Background of the dispute
The ongoing disagreement between Flamengo and LiBRA (Liga do Futebol Brasileiro) entered a new phase on Friday, after Flamengo publicly commented on a court-ordered block affecting a portion of TV rights payments destined for LiBRA members. LiBRA responded to the Flamengo communication, arguing that the league’s revenue distribution rules are clearly outlined in its Statute and were approved unanimously, with Flamengo itself having signed off, and without reservations. The league also criticized Flamengo’s decision to take the matter to the public arena.
In recent days, Leila Pereira—the Flamengo executive who has openly pressured for changes—raised the rhetoric, including calls that Flamengo be excluded from a new league arrangement. The emerging exchange underscores a broader struggle over how TV rights revenue should be allocated among LiBRA members and how disputes should be resolved.
LiBRA’s defense: Statute governs distribution
LiBRA’s statement emphasizes that the rule for distributing the revenue negotiated collectively by LiBRA is explicitly described in its Statute. The association says the distribution rule was approved in an Assembly by unanimous vote, and that Flamengo participated in the approval without objections. Therefore, LiBRA contends that it is false to claim that the Statute omits distribution criteria for TV audiences, or that Flamengo did not approve the method described in the Statute.
The note from LiBRA also addresses arguments about “cadastro” (registered supporters) vs. “audiência” (audience). It asserts that cadastro is not audience and was not part of the Statute’s distribution criteria. Flamengo’s proposal to change the metric to cadastro—supported publicly and in court—was proposed during LiBRA’s General Assembly and rejected by eight Serie A clubs. LiBRA notes that Flamengo alone voted in favor of the cadastro change and then pursued a judicial route, which it calls a attempts at a “power shift” through the courts.
Flamengo’s position and arguments
Flamengo’s side argues that the dispute centers on how to measure audience revenue and that the Statute does not provide for the proposed cadastro metric as a replacement for audience. The club contends that it has sought dialogue to resolve the differences but has, in its view, been impeded by the league’s process. Flamengo has criticized LiBRA for seeking secrecy in the judicial process while publicly presenting selected information, accusing the league of disseminating misinformation to the press.
The club has asserted that the current contract structure—five years in duration and capable of generating more than a multi‑billion reais impact across member clubs—allows for adjustments through approved procedures, including potential mediation or arbitration, should there be a meeting of minds. Flamengo also contests the claim that its actions undermine the associational spirit, arguing instead that it seeks a fair redefinition of revenue distribution that would not disadvantage any member club.
Key points highlighted by LiBRA in its note
LiBRA’s response highlights several core claims:
– The Statute already defines the distribution of revenue associated with audience metrics and has unanimous approval, including Flamengo’s vote.
– The cadastro metric is distinct from audience and not a recognized distributor criterion under the current Statute; Flamengo’s advocacy for cadastro was rejected by its peers.
– The assertion that LiBRA guarantees a minimum value to Flamengo, or any single club, is unfounded unless the league becomes the organizer of the tournament; in the current structure, the CBF remains the organizer for the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A.
– Flamengo’s attempt to alter the rules via judicial means contradicts the club’s professed desire for dialogue, as it opted for a liminar rather than engaging in mediation or arbitration on the merits.
– The contract’s five-year term and the large potential benefits for all clubs suggest that any changes could and should be made through established governance processes, not unilateral measures.
What happens next
The clash highlights the tension between Flamengo’s push for a different revenue model and LiBRA’s insistence on adhering to its Statute. With the contract in place and the governance framework tested, the parties could pursue mediation or arbitration to resolve the dispute or await a broader agreement among LiBRA’s member clubs. The outcome will shape how future TV rights revenues are calculated and distributed, potentially redefining the league’s governance and financing model for Brazilian football.
