In increasingly professional and competitive football, financial responsibility must have the same weight as performance on the field. FIFA has recognized this for years and acts rigorously against default. Clubs that do not fulfill their obligations in international transfers are quickly punished, through “transfer bans”, fines and interest, which preserves the credibility of the game and ensures fair competition conditions.
In Brazil, the CNRD (National Chamber for Dispute Resolution), a body of the CBF (Brazilian Football Confederation) responsible for judging conflicts between clubs, athletes and intermediaries, plays an essential role in this process. Created in 2016, it became the main channel for resolving disputes in national football. With the recent update of the rules and appointment of new members, important steps were taken towards a more agile and transparent operation.
However, for the CNRD to guarantee quick and effective decisions, it needs more investment and structure. The volume of cases grows year after year, generating significant amounts and requiring a reinforced and technologically equipped technical team. Strengthening the chamber means strengthening the governance of Brazilian football.
At the same time, it is essential that decisions and agreements maintain a balance between creditors and debtors. In some recent cases, conditions ended up favoring defaulting clubs, with extended deadlines and lack of interest, which distorts the logic of the system. Clubs that keep their obligations up to date, like Cuiabá, often need to resort to the financial market to honor commitments, bearing high costs and fees.
Cuiabá is a creditor of R$41 million in transactions with Brazilian clubs. An emblematic example is Atlético-MG, which bought Deyverson in August 2024. The striker played an important role in the Libertadores campaign, helping the team reach the decision, and was later sold to Fortaleza. So far, the transfer amount has not been settled with Cuiabá. This reality shows how the current system, without effective punishments, rewards those who do not comply.
International football offers good examples. Germany has had strict rules since 1962; Italy, since 1981; and the Netherlands, since 2003. This year, the traditional Vitesse Arnhem, founded in 1892, was excluded from professional football after serious administrative irregularities. UEFA, since 2009, has applied strict sanctions: Chelsea, Barcelona and Lyon were also fined this year for non-compliance with financial rules.
Defending financial fair play is not defending bureaucracy, but responsibility and coherence. Brazilian football has evolved in management, structure and revenue, but it still lacks solid control and balanced punishment mechanisms. The CNRD represents an important advance and deserves all the support from the CBF and the clubs to evolve in structure, technology and efficiency.
Investing in the organization means investing in the credibility and sustainability of national football. Financial fair play is not a European concept, but a global need that guarantees competitiveness and fairness on and off the field. If Brazil wants to be a protagonist on the international stage, it needs to act with the same seriousness that it demands from others — fulfilling commitments, valuing those who do the right thing and strengthening the institutions that ensure a more balanced and responsible football.
