In a formal statement, LiBRA presents a clear distinction between truth and distortion in the ongoing discussions surrounding Flamengo and the future structure of Brazilian football. The federation emphasizes transparency, sustained dialogue, and a collective path that benefits all clubs and the millions of fans who follow the sport across the country.
Key LiBRA clarifications
1. Dialogue and transparency
It is false to claim that Flamengo desires ongoing dialogue. According to LiBRA, Flamengo halted dialogue with a non-urgent injunction that disrupted the flow of funds to other Libra members, pressing them economically without prior hearing. This action runs counter to the association’s spirit and contradicts the cooperative ethos LiBRA seeks to build. The federation represents the collective will of its members to create a robust, sustainable league for Brazilian football that benefits all clubs, not just one.
2. Statute and revenue distribution
The assertion that the LiBRA Statute omits criteria for revenue distribution is incorrect. The rules for distributing revenues negotiated on a collective basis are explicitly described in the Statute and were approved unanimously at a General Assembly, with Flamengo participating and approving without reservations. Therefore, Flamengo’s claim that the distribution method is undefined is inaccurate.
3. Cadastro versus audience
Cadastro does not equal audience. Flamengo proposed altering the metric to be based on the number of registered fans, but such a metric is not included in the Statute’s criteria. The proposal to switch to a cadastro-based calculation was brought to a vote in the LiBRA General Assembly and was rejected by the eight Série A clubs that are LiBRA members. Since Flamengo alone voted in favor and pursued judicial avenues to overturn the collective decision, it is false to say that the club does not seek a procedural adjustment through legal means.
4. Minimum guaranteed value
The Statute does not guarantee a “minimum value” for Flamengo at this stage. Any minimum would only be applicable if LiBRA were to operate the league itself. In the current framework, such a guarantee does not apply to Flamengo within the existing distribution model.
5. Voting on rule changes
It is false to claim Flamengo voted against the rule changes. In fact, Flamengo was the sole club to propose changing the Statute to replace the audience criterion with a new metric, but the proposal was evaluated and rejected by all other Série A clubs voting. The record shows Flamengo proposing this change rather than voting against it.
6. Urgency and potential losses
The claim that Flamengo needed an injunction to avoid losses is unfounded. The current contract spans five years and, collectively, more than R$6 billion in benefits for all clubs. This framework provides ample time and resources to negotiate any potential adjustments through dialogue, mediation, or arbitration, should consensus emerge from a unanimous vote on changes to revenue distribution rules.
If Flamengo truly seeks dialogue and a fair agreement, it should engage through appropriate technical channels within LiBRA rather than resorting to emergency measures. The federation questions why many clarifications are being issued via press statements instead of in a focused, internal forum, and whether the public approach reflects other objectives beyond a constructive agreement.
A shared path forward for Brazilian football
LiBRA argues that media-driven distortions undermine a healthy debate about the future of the sport. Collective bargaining blocs, such as LiBRA and the later-forming league structures, share a common goal: increase the value and revenue from broadcast rights, elevate product quality, and push Brazilian football onto the international stage. Together, clubs can achieve much more than they can alone, and division weakens the entire ecosystem that supports players, fans, and communities.
The football in Brazil does not belong to a single club; it belongs to millions.
