FC Barcelona Faces Backlash Over $22 Million Crypto Deal with Samoa-Based ZKP Firm

A former FC Barcelona board member has publicly criticized the club’s three-year, $22 million global sponsorship agreement with the obscure Samoa-registered crypto company Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP), calling it a sign of financial “desperation” and raising red flags about the firm’s background.

• Ex-board member Xavier Vilajoana told the Financial Times the ZKP deal is “incredibly worrying” and reflects financial strain.
• ZKP’s X account had only 33 followers at the time of the announcement, and the firm shared an endorsement from controversial influencer Andrew Tate on Telegram.
• The Financial Times could not find public information on some ZKP executives, including blockchain head Jeff Wilck, while Barcelona carries €469 million in debt.

The Deal and Immediate Criticism

The high-profile European football club has drawn scrutiny after partnering with Zero-Knowledge Proof, a little-known crypto entity based in Samoa. Former board member Xavier Vilajoana described the deal as a “bad joke” but unfortunately real, highlighting concerns over the company’s opacity and associations.

Vilajoana pointed to ZKP’s minimal social media presence—its X account had just 33 followers when the partnership was revealed—and noted the firm reposted a video endorsement from Andrew Tate on its Telegram channel, complete with the company logo.

The club, under significant financial pressure with reported debt of €469 million ($542 million), appears to have turned to the crypto sector for relief.

Questions Over ZKP’s Background

ZKP launched its social channels and whitepaper in early November. Details on ownership and funding remain unclear on its website, though it claims regulation under Samoan law. The firm is currently conducting its initial coin offering.

The Financial Times reported difficulty verifying information on certain executives, including Jeff Wilck, listed as head of blockchain.

Barcelona’s Official Response

In an official statement, FC Barcelona clarified: “The club has no connection with the company’s token,” adding that no discussions occurred regarding token issuance or associated technology during sponsorship talks.

“The club has no responsibility or involvement in the issuance or management of this token, nor does it use the related technology.”

Expert Skepticism on ZKP’s Claims

Harry Halpin, CEO of privacy-focused blockchain firm Nym Technologies, expressed skepticism toward any company “appearing out of nowhere claiming to provide privacy via zero-knowledge proofs.”

He noted that only around 50 developers worldwide are capable of building production-ready ZK systems, most already working at established projects like Ethereum L2 Aztec, Anoma, Aleo, or Zcash’s Electric Coin Company.

Halpin added that zero-knowledge proofs alone do not guarantee anonymity, as IP addresses can still be visible—hence the use of mixnets in true privacy ecosystems.

Decrypt reached out to Zero-Knowledge Proof for comment on the widespread criticism and Barcelona’s statement but received no immediate response.

On Friday, ZKP posted on X: “No LinkedIn. No pitch deck. No media charm offensive. Just a new blockchain, Proof Pods deployed, and 100% bootstrapped. Maybe what bothers traditional media is that we skipped the PR game.”

Crypto Sponsorships in Football: A Growing Trend

Crypto partnerships have become commonplace in European football. A recent Investigate Europe analysis found over one-third of teams in Europe’s top five leagues have crypto or trading platform sponsors this season, rising to 70% in the English Premier League.

Platforms like eToro sponsor eight clubs, while Bitpanda and Kraken back four and three major teams, respectively.

Past deals have soured: in 2022, Bloomberg reported Portuguese club Sporting Lisbon and Italy’s Spezia ended partnerships with Turkish crypto group Bitci.com over alleged non-payments.

Barcelona’s ZKP agreement adds to the ongoing debate about crypto’s role in sports sponsorships—balancing financial relief against reputational and due-diligence risks.