Background: LiBRA’s role in shaping Brazilian football governance
The LiBRA framework was created to harmonize how the rights to broadcast and commercial revenues are negotiated, with the aim of building a robust, sustainable league. Recent statements attributed to the Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, a historic Brazilian club, have sparked questions about whether LiBRA favors dialogue, how revenue distribution works, and how governance decisions are made. LiBRA believes in transparency, dialogue, and collective advancement for Brazilian football and offers these clarifications to distinguish fact from misinformation.
Key clarifications from LiBRA
1. The claim that Flamengo desires dialogue
LiBRA notes that Flamengo interrupted dialogue by seeking a liminar (injunction) without urgency, a move that can disrupt the cash flow of other clubs and pressure them financially, without prior hearing. This action, in LiBRA’s view, runs counter to the spirit of collaboration and is the antithesis of constructive dialogue. LiBRA represents the collective will of its members to build a robust and sustainable league that benefits all clubs, not only one club.
2. Distribution criteria and the LiBRA Statute
LiBRA argues that the Statute already defines how revenues negotiated collectively are distributed. The distribution rule was approved unanimously by the General Assembly, including Flamengo, with no reserves. Therefore, the assertion that Flamengo disagreed with the Statute’s method for determining audience (i.e., revenue allocation) is incorrect.
3. Cadastro versus audiência
According to LiBRA, cadastro (registrations) is not audiência (audience). Flamengo proposed changing the metric to count registered supporters, but this proposal falls outside the defined audience criterion in the Statute. The Assembly voted on the change and eight Série A clubs rejected it; Flamengo alone voted in favor. Subsequently, Flamengo sought to overturn the decision through the courts, which LiBRA views as a sign of a desire to overturn the negotiated consensus rather than seeking a measured, collective reform.
4. The idea of a “minimum guaranteed” value
LiBRA states that no minimum guarantee exists in the current Statute that would specifically favor Flamengo. Any hypothetical minimum would apply only if LiBRA became the organizer of the championship, which is not the current arrangement. In other words, the notion of a guaranteed minimum for Flamengo under present rules is not supported by the Statute.
5. Flamengo’s vote on rule changes
Contrary to claims that Flamengo voted against changes, the club was the only one to propose an amendment to replace the audience criterion with a new approach. The proposal was evaluated and rejected by all other Série A clubs that voted. This nuance is essential to understanding the club’s stance within the broader governance process.
6. The need for a liminar to avoid losses
LiBRA contends that the current five-year contract, with potential benefits exceeding a multi‑billion‑reais figure, makes the threat of immediate losses unlikely. A collective rebalancing, if required, could be pursued through mechanisms such as consensus votes or dispute resolution processes (mediation/arbitration) without resorting to urgent court measures. If Flamengo truly wished to negotiate in good faith, LiBRA argues, it would pursue dialogue in a formal setting rather than an expedient judicial move.
Why are these clarifications being issued publicly?
LiBRA says the clarifications are necessary to counter misinformation that can mislead fans, media, and other stakeholders. The league body emphasizes that open, technical discussions should occur within LiBRA’s governance framework, ensuring decisions reflect the collective interest of all clubs and supporters. The overarching goal is to advance a framework that increases value, broadens investment, and improves the quality and internationalization of Brazilian football.
A forward-looking view: unity, value, and the fan experience
LiBRA believes that collective commercial blocks and leagues will strengthen the negotiation of rights, expand revenue, and enhance product quality for Brazilian football. The message is clear: together, the clubs hold more value; separated, they risk diluting value across the entire football ecosystem. The debate over money should serve as a catalyst for cooperative reform, not as a battleground for a single club to dominate the narrative.
Conclusion: The football ecosystem belongs to millions of fans
LiBRA reaffirms its deep respect for Flamengo’s history and its millions of supporters, while also reaffirming respect for all member clubs and their fans. The football ecosystem in Brazil does not belong to one club; it belongs to millions of people who share a passion for the sport. LiBRA’s call remains for transparency, dialogue, and a shared pathway to a more prosperous, globally competitive Brazilian football.
