“Bad joke” is how a former FC Barcelona director has described the club’s newly announced $22 million sponsorship with a little-known Samoan crypto company, Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) — and the backlash is intensifying.
Under the three-year global partnership, ZKP becomes one of Barça’s official sponsors despite the firm barely having a public footprint and being registered in Samoa, a jurisdiction classified by the European Union as a tax haven. The deal comes at a time when Barcelona is widely reported to be under heavy financial strain, carrying around €469 million (roughly $542 million) in debt.
Former Board Member: “It Seems Like a Bad Joke”
Xavier Vilajoana, who previously sat on FC Barcelona’s board, publicly condemned the agreement, arguing that the club’s willingness to partner with such an obscure crypto startup exposes a worrying level of financial “desperation.”
Vilajoana pointed to several issues he considered “red flags” in ZKP’s background. When the partnership was officially unveiled, the company’s X (formerly Twitter) account reportedly had just 33 followers. For a firm positioning itself as a global blockchain player and major sponsor of one of the world’s most famous football clubs, that vanishingly small audience raised eyebrows.
He also drew attention to the firm’s alleged links to controversial influencer and former kickboxer Andrew Tate. Tate had posted a message on X endorsing zero-knowledge proof technology, and ZKP later shared that endorsement on its Telegram channel with the company’s logo added. While not a formal partnership, the association further fueled doubts about the company’s credibility.
“It seems like a bad joke, but unfortunately it’s real,” Vilajoana commented, underscoring his disbelief that a club of Barcelona’s stature would align itself with such a partner.
An Opaque Samoan Crypto Startup
ZKP only appears to have surfaced publicly at the beginning of November, shortly before Barcelona announced the deal. The company launched its social media accounts and published a white paper around that time, suggesting it is still in a very early stage of development.
Little is known about its ownership, investors, or broader corporate structure. The firm’s website notes that it is regulated under Samoan law, but it does not clearly identify who controls or funds the project. ZKP is currently running an initial coin offering (ICO), a fundraising method associated with both legitimate blockchain startups and, historically, numerous scams and failed projects.
The Financial Times reportedly struggled to verify basic details about some of ZKP’s leadership, including its head of blockchain, Jeff Wilck. A lack of verifiable background information on key executives is particularly troubling in a sector already prone to fraud, hype, and projects that disappear overnight.
What Is Zero-Knowledge Proof Technology?
Despite the company’s obscure profile, the term it has adopted as its name refers to a genuine and sophisticated cryptographic concept. Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) emerged in the early 1990s and allow one party to prove that a statement is true without revealing the underlying data that makes it true.
This technology underpins a number of privacy-preserving blockchain systems and can be used for applications like confidential transactions, private identity verification, and secure voting mechanisms. However, the complexity of these systems is enormous.
Harry Halpin, CEO of privacy-focused blockchain firm Nym Technologies, noted that only a relatively small number of developers worldwide are capable of designing and implementing production-ready zero-knowledge proof systems. He estimated that only around 50 programmers fully understand both the mathematics and the engineering required at that level, and most of them already work for established players in the field.
Halpin also emphasized that ZKPs alone do not guarantee full anonymity. Even if transaction data is mathematically hidden, metadata such as IP addresses can still leak information. That is why some privacy projects combine zero-knowledge proofs with tools like mixnets, which obscure network-level traces.
FC Barcelona: “No Involvement” with the ZKP Token
Amid growing concern, FC Barcelona has tried to draw a sharp line between itself and the financial instruments ZKP is currently selling. In an official statement, the club stressed that it has “no connection whatsoever with the company’s token.”
According to the club, the existence or issuance of a cryptocurrency linked to ZKP was not part of the sponsorship negotiations. Barcelona stated clearly that it does not participate in creating, distributing, or managing the token and does not rely on the associated technology in its operations.
From the club’s perspective, this is a straightforward commercial sponsorship, similar in form to traditional brand deals. The message is that token buyers should not interpret the partnership as an endorsement of the cryptocurrency itself, even if the company’s name and logo appear alongside Barça’s.
ZKP’s Response: “We Skipped the PR Game”
Zero-Knowledge Proof has responded indirectly to the controversy through posts on X. The company described itself as 100% self-funded and highlighted that it has not engaged in the usual startup visibility campaign.
“No LinkedIn. No pitch deck. No press charm offensive,” the firm wrote, presenting its low profile and absence from typical corporate channels as a deliberate choice rather than a sign of inexperience or opacity. Instead, it said it is focused purely on launching its blockchain, rolling out its “Proof Pods,” and building technology rather than brand image.
The firm suggested that what unsettles some traditional media outlets is precisely its decision to bypass conventional public relations tactics. However, critics counter that a total lack of transparent information is a serious concern when a startup is both selling a token and becoming a major sponsor of an elite sports club.
Why the Deal Is So Controversial
Several factors combine to make this agreement particularly sensitive:
1. Barcelona’s fragile finances
With hundreds of millions of euros in debt, Barcelona is under intense pressure to secure new revenue streams. That context makes any lucrative offer tempting, but it also raises fears that the club might compromise on due diligence to plug short-term budget gaps.
2. The opaque nature of the sponsor
A barely known company, registered in a tax-haven jurisdiction, with a tiny social media presence and minimal verifiable information about its leadership, naturally invites skepticism. For a global brand like Barcelona, such a partnership looks risky.
3. Crypto’s volatile reputation
The crypto industry has experienced cycles of speculative mania, high-profile collapses, and regulatory crackdowns. When a football giant lends its name and image to a crypto startup, fans may perceive it as a stamp of approval, even if the club formally distances itself from the token.
4. Regulatory and ethical questions
Partnering with a company operating from a tax-haven jurisdiction can be politically sensitive and may attract additional regulatory scrutiny. It also raises ethical debates about whether clubs should be more selective in choosing commercial partners.
5. Association with polarizing figures
Any perceived link with controversial influencers such as Andrew Tate further complicates the optics for a club that also positions itself as a social and cultural institution, not just a sports brand.
Crypto and Football: A Growing, Uneasy Alliance
This is far from the first time a football club has partnered with a crypto or trading platform. In recent seasons, sponsorship deals in this sector have become widespread across Europe’s top leagues.
More than one-third of clubs in Europe’s five biggest leagues currently have some form of partnership with a crypto, trading, or digital asset firm. In England’s Premier League, that proportion reportedly rises to around 70%. Such deals range from shirt sponsorship and training kit branding to official “fan token” agreements and regional partnerships.
Major trading platform eToro has secured agreements with multiple clubs, while crypto exchanges such as Bitpanda and Kraken have struck several deals with leading European teams. For clubs, these partnerships promise fresh cash at a time when traditional sponsorship budgets in some industries are shrinking.
Yet history shows the downsides. In 2022, Sporting Lisbon in Portugal and Spezia in Italy ended their commercial ties with Turkish crypto group Bitci.com after alleged failures to meet payment obligations. Cases like these reinforce fears that some crypto sponsors may not be financially stable or reliable over the long term.
Risks for Fans and Club Reputations
When football clubs partner with crypto projects, they are not only monetizing their brand; they are also indirectly influencing how millions of fans perceive highly speculative financial products.
For many supporters, the presence of a logo on a shirt, in a stadium, or on official digital channels looks like a validation. Even if clubs insist they take no responsibility for a partner’s tokens or services, the association can encourage less financially savvy fans to participate in risky markets they do not fully understand.
If the project fails, faces legal action, or is exposed as fraudulent, fans may feel misled and see the club as complicit. That reputational blow can outlast any short-term financial gain. The fallout from earlier failed crypto fan tokens and sponsorship deals has already made some supporters wary of any blockchain-branded partnership.
The Broader Debate: Short-Term Cash vs. Long-Term Trust
Barcelona’s agreement with ZKP crystallizes a larger dilemma confronting modern football: how far clubs are willing to go in search of revenue. Balancing commercial ambition with responsibility to fans, members, and the club’s historical identity is becoming more difficult as financial pressures mount.
Supporters’ groups and former executives like Vilajoana argue that partnerships should be evaluated not only on the size of the check but also on transparency, governance, and the social impact of promoting certain industries. The ZKP deal, with its combination of opacity and crypto speculation, is seen by critics as crossing a line.
On the other hand, defenders of such partnerships claim that the industry is evolving, that innovative technologies deserve a chance, and that clubs cannot afford to ignore new sources of sponsorship in a hyper-competitive landscape.
What Comes Next for Barcelona and ZKP?
Key unknowns remain. It is not yet clear what concrete activations the partnership will involve: whether ZKP branding will appear on training kits, in stadium advertising, across digital platforms, or in joint “web3” initiatives aimed at supporters.
Regulators and watchdogs may also take an interest, particularly given the ICO and the Samoan registration. Any legal or compliance issues at ZKP could quickly become a public-relations crisis for Barcelona.
For now, the club is standing by the agreement while trying to firewall itself from the token sale. ZKP continues to present itself as a disruptive new player in privacy technology, insisting that its low profile is a strategic decision rather than a weakness.
A Test Case for Future Crypto Sponsorships
The Barcelona–ZKP deal is likely to become a reference point in debates about the role of crypto firms in elite sport. If the partnership proceeds smoothly, it may encourage more clubs to accept similar offers from emerging blockchain projects, even when little is known about their backgrounds.
If, however, problems arise — from regulatory scrutiny to financial collapse — this episode could serve as a warning that football’s flirtation with opaque crypto sponsors carries real risks. In that sense, the controversy is not only about one club and one company, but about where the line should be drawn in the increasingly tangled relationship between sports, finance, and speculative technology.