STJ: Club and Executive Liable for Fan Conduct

The STJ (Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) held that a visiting club and its executive can be held civilly liable for the team’s conduct on the field and for damage their fans cause to the home club’s property. The court rejected the argument that only organized fan groups can be held to account.

What the Third Panel decided

The dispute reached the Superior Court of Justice with a simple question that is delicate to answer: can a soccer club and its president be ordered to compensate a rival for what they did on the field and for what their fans did inside the rival’s stadium? The answer was yes, by unanimous vote, in a special appeal (recurso especial) decided under the General Sports Law (STJ REsp 2.264.509/PR).

The holding is direct: a visiting club and its executive can be held liable for the visiting team’s conduct on the field and for the damage its fans cause to the home club’s property. The ruling appears in the Court’s Case Law Bulletin No. 905.

Two distinct kinds of conduct were examined in the same case. The first was an open campaign by the visiting club and its executive against a pacification project launched by the state Public Prosecutor’s Office, carried out through a jersey printed with mocking messages and through social media posts. The second was vandalism by the visiting club’s fans during a match at the home club’s stadium, which damaged the home team’s property.

The separation between the two is not a drafting detail. Each was assessed under its own basis of liability, with different consequences for the type of damages awarded. The first led to an award for moral damages; the second, to an award for property damages.

The microsystem created by the General Sports Law

The Federal Constitution makes it the State’s duty to foster sports as a right of each person, and it directs public authorities to encourage leisure as a form of social advancement (art. 217, caput, and § 3). To give effect to that design, the General Sports Law repealed the former Fan Protection Statute and established a legal microsystem of its own.

This microsystem is guided by sports integrity and creates a national plan aimed at a culture of peace in sports. The statute governs relationships arising at sporting events and, at the same time, reaches a very broad range of activities in the sports sphere. It applies both to disputes brought before the ordinary courts and to those within the jurisdiction of the sports justice courts.

Safety is established as a fundamental principle of sports (Law 14.597/2023, art. 2, XVI). Spectators are guaranteed the right to safety at the venues where events are held, before, during and after the competitions or matches (art. 146). As a condition of entering and remaining in the sports venue, spectators must not incite or commit acts of violence in the stadium, of any kind (art. 158, VII).

Reading these provisions together yields the premise that underlies the ruling: sports organizations, spectators and all other actors who contribute to or take part in sports-related activities share responsibility for the safety of events. In this framework, there is no room for the legal bystander.

Strict Liability for Organized Fan Groups, Fault-Based for the Club

The General Sports Law expressly imposes strict and joint liability on organized fan groups (torcidas organizadas), their members and their leaders for damage caused by any of their members at the site of the sporting event, in its vicinity, or on the way to and from it. This regime is harsh and removes any debate over fault.

The ruling, however, added a caveat that deserves the attention of anyone working in this field. The fact that the statute expressly names organized fan groups does not give immunity to the other actors in the sports arena. For them, the general rules of the legal system that govern civil liability apply, and an examination of their conduct is required again.

In the case decided, no organized fan group was a defendant, and strict liability was never at issue. The Court was explicit in noting that not every wrongful act by a fan that causes moral or property damage results, by itself, in punishment of the fan’s team. The statement serves precisely to rule out automatic liability.

What led to the award of property damages was the combination of two elements proven in the record: the repeated acts of destruction by the visiting club’s fans in the rival’s stadium, and the complete inaction of the club and its executive to prevent events of that kind. Proven omission is what completes the causal chain.

The practical consequence of this reasoning is significant. Whoever organizes or takes part in a sporting event is not liable for everything their fans do, but is liable for what they failed to do when they had a concrete duty to act and the means to do so.

Criticism can be harsh, vitriolic and unpleasant and still be lawful. What the decision condemns is conduct that goes beyond the right to express an opinion.

This distinction between legitimate criticism and wrongful conduct was the core of the second part of the judgment, which addressed the campaign led by the club executive.

Freedom of expression and the limit of wrongful conduct

The visiting team took the field wearing jerseys with messages mocking the pacification project launched by the prosecutor’s office. The club’s president, in a live interview, compared to a fascist regime the decision not to allow the visiting fans to enter with the distinctive accessories of the team they support.

The general competition regulations of the national soccer governing body require civil and honest conduct from everyone involved, with the aim of helping to prevent unsportsmanlike behavior. The competitions are founded on the principles of integrity, ethics, continuity and stability, sporting fair play, impartiality, truth and safety, so as to ensure unpredictable outcomes and equal opportunity.

Against that background, the ruling held that freedom of expression and criticism, which may come across as harsh, vitriolic and unpleasant, must not be confused with wrongful acts that go beyond the right to freely express thoughts and opinions. Constitutional protection covers an uncomfortable opinion; it does not cover a wrongful act committed under the appearance of an opinion.

Two factors made the assessment of the conduct more serious. The first was the speaker’s position: the statement came from the club’s top executive and was embraced by the players. The second was the foreseeable effect of the statement, which was capable of generating intense animosity and of suggesting that disobeying the campaign should be encouraged. The Court described this as the antithesis of the educational responsibility that comes with the office.

The ruling also acknowledged that disagreements and provocations among teams, fans and executives are part of soccer culture and can cause annoyance, disappointment and setbacks with no legal consequence. The opposition expressed in this case, however, exceeded the limits of criticism and amounted to wrongful conduct, which is why moral damages were found.

What the decision signals to clubs and organizers

The first signal concerns evidence. If a club’s liability for its fans’ acts depends on proof of inaction, then keeping a record of the preventive measures taken stops being bureaucracy and becomes part of the defense. Notices to fans, advance coordination with the home club and the security authorities, formal instructions to members and monitoring of the traveling group all become useful documents.

The second signal reaches institutional communication. An executive’s statements are no longer treated as background noise of the competitive environment. They are examined as conduct, capable of creating a duty to pay compensation when they go beyond criticism and encourage noncompliance with a public pacification policy.

The third signal concerns method. The ruling did not create a new category of strict liability beyond what the statute provides; it applied the general rules of civil liability to an environment governed by its own microsystem. Anyone who wants to argue the issue must therefore work on two levels: sports legislation and the ordinary regime of compensation for damages.

It is worth recalling that, under the former Fan Protection Statute, the Court had already addressed cases involving the liability of home clubs inside their stadiums and in the surrounding areas, as well as the liability of members of their fan groups (STJ REsp 1.924.527/PR) and (STJ REsp 1.773.885/SP). The current decision shifts the focus to the visiting side and to the figure of the club executive.

Concluding its analysis, the ruling noted that violence committed by fans and by members of fan groups tied to national clubs is linked to the lack of an effective state and institutional policy, and that for decades the legislation has imposed obligations and penalties on private entities so that clubs, executives and spectators adopt preventive and punitive measures in favor of a culture of respect.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does every act of damage by a fan lead to a judgment against the fan’s club?

No. The Court expressly stated that not every wrongful act by a fan that causes moral or property damage results directly in punishment of the fan’s team. In this case, the award of property damages resulted from the combination of two proven factors: the destruction committed in the opponent’s stadium and the complete inaction of the club and its executive in preventing episodes of that kind.

Was the liability found against the visiting club strict liability?

No. Under the General Sports Law, strict and joint civil liability applies to organized fan groups, their members and their leaders for damage caused by members at the site of the event, in its vicinity or on the way to and from it. Outside that framework, the general rules of civil liability apply, with an examination of the conduct, which is exactly the path the Court followed.

Can publicly criticizing an institutional campaign give rise to moral damages?

Criticism, even when harsh and unpleasant, remains protected by freedom of expression. What was condemned was conduct that went beyond that right: mocking messages printed on the athletes’ uniforms and a statement by the top executive comparing the pacification campaign to a fascist regime, a statement the Court considered capable of encouraging disobedience and contrary to the educational responsibility of the office.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.