Report says Corinthians may have already paid off the Arena, R$402m gap | OneFootball

An expert report delivered to the São Paulo Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPSP) last Friday (28) exposes significant discrepancies in the calculations of Corinthians’ debt to Caixa Econômica Federal related to Neo Química Arena. The document, signed by administrator and expert Anísio Costa Castelo Branco, from the Investigative Expertise Institute (IPI), indicates that the outstanding balance sought in court in 2019 could have been R$ 255.7 million lower than the amount claimed—a difference that, updated through August 2026, would reach R$ 402.7 million.

The report, which Central do Timão had access to, was produced as part of an administrative proceeding under the responsibility of prosecutor Cássio Roberto Conserino, and analyzes the formation and evolution of the outstanding balance arising from the financing agreement signed on November 29, 2013, between Caixa (as BNDES’s disbursing agent) and Arena Itaquera S.A.

Photo: João Paulo – JP Drone/Neo Química Arena

On August 22, 2019, Caixa Econômica Federal filed an enforcement action based on an extrajudicial title against Arena Itaquera S.A. in the 24th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo, seeking R$ 536,092,853.27. The amount consisted of:

– Outstanding balance: R$ 423,942,524.34 – Overdue installments (principal, interest, late charges, and penalty): R$ 37,865,968.46 – 10% contractual fine: R$ 48,735,713.93

The expert analysis, however, reconstructed the financial evolution of the contract by applying the agreed criteria, the Long-Term Interest Rate (TJLP) plus 3.4% per year, and deducting the payments made. The result was a recalculated outstanding balance of R$ 280,339,847.34 on the same base date of 08/22/2019, a difference of R$ 255,753,005.93 compared to the amount charged by Caixa. Updated under the same contractual criteria to the report’s issuance date (08/22/2026), that difference reaches R$ 402,705,448.77.

One of the most critical points raised by the expert report concerns the application of the 10% fine provided for in Clause Sixteen of the contract. Caixa applied the percentage to the full amount of R$ 487,357,139.34 (outstanding balance plus overdue installments), which resulted in a fine of R$ 48,735,713.93.

The expert argues that the fine should apply only to the installments that were actually due and overdue on the filing date (R$ 37,865,968.46), which would result in a penalty of R$ 3,786,596.85. The difference between the two criteria, R$ 44,949,117.08 on the 2019 base date, updated to August 2026, reaches R$ 70,856,430.91.

The report notes that “no calculation worksheet or specific technical justification was found in the case records showing why Caixa adopted the full amount, including future amounts due, as the basis for applying the fine.”

The expert analysis also identified inconsistencies between Caixa’s internal documents and the billing spreadsheets submitted in the case. In two specific payments, the bank’s internal records showed amounts higher than those entered in the debt evolution spreadsheet.

The report points to the absence of a “single, chronological, analytical, and fully reconciled statement that would allow the entire evolution of the outstanding balance to be independently reproduced from the initial disbursements onward.” Full bank statements for the account used to process the payments were also not found.

Warning over fans’ fundraising campaign

The report also addresses the fundraising campaign organized by Gaviões da Fiel, formalized in November 2024 with the goal of paying off the Neo Química Arena debt. The agreement called for raising R$ 720 million through Pix donations.

The expert report stresses that if the outstanding balance reported by Caixa was incorrect on the date the agreement was formalized, “Gaviões da Fiel may have been misled regarding the amount of the debt and, consequently, fans and other citizens may have made donations based on differing financial information.”

The document, however, adds that it “does not attribute any irregularity, intent, or responsibility to any participant in the campaign,” leaving the investigation of any potential wrongdoing or liability to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Expert recommendations

Given the discrepancies and documentary gaps identified, the report recommends that the Public Prosecutor’s Office carry out a series of measures, including:

1. Request from Caixa the full breakdown of the outstanding balance’s evolution from each disbursement to the present day; 2. A specific clarification regarding the calculation basis of the 10% contractual fine; 3. Investigation into the origin and methodology of the line items “late charges” and “penalty” (R$ 1,025,698.99 and R$ 3,042,324.30, respectively); 4. Reconciliation of payments recorded in different CEF documents; 5. Obtaining the full history of the financing disbursements, including from BNDES; 6. Requesting the documentation that supported the R$ 720 million balance used as the reference in the donation campaign; 7. Examination of the campaign’s financial documentation, including statements and amounts actually raised; 8. Conducting an independent financial mathematics expert review with access to the full documentation.

The original financing, worth R$ 400 million, represented up to 75% of the arena’s total cost, which was built to host matches in the 2014 World Cup. In 2022, a restructuring agreement set the debt at R$ 611 million, with a 20-year repayment term. The outstanding balance is currently estimated at around R$ 642 million, although Corinthians estimates it has already paid approximately R$ 600 million for the stadium.

Gaviões da Fiel’s campaign raised around R$ 40.9 million, an amount used to amortize part of the debt. The report suggests, however, that if the new calculations are correct, Neo Química Arena may already be fully paid off.

What happens now?

The expert report is already part of the Public Prosecutor’s Office administrative proceeding, which will assess the need for and scope of the subsequent investigative measures. The prosecutor leading the case gave an interview to Metrópoles this Wednesday (2) and indicated that new expert reviews will still be carried out in the case. Conserino noted that if it is proven that Corinthians overpaid for the stadium, it would constitute a case of reckless management extending not just through one administration, but through several consecutive club administrations.

“I am not here to state categorically that the accounts are correct, but, as the spokesperson for a situation that is absolutely serious and that affects the financial life of Sport Club Corinthians Paulista and, in that capacity, as a prosecutor, I am obliged to protect the interests of the victim, I am compelled to speak out in this regard,” he said.

“It is worth noting that there are already five criminal actions in which Corinthians is the victim, and I am the representative responsible for these investigations through a random assignment. I was at my office and received that first complaint, which resulted in several criminal actions,” he added.

In the order that opened the proceeding, Conserino had already indicated that, if the difference pointed out is proven, “it would be a case for a possible action to recover undue payment against CEF” and that the club’s directors may have allowed “payments that were not due and, consequently, a severe depletion of the SCCP association’s assets, in violation of obligations and duties set out in the bylaws.” Despite Caixa’s presence in the financial chain, the prosecutor stressed that the case is not federal in nature, since at this time it does not involve the investigation of a crime against property or interests of the Union, but rather possible financial harm to the club.

Corinthians and Caixa Econômica Federal had not officially commented on the contents of the report or the MPSP investigation by the time this report was published.

See more:

Corinthians News

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.