LiBRA clarifies Flamengo stance on league reform and revenue distribution
LiBRA, the consortium of Brazilian clubs negotiating broadcast and sponsorship rights, has issued a formal clarification regarding Flamengo’s recent public positions. The document underscores the difference between pursuing dialogue through proper, collective channels and actions that could undermine the league’s financial stability. It argues that Flamengo’s moves appear aimed at pressuring others while sidestepping intra-association processes, a dynamic LiBRA views as contrary to the spirit of a constructive, shared governance of Brazilian football.
1. Dialogue and the role of legal measures
The statement notes that Flamengo’s request for secrecy via a court order, paired with public disclosures of selectively framed information, interrupted the prospective dialogue. LiBRA contends that the injunction, not urgency, harmed the liquidity of other clubs, and occurred without hearing all parties in the process. In LiBRA’s view, dialogue is built on transparency and mutual respect, not coercive legal moves that favor one member over the collective.
2. The Statute and distribution of audience revenue
LiBRA asserts that the rules governing revenue sharing, including audience revenue, are explicitly described in the Federation’s Statute and were approved unanimously in a General Assembly — including Flamengo, without exceptions. Therefore, Flamengo’s claim that the Statute omits the criteria for revenue distribution is inaccurate. The distribution framework exists, has been validated by the group, and is intended to ensure fair, collective benefit rather than unilateral advantages.
3. Cadastro versus audience and voting on metrics
The organization clarifies that a cadastro (fan registration) metric does not equate to audience share and is not a criterion described in the Statute. Flamengo publicly proposed changing the calculation to rely on the number of registered fans, a suggestion that was debated in the General Assembly but rejected by eight other Série A clubs. Since the proposal failed at the plenary, Flamengo’s resort to judicial avenues to overturn the decision is characterized as an attempt to ‘change the table’ through the law rather than through consensus.
4. The notion of a minimum guaranteed value
LiBRA states that there is no mechanism for a “minimum guaranteed” share in Flamengo’s favor unless LiBRA itself were to become the organizer of the competition. In the current structure, with the championship organized by leagues and bodies outside LiBRA’s direct control, such a guarantee does not exist. Flamengo’s claim, if made in current terms, misrepresents how revenue distribution would operate under the present framework.
5. Flamengo’s vote on rule changes
The statement counters Flamengo’s assertion that it voted against changes. In fact, Flamengo proposed altering the Statute to replace the audience criterion with a new metric. That proposal was evaluated and rejected by all other Série A clubs voting. The report emphasizes that Flamengo’s position reflects a minority within the group, and not a broad rejection of reform by the league as a whole.
6. The necessity of injunctive relief and potential losses
Addressing the idea that an injunction was needed to avoid losses, LiBRA notes that the current contract spans five years and exceeds R$ 6 billion in potential benefits for all clubs. Any future adjustments would require a unanimous vote or a consensus, and the contract’s duration provides a stable window to navigate changes without incurring harm. The organization suggests that resorting to injunctions for financial advantage is unnecessary when a bilateral, mediated, or arbitration process could address merit in due course.
Why these clarifications matter for Brazilian football
LiBRA argues that clarification is essential to preserve the integrity of collective bargaining and to prevent misinformation drives that distort public perception and press coverage. The broader aim is to protect the value of the game for millions of fans, players, and staff, and to pursue a future where commercial rights are negotiated collectively to expand value, enhance quality, and strengthen Brazil’s standing internationally.
Conclusion: football belongs to millions
The statement closes with a reminder that the sport does not have a single owner. Brazilian football’s strength lies in unity among its clubs, fans, and supporting bodies. When governance is shared, the potential to grow and improve the product—on and off the pitch—benefits everyone involved.
