The Court recognized the validity of a sports compensation clause in favor of the athlete, even though the document submitted in the case records did not contain the signature of the respondent party (the club).

The appellate ruling partially reformed the first-instance decision and confirmed the enforceability of the penalty provided for in the “Tenth Clause” of the Special Sports Employment Contract.

The reporting judge emphasized that the absence of a formal signature does not invalidate the contract when there is unequivocal evidence of its execution and of its approval by the governing body of the respective sport. The ruling also highlighted that, once the athlete’s termination without cause was recognized—an event expressly provided for in the contractual clause—the compensatory indemnity is due.

The amount awarded corresponded to the proportional sum of the salaries owed until the end of the contract term, in accordance with the provisions of the Pelé Law, which regulates the sports compensation clause as a mechanism for protecting the athlete and ensuring minimum stability in the professional relationship.

The decision is relevant for reaffirming that, in Sports Law, contractual validity does not depend exclusively on a physical signature, provided that the practical execution of the contract and its approval by the competent sports authority are duly proven.

Even in the face of the defendant company’s default and constructive admission, the Court adopted broader reasoning, recognizing that registration with the federation and the athlete’s effective participation in matches constitute sufficient elements to prove the contractual relationship and trigger the application of the compensation clause.

This interpretation favors the principle of the primacy of reality, typical of Labor Law, combined with the specific nature of the sports legal framework, in which registrations and authorizations issued by sports governing entities carry enhanced evidentiary value.