The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2015/A/4061 involved a dispute between São Paulo Futebol Club and Centro Esportivo Social Arturzinho regarding the National Solidarity Mechanism under Brazilian law, specifically Article 29-A of the Pelé Law. The case centered on whether Arturzinho, as the training club of a player transferred to São Paulo, was entitled to a 5% solidarity payment from the transfer fee. The player had been registered with Arturzinho from 1999 to 2010, covering his training period from ages 12 to 23. The Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) Dispute Resolution Chamber initially ruled in favor of Arturzinho, ordering São Paulo to pay the solidarity contribution. São Paulo appealed to CAS, arguing that Arturzinho lacked certification as a training entity and disputed the calculation method. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Rui Botica Santos, examined the legal framework and clarified that certification is not required for the solidarity mechanism, only proof of the club’s contribution to the player’s training. The panel confirmed that the calculation should be based on the player’s passport issued by the CBF, which documented Arturzinho’s role. The CAS upheld the CBF’s decision, ruling that Arturzinho was entitled to the 5% payment, as it had substantiated its contribution. The case highlighted differences between Brazilian law and FIFA’s solidarity mechanism, particularly regarding the player’s age triggering the payment. The decision reinforced the legal basis for the National Solidarity Mechanism and its application in player transfers within Brazil.
São Paulo argued that Arturzinho should not be recognized as a training entity, as it was not affiliated with the CBF during the entire claimed training period and was only founded in 2000. São Paulo contended that the eligible training period should cover ages 14 to 19 and requested a recalculation limiting the payment to 2.82% of the transfer fee. Arturzinho countered that certification was unnecessary under Article 29-A, emphasizing the solidarity principle and citing the player’s passport as proof of its training role. The CAS had to determine whether certification was mandatory and whether Arturzinho’s training period should be recognized despite its late affiliation. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that certification was not required for solidarity payments, focusing instead on the actual contribution to the player’s training. The decision upheld the CBF’s ruling, dismissing São Paulo’s appeal and ordering it to pay Arturzinho R$270,000 as the solidarity contribution.
The case underscored the distinction between a certified "sports training entity" under Article 29 of the Pelé Law, which requires certification for specific rights like signing a player’s first contract, and a general "sports entity" under Article 29-A, which does not require certification for solidarity payments. The arbitrator emphasized the inclusive intent of the National Solidarity Mechanism, aligning with FIFA’s solidarity principle to support clubs that invest in player development. The ruling reinforced that the mechanism’s purpose is to redistribute funds fairly, without bureaucratic barriers. The final award, issued on 26 November 2015, confirmed the CBF’s decision and dismissed all other claims, leaving no room for further appeals. The case highlighted the role of CAS in resolving sports disputes and interpreting national laws in line with international standards, ensuring fair compensation for training clubs.