Think about it like this: if Cruzeiro spends R$100 million on a player and signs a five-year contract, for the FFP, the annual cost of that player is R$20 million. This annual “installment” is what is included in Pillar 3 of the FFP, which is the spending limit on the cast (70% when fully implemented, in 20??).
CBF confirms this! The official FFP regulation (Annex B, item B.1.1, II) clearly states that the casting cost includes amortization, that is, the purchase value divided by the contract period. This is crucial because:
1. Diluted Cost: the club can sign a star today, but his cost extends over years on the balance sheet.
2. The contribution trap: The FFP limits spending on the squad to 70% of the club’s revenue, plus contributions (the money that the investor puts into Pillar 3). If the club has low revenue, but spends a lot on the squad (including these amortizations), it needs the contributions to not exceed the limit.
3. Lifetime dependency: this amortization is a fixed cost. If the investor stops injecting money, the club automatically exceeds the FFP, because the amortization remains there, but the calculation base (revenue + contributions) decreases. It’s like an addiction: the more you spend on expensive players, the more the club becomes hostage to investor money to survive. For example, Gerson’s contract, last year, would have a big impact on the 70% of the cruise’s spending limit.
Data from Cruzeiro, with the premise that it will achieve an optimistic increase of 50% in operating revenue in 2025. These are reference accounts, considering a positive scenario, realistic would be 35% and pessimistic 20%.
