Overview of the dispute
The rift between Flamengo and LiBRA (Liga do Futebol Brasileiro) intensified this week after Flamengo acknowledged a court-ordered blockage of a portion of the TV rights payments for the Brazilian Championship. The money in question would be distributed among LiBRA members. In response, LiBRA issued a formal statement challenging Flamengo’s interpretation and underscoring that the rule governing revenue distribution is enshrined in LiBRA’s statute and was approved without caveats by the General Assembly.
LiBRA’s memo also criticized Flamengo for pursuing public exposure of the disagreement, arguing that transparency should be pursued through governance channels rather than media campaigns. The association framed its position as a defense of a process designed to ensure a robust and sustainable league for all clubs involved.
LiBRA’s position on distribution rules
According to LiBRA, the distribution of revenue negotiated collectively is explicitly described in the league’s Statute. The entity asserted that the rule addressing audience-related revenue was approved unanimously by the General Assembly, with Flamengo participating in the vote and backing the rule at that time. Therefore, LiBRA says it is inaccurate to claim that the Statute omits how audience revenue should be shared or that Flamengo disagreed with the method described in the Statute.
Key points highlighted by LiBRA
In its note, LiBRA argued against several assertions made by Flamengo, including that the club was seeking a dialogic approach. The league claimed Flamengo sought a court order to freeze payments to pressure other clubs, effectively interrupting the league’s cash flow without giving other members a chance to be heard. LiBRA described this as contrary to the associational spirit and to what it considers an equitable, multiclub process intended to benefit all members.
On the matter of the metric used to determine audience revenue, LiBRA stated that the Statute governs the distribution and that Flamengo’s proposal to replace the audience criterion with a “cadastro” (registered fans) metric was put to a vote and rejected by the eight Série A clubs that participate in LiBRA. Flamengo was the only club to vote in favor of the change, and the club later sought judicial reversal, which LiBRA framed as an attempt to overturn a collegial decision.
The Flamengo side: exchanges and the cadastro debate
Flamengo’s stance has centered on two elements. First, the club argued that the rules governing revenue distribution should be updated to reflect a new metric. Second, Flamengo contends that the blocking of payments via court order points to a broader governance struggle within LiBRA. Flamengo has claimed that its position was not that of opposition to dialogue but rather a procedural stance aligned with its interpretation of the Statute. The club argues that changes to the distribution rules must come through the established processes and voting mechanisms, not through unilateral legal action.
Flamengo maintains that the bloc of votes against the proposed change demonstrates a willingness among other clubs to adhere to the current framework. However, it remains clear that Flamengo supports altering the fundamental way revenue is calculated, a position that has triggered scrutiny from LiBRA and other member clubs alike.
Assembly decisions and potential paths forward
LiBRA’s note indicates that discussions should proceed within the league’s governance channels, with a focus on achieving a sustainable framework that benefits all clubs. The association cautions that revealing sensitive proceedings via media channels undermines collective efforts to find a negotiated solution. For Flamengo, the question now centers on whether a majority of LiBRA’s members remain aligned with the current Statute or if there is room for re-evaluating the audience-revenue criteria through formal channels such as mediation or arbitration.
Implications for the league and next steps
The dispute touches on how TV rights revenue is shared among participating clubs and how governance rules are interpreted and updated. If LiBRA’s Statute governs the distribution, any changes would require broad consensus in the General Assembly. Flamengo’s ongoing legal actions and public comments will likely influence the timeline and manner of future negotiations. The core issue remains: how to achieve a transparent, fair, and financially sustainable model for Brazilian football that can withstand legal challenges while preserving the league’s integrity and unity.
Conclusion
With LiBRA reiterating that its distribution rules are firmly embedded in the Statute and unanimously approved, the Flamengo dispute moves from a purely financial quarrel to a broader governance question. As both sides navigate the legal and political complexities, fans and clubs alike await a pathway that reconciles the need for clear revenue sharing with the stability and credibility of LiBRA as Brazil’s football governance body.
