Flamengo is the six-time Brazilian champion, echoed by the fans' chants, banners, the press, and even FIFA's website. Why then does a minority question the sixth title? The discussion surrounding this question expresses the dilemma of Brazilian culture, as posed by anthropologist Roberto DaMatta: the tension between impersonal and personal codes. The Copa União, conceived by the then-recently founded Clube dos 13, won by Flamengo and the center of the controversy, was a landmark in Brazilian football, achieving the second-highest average attendance in history up to that point.
\The presence of the Brazilian dilemma already appears in the antecedents.
\The rules of the 1986 championship had been broken to favor a major club, allowing three smaller clubs to advance to the second round of the competition, despite not having qualified according to the regulations. The 1986 championship returned in 1987 with the start of regional tournaments, creating complications as the clubs competing in the semifinals refused to compete in their local championships during that period.
\In May 1987, the CBF stated that it did not have the resources to organize that year's championship.
\In 1985, a civilian president took power after two decades of dictatorship, and since 1984, the fight for direct elections and a new constitution has spread throughout the country. It is in this context that the Club of 13 emerged.
\Among other things, the Club of 13 proposed a championship with 13 clubs and the adoption of proportional voting in the CBF.
\The policy of exchanging favors sustained the political power of the CBF which, under the aegis of the unitary vote, gave small leagues and clubs greater decision-making power than the big clubs.
\On one side, the CBF, an entity protected by law, and on the other, the Clube dos 13, integrating the major clubs. A championship without these clubs would be inconceivable. But if they left the CBF, FIFA would not recognize them. The dispute between what is legal and what is legitimate was the basis for the agreement between the parties.
\On September 4, 1987, the agreement was announced. The championship would feature 16 teams in the green module and 16 in the yellow module. The Club of 13 would negotiate the event, while the CBF included three teams. One question remained: Would the champion of the green module (Copa União) be the Brazilian champion? The CBF's press release stated that "the qualification of Brazil's representatives in the Copa Libertadores da América will take place at the opening of the 1988 season, in the form of a quadrangular tournament, comprising the top two teams from the green and yellow modules" (O GLOBO, September 04, 09). Why this bizarre clause? Why would the national representatives in the Libertadores have to come from a quadrangular tournament between the champions of the first and second divisions? Simply because the CBF's power rested on supporting smaller clubs, in a harmful policy of exchanging favors that, for many years, produced bloated and deficit-ridden championships.
\The Club of 13 did not accept the quadrangular, seen as a step backwards in relation to its demands and a derogation of the competition, and the CBF, for political reasons, maintained its original position. Flamengo's 2009 championship victory brings the impasse to the forefront once again. Beyond the realm of jocular fan relations, the CBF's disregard for Flamengo's 1987 title is disrespectful to the athletes, fans, and directors of the clubs that participated in the competition. Taking away from Sport a title, however bizarre, that it has held for 22 years would be, at this point, undignified. Conciliation is inevitable. The CBF declared two champions in 1987: Flamengo and Sport. It wouldn't be the first time with two champions. The Campeonato Carioca, for example, had two champions from 1933 to 1936, as football's governing body did not recognize the newly created professional league. But we must put an end to this oscillation between impersonal and personal codes. This dilemma, as Roberto DaMatta put it, cannot be an indelible mark on our society.
\RONALDO HELAL is a sociologist and professor at the Faculty of Social Communication at the State University of Rio de Janeiro