A top-level club was facing a conflict over the interpretation of a contract for the transfer of federative and economic rights, with special focus on the amount to be recognized to the other party in certain transfer and offer scenarios received. The controversy was also supported by third-party reports that defended substantially higher values of the players, which increased the legal and economic risk of the procedure.
At martinsdelima, we approached the matter from a technical, objective, and impartial perspective, with a very clear objective: to critically analyze existing reports and construct an alternative and independent valuation of the economic rights of two players (with different profiles and trajectories) within the framework of the real transfer market. This dual line of work was key to turning the case into a discussion based on evidence and not on perceptions or unverifiable estimates, something very common in this type of market where “many consider themselves experts.”
The first phase consisted of detecting, with expert rigor, the weaknesses of the reports provided by the opposing party and by sector organizations. We pointed out shortcomings such as lack of precise documentation in critical variables, lack of market comparables, updates without a transparent methodology, and an excessive dependence on the subjective judgment of the expert, elements that reduced the reliability and replicability of their conclusions.
From there, we built our valuation on a market approach with real comparable transactions of players with similar sporting characteristics (position, role, and profile), and with an analysis that recognizes an essential reality: in the Spanish market, transfer amounts are usually below the published “market value,” especially in contexts of financial restriction.
Our methodological approach was:
(i) benchmarking of comparables,
(ii) a cost/market value ratio to obtain an objective basis, and
(iii) technical adjustments (premium or discount) based on verifiable factors such as performance, physical history, contractual situation/transferability, and the general economic context of the market.
This approach allowed us to ground the discussion in verifiable criteria that could be defended in negotiation or proceedings.
The result was an especially solid conclusion: our valuation was aligned with the reality of the market and with the agreement reached between clubs, reinforcing the thesis that the value defended by martinsdelima was the most consistent and reasonable. In other words, we not only provided a report: we provided a convincing technical framework that allowed us to sustain a robust position and steer the case towards an excellent resolution for the interests defended, demonstrating martinsdelima’s ability to turn complex disputes into clear results through economic analysis, market evidence, and rigor.