Benfica announced this Friday, March 20, that it sent a formal request for clarification to the Disciplinary Council of the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) regarding the “measurements, inferences and sporting consequences” that will result from the “judicial decision, now final and unappealable, which condemns FC Porto SAD in the so-called email case“.
It is recalled that this case became final and unappealable on January 16, 2026, after the Constitutional Court refused the last appeal filed by the dragons, thus establishing in 605,300.90 euros, plus interest and legal costs, the compensation that FC Porto will have to pay to Benficaas had been determined by the Supreme Court.
In this process, Benfica initially demanded compensation of 17.7 million euros for damages caused by the disclosure of private correspondence on Porto Canal between April 2017 and February 2018, by the then communications director of Porto fans, Francisco J. Marques.
The incarnated SAD now reminds the FPF disciplinary body that FC Porto “used official channels” to publicize“repeatedly and publicly, content obtained illegally, formulating serious accusations of corruption, manipulation of referees and adulteration of sporting truth”, something that Benfica now states that the court found that they were “false and totally unfounded, having also constituted serious reputational damage to national competitions and a direct and serious form of conditioning of sports agents“.
The Reds also argue in the statement that this disclosure of emails was made “with knowledge, validation and public support from the administration of FC Porto SAD”, which is why these were not “isolated acts or individual excesses, but rather a concerted institutional action”.
In this sense, with the decision having become final, Benfica now remembers that the Disciplinary Board “initiated a process on this matter at the end of 2017”understanding therefore that “at this point there are no more facts left to be ascertained or analyzed”, which is why he asks that “clarify, unequivocally and without further ado, what consequences and sporting sanctions will be applied to Futebol Clube do Porto, SAD”.
Read the full statement:
“Sport Lisboa e Benfica informs that it has formally addressed a request for clarification to the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation regarding the measures, conclusions and sporting consequences that the Disciplinary Board will draw from the judicial decision, now final, which condemns FC Porto SAD in the so-called e-mail case.
Sport Lisboa e Benfica recalls that, between April 2017 and February 2018, FC Porto SAD, through its then Communication Director, used the club’s official channels to disseminate, repeatedly and publicly, content obtained illegally, formulating serious accusations of corruption, manipulation of referees and adulteration of sporting truth by Sport Lisboa e Benfica – accusations that were proven in court to be false and completely unfounded, having also constituted serious damage reputation for national competitions and a direct and serious form of conditioning of sports agents.
It is also important to emphasize that such conduct was practiced in the exercise of functions, with knowledge, validation and public support from the administration of FC Porto SAD, not being isolated acts or individual excesses, but rather a concerted institutional action.
As the court decision has become final, without any possibility of appeal, and considering that the Disciplinary Board initiated a process on this matter at the end of 2017, without there having been any development over more than eight and a half years, Sport Lisboa e Benfica understands that there are, at this moment, no further facts left to be investigated or analyzed.
In this sense, it is imperative and urgent that the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation clarify, unequivocally and without further delay, what consequences and sporting sanctions will be applied to Futebol Clube do Porto, SAD, given the seriousness of the facts confirmed and proven in court.”
Leave a Reply