A journalist says Atletico Madrid gave Julian Alvarez written permission to discuss a possible move to Barcelona, despite the club repeatedly insisting throughout the summer that the Argentina forward would not be sold to a direct La Liga rival.
Jordi Jota, speaking on El Chiringuito TV, claims he has personally seen the document and plans to produce evidence of its existence on 2 September. The allegation has created tension between Atletico’s reported private position and its public refusal to negotiate with Barcelona.
The claim does not state that Atletico agreed to sell Alvarez or gave him unconditional approval to join Barcelona. Rather, it is understood to concern permission for the player to negotiate or discuss a potential transfer. That distinction could prove important if the document is eventually published or verified.
Alvarez has been a key part of Atletico’s attack since joining from Manchester City in 2024. He has scored 49 goals and provided 17 assists in 107 appearances in all competitions, and remains under contract at the Metropolitano until 2030.
Despite that long-term agreement, the 27-year-old’s reported wish for a new challenge has been a major feature of the summer’s transfer uncertainty. Barcelona have repeatedly been identified as his preferred destination.
The developments also add significance to an earlier disciplinary issue involving the RFEF and an alleged unauthorised approach from Barcelona. If Atletico had formally allowed Alvarez to discuss a move, it would complicate the suggestion that any contact between the player and the Catalan club was improper from the beginning.
Barcelona offer and Atletico’s position
MARCA has reported that Barcelona made an offer of about €100m for Alvarez, but that proposal did not meet Atletico’s valuation. That figure has not been independently confirmed beyond MARCA’s reporting.
With such a substantial fee involved, Atletico’s board may have wanted any private concession to Barcelona kept out of the public domain. However, the alleged written permission would appear difficult to reconcile with the club’s repeated public position that Alvarez would not be sold to a direct domestic rival.
Arsenal were also attempting to sign the forward before the transfer window closed. The Premier League club had turned to Alvarez after missing out on Vinicius Junior earlier in the window.
Alvarez had reportedly told Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta that he did not want to join the Gunners. With only hours remaining before the deadline, a move to Arsenal appeared increasingly unlikely.
The forward had returned to Atletico training after missing several sessions because of illness. His return indicated that, at least physically, he remained part of Diego Simeone’s squad while the transfer uncertainty continued.
That development does not resolve the central question: whether Atletico’s public rejection of a Barcelona deal is compatible with the written document Jota says he has seen.
Jota has indicated that 2 September will be the key date for providing proof of the document. Even if the material is produced, permission to negotiate would not amount to a completed transfer agreement.
The precise wording of any document would therefore be crucial in assessing whether it genuinely conflicts with Atletico’s public statements. Until the evidence is made available, the story remains an attributed claim from one broadcaster and journalist rather than a confirmed fact.
