aid in the form of loan guarantees was granted by Spanish public authorities. The European Commission forced by this judgment, press reports and a flood of information sent by Spanish citizens officially asked Spain to comment on these reports on 8 April 2013.[8] After analysing all the information the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU on alleged illegal State aid on 18 December 2013. Now that the Commission has announced in its Management Plan 2014 that the final decision will be published in 2014, one can reasonably expect the case to draw to its close.

The strategy of the Spanish Courts: Let’s ignore State aid rules and the Commission

The judgment by the Administrative Court of Valencia was only the first in a whole string of judgments by the Spanish Courts. The most important ones date from 15 November 2013, 19 December 2013, and 22 May 2014. 

Bankia appealed the judgment of 8 March 2013, claiming it should have been invited as a party at the trial. At first, the Administrative Court of Valencia upheld the previous decision annulling the guarantee, but Bankia’s second appeal, this time in front of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana, sala de lo Contencioso (the High Administrative Court of the autonomous region of Valencia) was successful. On 15 November 2013, the High Court, found the judgments by the Administrative Court to be void due to a procedural deficiency. Indeed, as Bankia was not provided the opportunity to present its views at the first trial, the tribunal violated Bankia’s right to be heard. More precisely the High Court considered that the IVF had not informed Bankia adequately when, as a public authority, it had the obligation to do so; Bankia’s own financial troubles and instability were too important for it to be left out of the procedure; and the fate of the football club would be at stake if the guarantee is revoked.[9] Hence, the guarantee provided by the local authorities on the loan was considered legally valid and Valencia CF’s bankruptcy risk dismissed. That the guarantee probably is in breach of EU State aid rules was irrelevant to the High Court.

In response to this latest judgment the same shareholders demanded an injunction that consisted in suspending the execution of the guarantee since it could constitute illegal State aid. Once again the demanding parties won the day and the execution of the guarantee was suspended in a decision dating from 19 December 2013. The timing by the Administrative Court to suspend the execution could not have been better. Indeed, the decision occurred only 24 hours after the Commission announced a formal investigation into the Valencia F.C case, thus, the alleged state aid could have been used as a fitting legal justification to suspend the guarantee. However, strangely enough, the Administrative Court did not refer to the State aid constellation. In the fourth paragraph of its judgment, the Court did recognize that procedural rules were breached including the European procedural rules on State aid[10], but the reasoning used to freeze the guarantee was based on national law. 

Peter Lim appears on stage: the end of all the trouble?

By January of this year, the IVF received a formal offer from Mr Lim to invest €210 million in the club. Mr Lim would, thus, take over IVF’s debt with Bankia. The Valencian government must have hoped for the end of their troubles. Indeed, it appeared that it was only the Commission decision it had to worry about.

But, Bankia, on the other hand, still believed it had a right to compensation by the Valencian government for refusing to execute the guarantee and launched a new civil procedure. In a ruling dating from 22 May 2014, the high Civil Court in Valencia sided with the bank and upheld the validity of the guarantee (yet again). Furthermore, the judge ordered the local government to pay €4.2 million as a compensation for loss of opportunities.[11] To make the legal uncertainty certain, the Valencian government quickly reaffirmed its refusal to pay any compensation to Bankia since it considered the execution of the guarantee as suspended by the Administrative Court.[12]

The ball in the Commission’s Court

From a substantive perspective, the Valencia State aid case seems quite straightforward. Valencia CF is a professional football club engaged in economic activities and should therefore be considered an undertaking under EU State aid rules. The guarantee provided by the local government constitutes an economic advantage for the football club over its competitors, as it is technically shield from the possibility of going bankrupt. The measure is selective, distorts competition towards clubs not enjoying a similar guarantee and is funded by State (more precisely the regional governments) resources. In other words, the criteria of article 107(1) TFEU can be considered as fulfilled. Finally, the measure does not appear to fall under any of the exemptions of articles 107(2) and 107(3) nor under any provisions of the General Block Exemption Regulation. 

It remains to be seen, however, whether the Commission will take an unprecedented action and sanction the local authorities of a Member State for supporting financially a professional football club. The Valencia case certainly provides an outstanding opportunity to do so. First of all, the facts of the case cast little doubt as to whether or not the measure breached EU State aid law. Second, even though the Commission cannot decide the matter in place of the Spanish Courts, any decision will create a guiding precedent hopefully putting a final point to the prevailing legal uncertainty of a long-lasting and protracted legal saga.

[1] The IVF is the Public Entity that  performs the public credit policy of the government of the autonomous region of Valencia

[2] Memoria de Actividades: Institut Valencià de Finances, Informe Anual 2009, page 48

[3] Sentencia N° 103/2013, N° de Recurso 239/2010, 8 March 2013, §5

[4] Ibid

[5] J. M. Bortvalencia, “Creo que Bankia no puede recurrir esta sentencia”, Levante – EMV, 21 March 2013

[6] Supra Nº3, §7

[7] Ibid

[8] Commission Decision State aid SA.36387 – Spain: Alleged aid in favour of three Valencia football clubs

[9] Las Provincias, El Valencia gana tranquilidad al decretar el TSJ que la Generalitat vuelve a ser avalista, 16 November 213

[10] Auto N° 239/2010,  19 December 2013, §4

[11] Iusport, Bankia levanta el hacha de guerra y ejecuta parte del aval del Valencia, 27 May 2014

[12] Las Provincias, La Generalitat «no se plantea pagar nada» por el aval a la Fundación del Valencia CF, 27 May 2014

This is the first part of a blog series involving the Real Madrid State aid case.

Apart from being favoured by many of Spain’s most important politicians, there have always been suspicions surrounding the world’s richest football club regarding possible financial aid by the Madrid City Council. Indeed, in the late 90’s a terrain qualification change by the Madrid City Council proved to be tremendously favourable to the king’s club. The change allowed Real Madrid to sell its old training grounds for a huge sum. Though the exact price for the grounds remains unknown, Real Madrid was suddenly capable of buying players like Figo and Zidane for record fees. However, the European Commission, even though agreeing that an advantage was conferred to the club, simply stated that the new qualification of the terrain in question does not appear to involve any transfer of resources by the State and could therefore not be regarded as State aid within the meaning of article 107 TFEU.

Agreements between the club and the Council have been a regularity for the last 25 years.  A more recent example concerns an agreement signed on 29 July 2011 (Convenio29-07-2011.pdf (8MB). The agreement regularizes two earlier agreements between the Council and Real Madrid dating from 1991 and 1998 respectively. The commitments deriving from those earlier agreements were not followed by the relevant parties and therefore had to give way to a new agreement. A closer look at the 29 July 2011 Agreement exposes a bizarre chain of events. It turned out that in 1998 Real Madrid transmitted an undivided half of their old training grounds to the municipality. Apart from a large sum of money, the club was to receive a number of terrains spread out over the municipality, including a terrain located in the area called Las Tablas valued at €595.194 in 1998. However, due to its qualification for sporting usage, the Council concluded in 2011 that the parcel could not be transferred to the club due to the fact that Madrid’s urbanity laws only permit a transfer of urban or urbanizable terrains. For that reason, the Council agreed to compensate the football club not for the original value of €595.194 but for a staggering €22.693.054,44! Real Madrid was not compensated in the form of a sum, but rather it was presented with a packet of terrains including four terrains of a total area of 12.435 m/2 in the street Mercedes Arteaga in the Carabanchel district of Madrid.

The year 2011 also saw a second agreement between the Council of Madrid and the football club, this time concerning construction works on the Real Madrid stadium Santiago Bernabéu. This agreement, dating from November 2011, is known as operation Bernabeú-Opañel and includes the following plans. The Council is to transfer to the club a terrain constituting a 12.250 m/2 buildable surface which borders the west-side of the Bernabéu stadium. This acquirement permits Real Madrid to cover the stadium with a roof, to build a shopping centre and a hotel on the façade situated on the Paseo de la Castellana (one of Madrid’s most important streets). In return, the club firstly agreed to transfer to the Council the shopping centre Esquina del Bernabéu, which is situated at the South-East-side of the stadium with a buildable surface of 6.858 m/2. The Council would then demolish the shopping centre and convert it into a public park. Secondly, the club is to transfer back to the Council part of the four terrains located in the street Mercedes Arteaga that it received as part of the 29 July 2011 Agreement.  In addition to the transfers of the old shopping centre and the terrains located in the street Mercedes Arteaga, Real Madrid is also to pay €6.6 million to the Council. The Council, however, encountered an obstacle in its own urban laws. The Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid de 1997 (PGOU) did not permit private parties, like Real Madrid, to construct on public terrains owned by the Council. Therefore, on 16 November 2012, the Government of the autonomous region of Madrid announced that the PGOU is to be modified ad hoc for the operation Bernabeú-Opañel.

By means of the operation Bernabeú-Opañel, Real Madrid expressed that it hopes to “convert the Club in a sporting institution of reference in the world. The aim is for the stadium to have a maximum level of comfort and services superior to the most modern and advanced sporting stadiums in the world” (PropuestaRealMadrid.pdf (914.2KB)). According to the Council, the operation will not only improve sporting and leisure facilities in the city, it will also create up to 9.546 m/2 of “green zones”. Moreover, the investment for the construction works will be borne only by Real Madrid and it is expected that the construction works will give employment to more than 2 000 people and the exploitation to 600 people.

In 2012, the ecological movement Ecologistas en Acción found several legal irregularities with regard to the 29 July Agreement operation Bernabeú-Opañel and (unsurprisingly) concluded that the agreements appeared to be very beneficial for Real Madrid. It therefore started legal proceedings in front of the Spanish administrative Court claiming that the ad hoc modification of the PGOU was illegal. It would later on launch on appeal in front of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, or Madrid High Court (TSJM-Order-31-07-2014.pdf (112.3KB)). Simultaneously, it informed the European Commission of potential unlawful State aid granted by the Council of Madrid to Real Madrid. To Spain’s outrage, on 18 December 2013, the Commission declared that it had enough reasons to believe that the incriminated transactions might involve State aid and launched a formal investigation in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU. Concretely, the Commission expressed the following concerns:

1) The Commission doubts whether it was impossible for the Council of Madrid to transfer the Las Tablas property to Real Madrid;

2) The Commission doubts that a market value of the Las Tablas plot of land has been sought;

3) The Commission doubts the market conformity of the value of the properties which were transferred to Real Madrid by the 2011 Agreement and at the occasion of the subsequent further exchange of land around the Bernabéu Stadium, and;

4) The Commission doubts that there is an objective of common interest, which could justify selective support to a very strong actor in a highly competitive economic sector. 

The Commission’s doubts seem, in light of the facts at hand, reasonable. To decide whether or not the land transactions qualifies as unlawful State aid, however, the four cumulative criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU need to be fulfilled. (1) The aid must confer an economic advantage on Real Madrid; (2) it must be granted by a Member State or through State resources; (3) the advantage must be selective and distorts or threatens to distort competition; and (4) it must affect trade between Member States.

Advantage to Real Madrid over its competitors

As the Commission pointed out in paragraph 21 of its notice initiating the infringement procedure against Spain, “Real Madrid appears to enjoy an economic advantage from the fact that a plot of land, which at the time of its acquisition was valued at €595,194, appears 13 years later, in an operation to offset mutual debts, with a value of more than €22 million”. Furthermore, there are also doubts regarding the market conformity of the lands transferred in the operation Bernabéu-Opañel. In situations where the public authorities wish to sell public property to private investors, it should make sure that the revenue obtained from the sale is comparable to market level. This criterion is also known as the “market economy vendor principle”. In accordance with the Land sale Communication, should the public authorities wish to avoid any advantage to the recipient over its competitors during a land sale transaction, it should apply one of the two following procedures: (1) an unconditional bidding procedure or (2) a procedure where the land is valued by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations. The Court of Justice has ruled that other methods may also achieve the same result, but in order to comply with EU State aid rules, the national provisions establishing rules for calculating the market value of land must in all cases lead to a price as close as possible to the market value.[2] Special obligations for the buyer, such as urban planning requirements, do play a role when determining whether or not the land was sold at market value. Furthermore, land transfer deals, which often consist of more than just one land transaction, have to be scrutinized in their entirety.[3] Therefore, to determine whether an advantage was conferred to Real Madrid, both agreements between the club and the Council have to be take into account with a special focus on the valuation methods used.

In 1998, the valuation for the terrain in Las Tablas (€595,194) was done by the administration of Madrid, on the basis of legislation which offers a technique to determine the value of urban real property. The calculated value for the same terrain in Las Tablas in 2011 amounted to €22.693.054,44. According to a valuation report released by the Municipal Valuation Department, the value was calculated in accordance the same application rules. Yet it has to be borne in mind that the Municipal Valuation Department forms part of the Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda del Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Not only is the Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda the main public authority regarding urban planning in Madrid, it is together with Real Madrid the main party in the 2011 Agreement itself.

Real Madrid was not compensated in the form of a payment, but rather it was presented with another packet of terrains valued at €19,972,348.96. In the valuation report released by the Municipal Valuation Department, a list is included with average terrain values per district calculated by the independent appraiser Tasamadrid. In continuation, the Municipal Valuation Department applied a formula based on its own legislation to determine the final value of the terrains. This packet of terrains included land in the street Mercedes Arteaga, valued at €4,360,862 which were transferred back to the municipality in the operation Bernabéu-Opañel.

The operation Bernabéu-Opañel also included the club transferring the old shopping centre Esquina del Bernabéu and added a payment of €6,6 million. A second valuation report indicates that the value of the Esquina del Bernabéu is €3,861 per square meters passed on the average values of terrains found in adjacent streets. Furthermore, the Council “requalified” the terrain between the Bernabéu stadium and the street Paseo de la Castellana by ad hoc modifying the local urban laws (PGOU) before transferring it to Real Madrid. The value of this terrain is also calculated in the second report and ads up to €1,208 per square meter. Even though two of the terrains in question can be found in the same area, the value per square meter of the Esquina Bernabéu is much higher (€3,861) as compared to the value of the land between the Bernabéu stadium and the street Paseo de la Castellana (€1,208). True, the terrain with the Esquina del Bernabéu has already been built on, thereby increasing the value, but one should keep in mind that the operation Bernabéu-Opañel consists of demolishing the Esquina del Bernabéu and turning it into a green zone. On the other, the other terrain will be used for the construction of a hotel and a new shopping centre. Secondly, a quick glance at other real estate transfers in the same area of Madrid shows that the value of the terrains is in fact much higher. In 2012, the Picasso tower was purchased by a private firm for €400 million, or €5000 m/2. Today, the building Torre Titania can be bought for €11,000 m/2 and the building Castellana 200 is for sale for €150 million.

With all the above in mind, one could legitimately get the feeling that the actual aim of the Agreement of 29 July 2011 was to pave the way for the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel”, as some media suggested. Unlike in the Konsum Nord case, where the General Court held that the presence of a link between different transactions could mean that the measure in question does not constitute State aid, the link between the agreements in the Real Madrid case only increases suspicions regarding unlawful State aid. Furthermore, the Council of Madrid has also been inconstant regarding its valuation methods. The value of the terrain in Las Tablas was calculated without an independent appraiser and the value of the Esquina del Bernabéu was calculated using the average value of terrains found in adjacent streets. In short, there are good reasons to believe that the transactions were made in order to provide a financial advantage to Real Madrid.

The remaining three criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU and possible justifications will be discussed in an upcoming blog post.

[1] Notes are omitted. A comprehensive article can be accessed at Oskar van Maren, "The Real Madrid case: A State aid case (un)like any other?".

[2] Case C-239/09 Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe [2010] ECR I-13083, §33-35

[3] Case T-244/08 Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening v Commission [2011] ECR II-0000, §58