FC Barcelona’s three-year sponsorship with Samoa-registered Zero‑Knowledge Proof (ZKP) — announced in mid‑November 2025 — has prompted public and commercial pushback, with critics calling the tie-up a high‑risk crypto exposure. The agreement names ZKP as the club’s “Official Cryptographic Protocol Partner” through 2028 and grants digital advertising placement and exclusive fan experiences, a move that has raised questions about transparency, regulatory alignment and brand risk.
Backlash over sponsorship with obscure crypto firm: deal terms and transparency concerns
The partnership links a storied club to a little‑known blockchain startup presented as operating with decentralized AI. ZKP’s Samoa registration and limited public footprint have been singled out by observers as markers of opacity; European Union scrutiny of jurisdictions perceived as tax havens has intensified those concerns. Reports since late November 2025 allege ties between ZKP and controversial public figures, deepening the reputational questions facing the club.
FC Barcelona’s commercial context is part of the criticism: sponsorship income for 2023/24 is cited at $369.9 million, with Nike contributing $169.32 million and other established partners including Panasonic and Spotify. Analysts and media outlets have described the ZKP agreement as a potential sign of financial strain and labelled it a “high‑risk crypto exposure”, reflecting unease that the club may be prioritizing short‑term revenue over long‑term brand stability.
A brief technical note: a zero‑knowledge proof is a cryptographic method that allows a party to prove knowledge of information without revealing the information itself. In this case, the company name invokes that technique; the firm’s public materials and model remain described by critics as unproven.
Club response and regulatory, sponsor and fan implications
The club has issued a clear distancing statement on the most contested element of the deal, saying it bears ‘no responsibility’ for any token issuance and has ‘no connection’ to tokens reportedly associated with the firm. That language is intended to limit legal and financial contagion from potential token mismanagement, while preserving the commercial agreement’s non‑token benefits.
Risk teams and sponsors typically evaluate counterparty risk, audit trail robustness and regulatory alignment; those vectors are now focal points for partners and supporters. Observers note the deal could alienate long‑standing commercial partners that prioritise transparency and predictable compliance frameworks. For fans, the central concerns are trust and the prospect of inadvertent exposure to unregulated or speculative crypto products marketed under the club’s brand.
The announcement has also highlighted gaps in public due diligence and the club’s decision‑making process. The combination of an opaque partner, reported controversial links and a sponsorship aimed at monetizing digital engagement creates an elevated attack surface for brand and regulatory risk, according to critics.
The ZKP partnership has crystallized debate over sports clubs’ exposure to nascent crypto firms and regulatory ambiguity. The immediate implications are reputational strain for FC Barcelona and amplified scrutiny from sponsors, regulators and fan communities; the longer impact will depend on further disclosures from the club and any regulatory or commercial responses. Next verified milestone: any additional official disclosures from FC Barcelona about due diligence findings or a regulatory notice concerning the ZKP arrangement.