Uma invenção modesta — espuma branca que desaparece em segundos — tornou-se o centro de uma disputa jurídica de nove anos que chegou ao maior palco do futebol mundial. Heine Allemagne, inventor brasileiro, reivindicou o que considerava seu por direito: o reconhecimento e a compensação pelo uso de sua patente na Copa de 2014. A FIFA, ao ignorar essa obrigação por anos, transformou uma taxa de licenciamento em uma batalha constitucional que agora priva os árbitros de uma ferramenta fundamental — lembrando que as instituições mais poderosas também estão sujeitas às consequências de suas escolhas.
FIFA removes referee spray from World Cup after Brazilian inventor's legal victory
Without the spray, the referee had no tool to enforce the distance with precision.
Mark
So a referee couldn't use this spray at the World Cup because of a lawsuit. That seems like an extreme consequence for a patent dispute.
Mimi
It is extreme, but it's what happens when a court finds that FIFA used someone's invention without permission and then blocked them from selling it elsewhere. The spray became so standard that removing it actually changes how the referee can do the job.
Mark
But FIFA appealed and won on a technicality—something about a World Cup law from 2014?
Mimi
Not exactly won. The Supreme Court said FIFA might have had the right to use it under that law, but they didn't settle it. They sent it back for another examination. So FIFA is still in legal jeopardy, and the spray stays banned.
Mark
How long has this been going on?
Mimi
Since 2017. Allemagne sued, FIFA kept using the spray anyway at two more World Cups while the case wound through the courts. It took nine years and multiple appeals before FIFA actually had to stop.
Mark
What does the spray actually do that's so important?
Mimi
It marks where the defensive wall must stand during a free kick—nine and a half meters from the ball. Without it, defenders creep forward and the referee has no clear way to stop them. It's a small thing that changes the fairness of the game.
Mark
And Allemagne created this?
Mimi
He did, and he spent years maintaining the patent in multiple countries while FIFA used his product without crediting him or paying him. That's what the lawsuit was really about—not just the patent, but the accumulated cost of protecting something FIFA was profiting from.
Der Puls
- Pela primeira vez desde 2014, um árbitro apitou uma partida de Copa do Mundo sem o spray, exposto à imprecisão que a ferramenta havia eliminado por décadas.
- A FIFA ignorou uma ação judicial pendente e continuou usando o produto nas Copas de 2018 e 2022, apostando que a disputa não chegaria a esse ponto.
- O Superior Tribunal de Justiça condenou a FIFA a pagar US$ 40 milhões em 2024, mas o Supremo Tribunal Federal retirou a indenização em 2026, criando um limbo jurídico que não satisfaz nenhuma das partes.
- A questão central — se a lei brasileira da Copa de 2014 permite que a FIFA use a invenção sem compensar o inventor — permanece sem resposta enquanto o torneio já está em curso.
- O custo real para a FIFA supera em muito o valor de qualquer licença: taxas jurídicas, desgaste institucional e a perturbação concreta no trabalho dos árbitros no mais alto nível do esporte.
Uma invenção modesta — espuma branca que desaparece em segundos — tornou-se o centro de uma disputa jurídica de nove anos que chegou ao maior palco do futebol mundial. Heine Allemagne, inventor brasileiro, reivindicou o que considerava seu por direito: o reconhecimento e a compensação pelo uso de sua patente na Copa de 2014. A FIFA, ao ignorar essa obrigação por anos, transformou uma taxa de licenciamento em uma batalha constitucional que agora priva os árbitros de uma ferramenta fundamental — lembrando que as instituições mais poderosas também estão sujeitas às consequências de suas escolhas.
O árbitro brasileiro Wilton Pereira Sampaio entrou em campo na abertura da Copa do Mundo de 2026, entre México e África do Sul, sem o spray que marcava a distância das barreiras em cobranças de falta — uma ferramenta tão rotineira quanto o apito. A ausência era resultado de uma batalha judicial de nove anos entre a FIFA e Heine Allemagne, inventor brasileiro que finalmente forçou a entidade a responder por suas escolhas.
Allemagne entrou com ação em 2017, alegando que a FIFA havia infringido sua patente ao usar o produto Spuni na Copa de 2014 sem reconhecimento ou pagamento. Ele afirmou que a organização ocultou deliberadamente sua marca e depois o impediu de comercializar o spray em outros mercados — um prejuízo que se acumulou enquanto ele arcava com os custos de manter a patente em outros países. A FIFA ignorou a ação e continuou usando o spray nas Copas de 2018 e 2022.
Em 2024, o Superior Tribunal de Justiça decidiu a favor de Allemagne e ordenou que a FIFA pagasse US$ 40 milhões. A FIFA recorreu, e em fevereiro de 2026 o ministro Gilmar Mendes manteve a condenação, mas retirou a indenização, argumentando que a lei brasileira da Copa de 2014 poderia proteger a entidade. O caso foi encaminhado para reexame, deixando a questão fundamental em aberto.
O spray em si é uma inovação discreta: espuma biodegradável inspirada em creme de barbear, testada desde 2000 e usada oficialmente desde o Campeonato Paulista de 2002. O árbitro dá nove passos a partir do ponto da falta, marca o chão e a espuma desaparece em segundos. Sem ela, não há como impedir que os defensores avancem sorrateiramente antes do chute — uma tática que pode alterar o resultado de uma jogada de bola parada.
A ausência do spray no jogo de Sampaio não foi apenas simbólica: mudou concretamente como ele pôde exercer sua função. Para a FIFA, o custo de ignorar uma taxa de licenciamento revelou-se muito maior do que qualquer acordo teria custado — em honorários jurídicos, desgaste institucional e na perturbação real ao jogo que ela governa.
Brazilian referee Wilton Pereira Sampaio stood on the pitch for the 2026 World Cup opener between Mexico and South Africa without a tool that had become as routine to his profession as a whistle. He could not use the spray—the white foam that marks the nine-and-a-half-meter distance for free kicks—because a Brazilian court had forbidden FIFA from deploying it. The ban was the culmination of a nine-year legal battle between the world's governing body and Heine Allemagne, a Brazilian inventor whose patent claim had finally forced the organization's hand.
Allemagne filed suit in 2017, alleging that FIFA had infringed on his patent when it used his product, branded Spuni, at the 2014 World Cup without proper acknowledgment or compensation. He argued that the organization had deliberately obscured his brand and then blocked him from commercializing the spray elsewhere. Beyond the patent violation, he sought damages for the cost of maintaining his intellectual property rights in other countries that continued to use the product—a financial burden that accumulated over years. The lawsuit dragged through Brazil's courts even as FIFA continued deploying the spray at the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, seemingly unbothered by the pending action.
In 2024, Brazil's Superior Court of Justice ruled decisively in Allemagne's favor, ordering FIFA to pay $40 million in damages. The decision seemed final. But FIFA appealed to the Supreme Court, and in February 2026, Justice Gilmar Mendes issued a more nuanced ruling. He upheld the court's finding against FIFA but struck the monetary award, reasoning that FIFA possessed the right to choose which brands and products it promoted under Brazil's 2014 World Cup law. The law, enacted specifically to govern the tournament's commercial and operational framework, appeared to shield FIFA from liability—or at least to complicate it. The case would need to be reexamined to determine whether that law actually applied to this situation, leaving the fundamental question unresolved.
The spray itself is a modest innovation. It emerged from testing that began around 2000 and was first used in official matches during the 2002 São Paulo State Championship. The product is biodegradable foam, inspired by shaving cream, that a referee applies to the ground to mark where the defending wall must stand during a free kick. The referee takes nine steps from the point of the foul and marks the spot; the foam vanishes within seconds. Without it, referees have no reliable way to prevent defenders from creeping forward before the kick is taken—a common tactic that can substantially alter the outcome of a set piece.
Sampaio's match without the spray illustrated the practical consequence. He had no tool to enforce the distance rule with precision, no visual marker to deter the subtle encroachment that happens in the chaos of a live game. The absence was not merely symbolic; it changed how he could do his job. For more than two decades, the spray had become so embedded in professional football that its removal felt like stepping backward, a regression to an earlier era of refereeing when such infractions went largely unchecked.
The legal tangle now facing FIFA and Allemagne hinges on a narrow question of Brazilian law. Can FIFA invoke the 2014 World Cup legislation to justify its use of the spray without compensating the inventor? Or does patent law supersede that statute? The Supreme Court's decision to preserve the case for further examination suggests the answer is not obvious. What is clear is that FIFA's attempt to use the product without permission or payment has cost the organization far more than a licensing fee would have—not just in legal fees and reputational damage, but in the practical disruption to how the game is officiated at its highest level. The spray remains banned from the 2026 tournament while the courts decide what FIFA actually owes.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
FIFA had the right to choose which brands and products it promoted under Brazil's 2014 World Cup law— Justice Gilmar Mendes, Supreme Court
Allemagne alleged FIFA used his spray while deliberately obscuring his brand and blocking him from commercializing it elsewhere— Court filings in the patent case
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Folha de S.Paulo ↗
Crime & Justice