Certification 18 and 18-A: athletes, good governance and public money
By Daniel Cossi
How athlete participation in the management of sports bodies, public funding and mandatory documentation connect to transparency and good governance.
Brazil focus: this text is written mainly for readers in Brazil and the Brazilian Esports market. It refers to Brazilian law, institutions and practice.
Introduction
The governance of sports bodies, in conventional sport and in Esports alike, is essential to ensure legitimacy, transparency and institutional sustainability. The Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 recognizes sport as a right of all (art. 217) and makes the State responsible for fostering sports practice, training and professionalization.
Brazilian law, starting with the Pelé Law (Law no. 9,615/1998) and more recently the General Sports Law (Law no. 14,597/2023), sets rules for the organization and certification of sports bodies. These include the requirement of athlete participation in decision-making bodies as a condition for access to federal and state public funds.
Although each modality has its own specifics, the essence of good sports governance is universal. It applies equally to an Olympic confederation and to a body representing Esports, such as CBDEL – the Brazilian Confederation of Electronic Sports (this article uses that body as its example within the Esports scope).
Integrating Esports and traditional sports into the National Sports System (SINESP) standardizes governance practices, strengthens the legitimacy of the bodies and protects athletes. It also makes sure public money is applied efficiently and transparently.
Principles of good governance in sport
Good governance is not only a legal requirement. It carries core values that guide how bodies are managed and operated:
Transparency
Clear and regular accountability;
Publication of financial statements and activity reports;
Effective control over the use of public and private funds.
Integrity and ethics
Prevention of fraud, match-fixing and conflicts of interest;
Ethical conduct in dealings with athletes, clubs, sponsors and public bodies.
Democracy and participation
Inclusion of athletes, officials and other actors in decision-making;
Bylaws that respect proportionality and representation.
Sustainability and strategic planning
Responsible management of public and private funds;
Medium and long-term financial and operational planning;
Diversified revenue to reduce dependence on public funds.
Operational efficiency
Standardized, auditable administrative processes;
Rational use of public funds, ensuring social and sporting impact.
Integration of Esports and conventional sport
Despite cultural and structural differences, both share the same legal framework of governance. Bringing Esports and conventional sport together shows that the principles of good governance are universal:
CBDEL, by certifying itself under articles 18 and 18-A, brings Esports into SINESP, ensuring active athlete participation, transparency and access to public funds;
This alignment strengthens credibility before the State and private partners, allowing growth and professionalization.
Regulatory structure: Esports, through CBDEL, adopt practices similar to those of traditional confederations, respecting articles 18 and 18-A;
Athlete participation: Guaranteed in assemblies and councils, so that decisions on management, funds and public policy include the competitors' perspective;
Management of public funds: Ensures that federal, state or municipal money is applied transparently, proportionally and efficiently, reinforcing the social and educational impact of sport;
Institutional credibility: Good practices strengthen the trust of sponsors, governments and society, allowing greater sustainability and professionalization.
Athlete participation and access to public funds
One of the most sensitive points of current sports legislation is the condition for access to public funds. Under the General Sports Law, bodies that want financial support from the Union, whether through the Sports Incentive Law, agreements, sponsorship by state-owned companies, transfers from the COB (Brazilian Olympic Committee) or CPB (Brazilian Paralympic Committee), or lottery funds, may do so only if they guarantee the effective participation of athletes in their deliberative and governance bodies.
This participation must respect proportionality:
Athletes must have reserved seats in assemblies and councils, with the right to speak and vote.
The minimum percentage is set by law and regulations, but each body's bylaws must detail how it is applied.
This model seeks to balance representation among officials, federations and athletes, so that the main protagonists, the athletes, also share responsibility for institutional decisions.
In turn, bodies that choose not to access public funds are not required to meet this condition. This protects the private autonomy of associations, but in practice larger bodies tend to adapt so as not to lose access to essential funding.
The requirement of athlete participation is not merely symbolic: it is directly linked to the condition for access to federal public funds.
In other words:
If a body does not intend to receive public funds or tax incentives, it is not required to include athletes in its deliberative boards.
But if it wants to take part in the National Sports System (SND) in full and receive state benefits and support, including athletes becomes mandatory.
Legal structure, athlete participation and institutional management
Constitutional and legal foundations
The Federal Constitution of 1988 provides, in article 217, that sport is a right of all, and that the State must foster formal and non-formal sports practice. This rule is put into effect by specific legislation, such as the former Pelé Law (Law no. 9,615/1998) and, more recently, the General Sports Law (Law no. 14,597/2023).
The new law reorganizes the National Sports System and sets principles of transparency, governance, integrity and social participation. These also apply to Esports when they are treated at the institutional level.
The National Sports System and athlete participation
In articles 18 and 18-A of the General Sports Law, it is established that athletes must take part in the management of sports bodies in proportion to their weight in the modality.
This means that:
Confederations, federations and leagues, such as CBDEL – the Brazilian Confederation of Electronic Sports, must provide in their bylaws for deliberative participation of athletes in assemblies and management bodies.
Failure to follow this rule means loss of access to federal public funds, including direct budget funds, sponsorship by state-owned companies, tax waiver under the Sports Incentive Law, and transfers from the COB, the CPB and state and municipal departments when backed by public funds.
In other words, meeting this requirement is mandatory only for bodies that want to raise public funds. If a body wants to act independently, without asking the State for financial support, it is not required to adopt these rules, although from the point of view of institutional legitimacy it is always advisable.
Comparison: governance and athlete participation
| Aspect | Pelé Law (repealed) | General Sports Law (in force) | Bylaw practice – CBDEL example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Athlete participation | Provided for, but limited and with little effect | Mandatory and proportional for access to public funds | Deliberative seats reserved for athletes in the assembly and councils |
| Public funds | Access conditional on basic tax and bylaw compliance | Access conditional on good governance, including athlete participation | CBDEL structures itself to meet the requirements and access Incentive Laws, state-company sponsorship and agreements |
| Autonomy of bodies | Broadly guaranteed, with little oversight | Kept, but conditional when public funds are used | If it chooses not to access public funds, it can have more flexibility, but loses funding opportunities |
| Transparency | Generic duty to account | Stricter rules on publication and accountability | Annual reports and public accountability in line with the law |
| Oversight | Limited and decentralized | Greater integration among the Ministry of Sport, the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) and control bodies | CBDEL uses internal audit mechanisms and an independent fiscal council |
Public funds subject to articles 18 and 18-A
The requirement of athlete participation in decision-making applies to bodies that receive:
Federal, state and municipal budget funds for sport.
Sponsorship funds from state-owned companies (such as Banco do Brasil, Petrobras, Caixa, Eletrobras).
Funds from the Sports Incentive Law, based on tax waiver.
Special sports funds at any level of government.
Indirect transfers through the Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB), the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CPB) or the Ministry of Sport.
So in the case of CBDEL, to receive funds under the Incentive Law or support from state-owned companies, its bylaws must comply with the General Sports Law, guaranteeing the presence of athletes in decision-making bodies.
4. Practical example – CBDEL
CBDEL, as the national Esports confederation, sits in this legal and institutional setting:
Its bylaws must provide for athlete participation in councils and assemblies.
If it does not, it remains a legitimate body from the private point of view, but cannot access public funds.
If it does, it reinforces its institutional credibility, widens its channels of dialogue with government and civil society, and qualifies to take part in public sports policy.
5. Comparison – athlete participation
| Aspect | Pelé Law (1998) | General Sports Law (2023) | CBDEL bylaws |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal provision for athlete participation | Limited and indirect recognition | Mandatory, proportional to the modality's representation | Provided in the bylaws (athletes with a vote and seats on councils) |
| Consequences of non-compliance | No direct sanction | Loss of access to federal and state-company public funds | If not met: no access to public funds; if met: full eligibility |
| Governance model | Focus on officials and clubs | Social participation, athletes, diversity and integrity | General Assembly and Councils with athlete participation |
| Application to Esports (e.g. CBDEL) | No express provision | Covers sports and Esports | CBDEL must adapt its bylaws to include athletes if it wants to access public funds |
6. Final considerations
The General Sports Law brought an important milestone: democratic governance of sports bodies, tying access to public funds to the effective participation of athletes in decision-making bodies.
In the example I use in this article, CBDEL, this means that:
It can act freely in the private sector even without this adjustment.
But if it wants to raise funds from state-owned companies, the Sports Incentive Law or public budgets, it must ensure a deliberative place for athletes.
Articles 18 and 18-A and the certification tie athlete participation to access to public funds, making it central to governance;
Bodies that do not seek public funds keep their autonomy, but lose access to benefits and broader legitimacy;
CBDEL shows how Esports can structure themselves within Brazilian law, guaranteeing participation, transparency and excellent governance;
The General Sports Law reinforces this model by prioritizing democratic management, participation and transparency, even though it does not directly regulate the requirement;
The integration of conventional sport and Esports strengthens SINESP, guarantees athletes a leading role, and raises the level of professionalism and social responsibility of sport as a whole.
This change reflects a global movement: sport and Esports are tools for human development, and their legitimacy depends on transparent, inclusive practices that recognize the athlete as the protagonist of the sports system.
