The Portuguese Football Federation has paid an additional €700,000 to Social Security, bringing the total amount settled to around €3.3 million in a case related to former national team coach Fernando Santos.
In a statement, the federation said the payment covers late interest linked to a Social Security process concerning contracts signed with the company Femacosa under a previous administration.
Earlier this year, after being notified by Social Security, the FPF chose not to appeal and paid €2.6 million in outstanding contributions covering the period between December 2021 and December 2022. The latest payment settles accrued interest, though the federation noted that additional fines have yet to be calculated, meaning the final amount could rise further.
The issue centres on the contractual structure used to pay Santos and his coaching staff through Femacosa, a company created in 2014. This arrangement allowed income to be taxed under corporate tax rules (IRC), which carry a lower rate than personal income tax (IRS) that would typically apply to such salaries.
Read more: World Cup 2026: Cristiano Ronaldo most likely absent from Martinez’ squad list
According to the FPF, Social Security deemed the arrangement legally non-compliant, arguing that it relied on intermediary companies instead of direct employment contracts of a sporting nature — the standard model currently used, including with current head coach Roberto Martínez.
The federation, now led by Pedro Proença, said it opted to settle the case immediately due to the low chances of success in court and the risk of higher costs from legal fees, additional interest and increased penalties.
The payments are expected to have a significant financial impact on the FPF’s budget for the current season, which had forecast a surplus of €3.1 million.
Former FPF president Fernando Gomes, who led the organisation between 2011 and 2025 and is now head of the Portuguese Olympic Committee, has challenged the decision. He argued that the contractual model had already been reviewed by tax authorities, arbitration bodies and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, all of which did not find grounds for wrongdoing.
Gomes insisted that the services provided were legitimate and that Social Security’s interpretation does not reflect the reality of the agreements in place.
