THE AUTHORS:
Paulo Feuz, Full Professor of Sports Law at PUC-SP
Gustavo Favero Vaughn, Partner at Cesar Asfor Rocha Advogados
Kércia Tavares da Silva, Law Student at IDP
Introduction
Football, in its global dimension, is organized under a complex associative model that grants broad regulatory autonomy to international federations, such as the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”), and to national confederations, such as the Brazilian Football Confederation (“CBF”). This self-regulatory structure requires internal dispute-resolution mechanisms that are fast, specialized, and capable of addressing the specific nature of sports-legal relationships.
In Brazil, the CBF’s National Dispute Resolution Chamber (“CNRD”) was established in 2016 as the confederation’s specialized body for resolving disputes among the main football stakeholders, including clubs, players, intermediaries, coaches, and federations. Its creation marked an important step toward greater legal certainty and procedural efficiency, contributing to a shift away from the slowness and lack of specialization characteristic of the ordinary judiciary.
In a bulletin released in 2025, the CNRD reported that, over the previous years, it concluded approximately 740 cases and facilitated the payment of more than R$ 300 million in outstanding debts – R$ 155 million in 2023 and R$ 162 million in 2024. Between March 2023 and the end of 2024, the Chamber issued an average of 20 decisions per month, effectively one for each business day.
Approaching its tenth anniversary and propelled by the publication of the 2025 CNRD Regulation (“RCNRD 2025”), the CNRD is undergoing a moment of institutional consolidation. The central question that permeates any analysis of its performance concerns its legal nature: Is the CNRD an arbitral chamber, or an internal jurisdictional body of the CBF?
This article seeks to explore this duality by examining the scope of the CNRD’s authority, the relevance of the arbitration agreement, and the role of the CBMA as its reviewing body.
The CNRD’s Jurisdiction and the Need for an Arbitration Agreement
To understand the CNRD, it is crucial to place it within the regulatory framework of football. FIFA, through its regulations, requires national associations to establish a dispute resolution system that is independent and guarantees contractual stability and competition integrity.
The CNRD largely emerges as the CBF’s response to this requirement, mirroring the structure of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (“DRC”).
It is essential to draw a clear distinction between the CNRD and the Brazilian Sports Justice system. The CNRD’s authority is strictly non-disciplinary. It does not have the competence to judge infractions committed during matches or violations of competition rules, which remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sports Justice Courts (“TJD’s”) and the Superior Court of Sports Justice (“STJD”), as provided for in the Brazilian Federal Constitution, article 217, and the Pelé Act.
The CNRD focuses on disputes of a disposable patrimonial and regulatory nature, such as financial obligations and training rights. This delimitation of competence ensures that the Chamber acts as a technical-legal forum, and not as a disciplinary punishment body.
The CNRD’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties listed in Article 2 of the RCNRD 2025: federations, leagues, clubs, players, intermediaries, and members of the technical staff. This restricted list, which includes the possibility of judging international disputes involving foreigners registered with the CBF or Brazilians working abroad, reinforces the Chamber’s specialized and institutional character.
In addition to jurisdiction over the parties, the dispute must also fall within one of the subject matters listed in Article 3 of the RCNRD, which range from contractual disputes (both employment and commercial) to regulatory issues, such as the solidarity mechanism and training compensation.
Furthermore, the hybrid nature of the CNRD is essential to understanding its functioning. The chamber operates simultaneously as an arbitral institution and as an organ of associational jurisdiction.
In contractual disputes, such as those arising from employment relationships or commercial agreements, the CNRD may function as an arbitration chamber. In these situations, submission to its jurisdiction depends on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, in accordance with the Federal Act, which authorizes the chamber to exercise arbitral powers in addition to its associational authority.
RCNRD 2025, in its Article 3, establishes that the Chamber will function as an arbitral chamber only when there is an arbitration clause designating it. This competence extends to the Labor Division to resolve international disputes, provided there is an arbitration agreement or a clause in a national collective agreement. The possibility of arbitration in these cases is based on the availability of the patrimonial rights involved, in line with Article 1 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act.
In contrast, a significant portion of the CNRD’s authority derives from mandatory associational jurisdiction. In these cases, submission to the Chamber does not depend on an arbitration agreement, but rather on the mere affiliation to the CBF structure. The obligation to submit arises from the very act of affiliation to the confederation, which implies acceptance of its regulatory framework.
To give effect to these competencies, the RCNRD structures the CNRD into specialized divisions, covering labor, commercial, intermediation, and regulatory matters. This specialization ensures that cases are adjudicated by professionals with deep technical expertise in sports law and an understanding of the practical realities of football, leading to more consistent decisions aligned with international standards.
Although administratively linked to the CBF, the CNRD preserves functional independence, an essential requirement for the credibility and legitimacy of any dispute resolution body.
CBMA and Appellate Arbitration in the CBF System
The most distinctive feature of the CNRD system is the possibility of appealing its decisions before the Brazilian Center for Mediation and Arbitration (“CBMA”). This structure, often described as a double degree of arbitral jurisdiction, is uncommon in traditional arbitration but plays an essential role in the sports context.
Unlike commercial arbitration, where the award is final and generally non-appealable (subject only to limited judicial annulment), the CBMA conducts a full review of the merits. In practice, the chamber may reassess the facts, evidence, and legal grounds considered by the CNRD, functioning as a true second instance.
This substantive review ultimately removes the finality of CNRD decisions and reinforces the understanding that the chamber operates more as a first-instance body of associational jurisdiction than as an arbitral tribunal in the strict sense contemplated by the Brazilian Arbitration Act.
The CBMA has two regulations: one governing cases in which it is chosen as the sole and first-instance arbitral tribunal, updated in 2020, and another governing cases in which the association provides for the chamber to act as an appellate instance, whose most recent version dates from 2019.
By replicating this model of specialized appellate review, the Brazilian framework seeks to ensure technical consistency, predictability, and internal coherence within the sporting dispute resolution system.
The decisions issued by CBMA panels are final and binding, bringing the dispute to an end within the CBF’s arbitral structure. The CNRD, in turn, retains the authority to oversee and enforce compliance with these awards, including the imposition of sanctions to ensure effectiveness, which highlights the interconnection between associational jurisdiction and the arbitral mechanism.
Conclusion
The National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CBF, in almost ten year of existence, represents a remarkable advance in the self-regulation and specialization of conflict resolution in Brazilian football. The analysis of its regulatory framework, notably the RCNRD 2025 and its relationship with the CBMA confirms the thesis that the CNRD does not fit the model of a traditional arbitral chamber.
Its nature is unequivocally hybrid. It incorporates arbitral characteristics (such as confidentiality and specialization) in contractual disputes where there is a prior agreement, but exercises mandatory associational jurisdiction in regulatory matters essential to the maintenance of the system.
By harmonizing the CBF’s regulatory autonomy with the principles of arbitration and due process, the CNRD-CBMA system aligns Brazil with international best practices, ensuring that the national passion is managed under a robust and specialized legal framework.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Paulo Feuz has a PhD and a Master of Laws from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. He is currently a full professor and Coordinator of the Research Center of the Graduate Program (Master’s and Doctorate) in Sports Law at PUC/SP, Vice President of ANDD – the National Academy of Sports Law, Former President of the Special Commission on Sports Law of the OAB/SP, and former Auditor of the Superior Court of Sports Justice for Football (“STJD”).
Gustavo Favero Vaughn is a Partner at Cesar Asfor Rocha Advogados. He holds a Master of Laws (LL.M) from Columbia Law School and a Master in Procedural Law from the University of São Paulo Law School. Professor of Arbitration at the Brazilian Institute of Education, Development, and Research (“IDP”). Auditor at the Superior Court of Sports Justice for Football.
Kércia Tavares da Silva is an undergraduate student in Law and Economics at the Brazilian Institute of Education, Development, and Research (“IDP”). Member of the Apito Legal Sports Law Study Group.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
