The case involves a dispute between the Brazilian Football Federation (CBF) and the Portuguese football club Sport Lisboa e Benfica (Benfica) over the payment of a solidarity contribution under FIFA regulations. The solidarity mechanism requires a 5% share of the transfer fee to be distributed to clubs that contributed to a player's training between ages 12 and 23. The CBF claimed €85,487.50 for the player A.'s development years (1992–1998) after Benfica acquired him from Sport Club Corinthians Paulista in 2005 for €3,500,000. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber partially accepted the claim, ordering Benfica to pay €23,330 for youth development in Brazil but rejecting further claims. The CBF appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking the remaining €62,157.50, interest, and legal costs, arguing no other clubs had claimed the contribution for the specified period.
Benfica failed to respond to the appeal or pay its share of arbitration costs, leading the CBF to cover the advance. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under FIFA Statutes and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, proceeding with the case despite Benfica's default. The hearing on June 3, 2009, ruled that Benfica, being in default, could not file further motions but was allowed a closing statement. The parties agreed to keep the award confidential.
The core issue was the interpretation of FIFA's solidarity mechanism, particularly whether the CBF needed to prove the player was effectively trained during periods marked "no record found" in his player passport. The prior instance had denied the claim, requiring proof of both the absence of a club link and actual training—a mutually exclusive demand. The CAS Panel criticized this reasoning, referencing FIFA's commentary that untraceable periods' contributions should go to national associations for youth development without proof. The Panel emphasized the solidarity mechanism's purpose—supporting grassroots football—and ruled the CBF was entitled to the remaining €62,157.50, as no affiliated clubs claimed the contribution.
The CAS also addressed procedural aspects, noting Swiss law governed the interest for delay (5% annually from 30 days after the award). The final ruling ordered Benfica to pay the CBF €62,157.50 with interest, dismissing other claims. The case clarified that national associations' claims are subsidiary and highlighted the challenges in proving training history, advocating for flexibility to ensure youth development benefits. The decision reinforced the solidarity mechanism's role in promoting grassroots football and the importance of adhering to regulatory timelines in international transfers.