The Libra (Brazilian Football League) issued an official statement this Friday (3), accusing Flamengo of spreading “selected and distorted information” to the press.
According to the entity, the recent stance of the Flamengo board contradicts the desire for dialogue expressed by the Rio de Janeiro club itself.
In the statement, Libra refutes point by point the justifications of Flamengo for the legal action that blocked the transfer of funds to other league members.
The entity also claims that it was Flamengo who “interrupted the dialogue” with a preliminary injunction, aiming to economically pressure other clubs.
Libra argues that it is false that the statute is silent on the methodology for revenue distribution by audience and emphasizes that the current rule was unanimously approved at the General Assembly, including Flamengo’s own favorable vote, without reservations.
According to the organization, Flamengo’s proposal to change the metric to “number of registered fans” was put to a vote and rejected by all other eight Serie A clubs in the league, resulting in an 8 to 1 vote against the idea.
For the entity, Flamengo’s pursuit of judicial means after losing the vote characterizes an attempt to “overturn the table.”
Libra further raised the tone by questioning the club’s “real intentions”: “Why did Flamengo choose this path instead of maintaining the discussion internally? Flamengo shows that there are other objectives in its movements.”
For the entity, the stance of the Rio de Janeiro club represents an “outdated and solitary vision” that goes against the collective effort needed to strengthen Brazilian football.
At the end of the note, Libra states that Flamengo’s fans “deserve the Brazilian football that Flamengo refuses to build” and that the sport in Brazil has “212 million owners” and not just one.
“We are surprised by the stance of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, on one hand, requesting judicial secrecy in a legal action and, on the other, disclosing selected and distorted information to the press, misleading even part of the specialized press and spreading misinformation.
In light of this stance, LiBRA, in its commitment to transparency, dialogue, and strengthening Brazilian football, presents some fundamental clarifications on what is true and what is false within the statements made by the club.
1. It is false to claim that Flamengo desires dialogue. It was Flamengo who interrupted the dialogue with an unnecessary preliminary injunction, obstructing the cash flow of the other Libra clubs, aiming to pressure them economically, without even being heard in the process. An act that contradicts the associative spirit and is the exact opposite of dialogue. LiBRA represents the collective will of its members to build a robust and sustainable future league for Brazilian football, seeking solutions that benefit everyone, not just Flamengo.
2. It is false that the LiBRA Statute is silent on the criteria for distributing audience revenue. The revenue distribution rule negotiated collectively by LiBRA is described in the Statute. It was approved at the General Assembly. Unanimously. Including by Flamengo itself. And without reservations. Therefore, it is also false that the Club did not agree with the audience determination method described in the LiBRA Statute.
3. Registration is not an audience, and it is false that Flamengo wants to respect the decision of the other clubs. Dissatisfied with the audience criterion provided in the LiBRA Statute, Flamengo proposed that the metric be changed to the number of registered fans. Registration is not an audience, and it does not fit nor is it mentioned in the criterion provided in the Statute. The proposal to change the audience calculation to registration, which Flamengo defends publicly and judicially, was put to a vote at the LiBRA General Assembly and was rejected by the other eight Serie A clubs in LiBRA. Considering that only Flamengo voted in favor and sought judicial means to overturn the collegiate decision, it is false that the club is not seeking a “table turn” through the courts.
4. It is false to claim that the LiBRA Statute ensures a “minimum guaranteed value” in favor of Flamengo. Any minimum guarantee would only be applicable in favor of all Clubs if Libra were to become the organizer of the Championship. We assume Flamengo knows that the Brazilian Serie A Championship is organized by the CBF and, therefore, such “guarantee” does not apply in the current
5. It is false that Flamengo voted against changing the rules. The exact opposite occurred. Flamengo was the only Club that proposed amending the Statute to replace the audience criterion with the criterion of A proposal that was evaluated and rejected by all other voting Serie A Clubs.
6. It is false to claim that Flamengo needed to use a preliminary injunction to avoid losses. The current contract is valid for five years and encompasses more than R$ 6 billion in favor of all its Clubs. An amount sufficient and time enough for any eventual recomposition to be carried out in case of a unanimous vote for a change in any of the revenue distribution rules. It is impossible for Flamengo to suffer a loss.
It is worth remembering that if Flamengo is truly interested in negotiating an agreement or is convinced that it is right, the Club itself would not use an unnecessary preliminary injunction and would discuss its correctness on the merits in Mediation or Arbitration.
Why are we having to clarify all these doubts through press releases and not in a technical environment within Libra itself? Why did Flamengo choose this path instead of maintaining the discussion internally?
Flamengo shows that there are other objectives in its movements.
Questioning the facts and distorting them to gain media support based on misinformation is wanting to live in a parallel reality, of economic imposition, without any collective foundation. An outdated and solitary vision.
Collective commercialization blocks, like Libra and LFU, or a League, when formed, will represent everything that Flamengo seems to oppose at this moment: collectivity in rights negotiation, value and revenue expansion, product quality development, and internationalization.
Together, the clubs are not worth more, they are worth much more.
Separated, the clubs not only are worth less, but they also destroy the value in the entire business chain that surrounds and is part of football.
Instead of working for the future of Brazilian football, we are here stuck in an old and repetitive discussion about who earns more – and who wants to earn even more – while important issues remain on the sidelines of the debate.
LiBRA has absolute respect for the Flamengo institution, for its emblematic history, for its many achievements, and especially for its fans – who deserve the Brazilian football that Flamengo refuses to build. However, it also has the same respect for all its other members, all the football clubs in Brazil, and all its millions of passionate fans.
Read more on Yahoo Sports Canada
