Flamengo's president does not approve a CBF meeting without the clubs' knowledge or consent and points out ways to reverse the situation
In an administrative assembly, the Brazilian confederation decided to give more weight to the federations' votes in the entity's elections
By Isabela Abirached - in
Last week, an administrative assembly of the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) decided to give greater weight to the federations' votes and include the 20 clubs from the Brasileirão Série B in the organization's elections. Prior to this meeting, only the 20 Série A clubs and the 27 state federations had voting rights. With the changes, the clubs now have a numerical majority, with one caveat: with the greater weight given to the federations, the federated clubs are effectively a minority, and the federations retain a 57,5% share.
In an interview with the Official Website, Flamengo's president, Eduardo Bandeira de Mello, evaluated the change and stated that the maneuver does not respect article 22-A of the Pelé Law, modified by the PROFUT law, which gives the Confederation's members the right to be present and vote in all assemblies and not just electoral ones.
"The CBF has decided that in the elections, votes will be weighted, giving a weight of 3 to the federations, a weight of 2 to Serie A clubs, and a weight of 1 to Serie B clubs. As I participated in the formulation of the discussion and approval of the PROFUT law, I can attest that this is not the spirit of the law. I understand that the most democratic way to establish power in the federations and the CBF would be to give due power to the clubs that represent the fans. Walter Feldman (CBF general secretary) is my friend, I have the utmost respect for him, for his history; he has always been associated with respectable politicians, but now, honestly, I don't understand how it is considered democratic to give power to entities that often represent insignificant leagues, shell clubs... while the clubs that truly represent the population, the fans, are relegated to a subordinate position and without any power to interfere in the Confederation's decisions," said the club's president. Even with the addition of second division teams, Brazilian clubs continue to have the same representation they had before, 42,5%.
For Bandeira de Mello, the meeting without calling or even informing the clubs was a mistake that clashes with a very positive progressive movement that was taking place at the CBF.
"These federations, in a way, control a good portion of the power in the CBF. I would say that, although some federations have modernized and instituted democratic management mechanisms, many of them still represent the most backward aspect of the Confederation. The CBF has some interesting and modernizing movements, such as licensing, the pursuit of transparency, the implementation of a corporate governance system, and a code of ethics—all of which are positive and I think they should be praised. But what's backward in the CBF is precisely this dependence, this connection with some federations. Because these federations don't represent the clubs in their states, or represent very little. The power structure of the federations, as we even tried to change when formulating the PROFUT project and are trying to change in the general sports law, enshrines the power of shell clubs, from rural leagues, to the detriment of the clubs that truly represent the fans. In Rio de Janeiro, for example, the four clubs that together represent practically 100% of the fans don't even have 10% of the assembly that elects the leaders of FERJ. I imagine this is replicated in many Brazilian states. The people who benefit from this power structure have an interest in perpetuating this model," laments the president, who says he learned about the meeting with the state federations through the press.
"I wasn't notified of the meeting; I learned about it through the press. They're basing their interpretation of the PROFUT law on the idea that clubs only need to participate in elective assemblies. They don't need to participate in administrative assemblies. The latter was an administrative assembly that changed the way CBF elections are held. I consider this interpretation to be mistaken, not just me but almost all Brazilian club lawyers," Bandeira de Mello stated, before presenting a path to reverse the process.
"I advocate that the Federal Government, the Ministry of Sports, the Chief of Staff's Office, and the Presidency of the Republic issue a decree to regulate and establish once and for all how the law should be interpreted. A club meeting is already being organized so we can discuss the matter. And in this debate, some course of action may emerge, which could be seeking dialogue with the CBF itself, or a dialogue within the National Congress so that parliamentarians can express their opinions... After all, in my interpretation, what they defined when they drafted the PROFUT law was distorted. In this club meeting, which has no defined agenda, we can discuss the matter and try to determine the best way to address it," he concluded.
In an interview with the Official Website, Flamengo's president, Eduardo Bandeira de Mello, evaluated the change and stated that the maneuver does not respect article 22-A of the Pelé Law, modified by the PROFUT law, which gives the Confederation's members the right to be present and vote in all assemblies and not just electoral ones.
"The CBF has decided that in the elections, votes will be weighted, giving a weight of 3 to the federations, a weight of 2 to Serie A clubs, and a weight of 1 to Serie B clubs. As I participated in the formulation of the discussion and approval of the PROFUT law, I can attest that this is not the spirit of the law. I understand that the most democratic way to establish power in the federations and the CBF would be to give due power to the clubs that represent the fans. Walter Feldman (CBF general secretary) is my friend, I have the utmost respect for him, for his history; he has always been associated with respectable politicians, but now, honestly, I don't understand how it is considered democratic to give power to entities that often represent insignificant leagues, shell clubs... while the clubs that truly represent the population, the fans, are relegated to a subordinate position and without any power to interfere in the Confederation's decisions," said the club's president. Even with the addition of second division teams, Brazilian clubs continue to have the same representation they had before, 42,5%.
For Bandeira de Mello, the meeting without calling or even informing the clubs was a mistake that clashes with a very positive progressive movement that was taking place at the CBF.
"These federations, in a way, control a good portion of the power in the CBF. I would say that, although some federations have modernized and instituted democratic management mechanisms, many of them still represent the most backward aspect of the Confederation. The CBF has some interesting and modernizing movements, such as licensing, the pursuit of transparency, the implementation of a corporate governance system, and a code of ethics—all of which are positive and I think they should be praised. But what's backward in the CBF is precisely this dependence, this connection with some federations. Because these federations don't represent the clubs in their states, or represent very little. The power structure of the federations, as we even tried to change when formulating the PROFUT project and are trying to change in the general sports law, enshrines the power of shell clubs, from rural leagues, to the detriment of the clubs that truly represent the fans. In Rio de Janeiro, for example, the four clubs that together represent practically 100% of the fans don't even have 10% of the assembly that elects the leaders of FERJ. I imagine this is replicated in many Brazilian states. The people who benefit from this power structure have an interest in perpetuating this model," laments the president, who says he learned about the meeting with the state federations through the press.
"I wasn't notified of the meeting; I learned about it through the press. They're basing their interpretation of the PROFUT law on the idea that clubs only need to participate in elective assemblies. They don't need to participate in administrative assemblies. The latter was an administrative assembly that changed the way CBF elections are held. I consider this interpretation to be mistaken, not just me but almost all Brazilian club lawyers," Bandeira de Mello stated, before presenting a path to reverse the process.
"I advocate that the Federal Government, the Ministry of Sports, the Chief of Staff's Office, and the Presidency of the Republic issue a decree to regulate and establish once and for all how the law should be interpreted. A club meeting is already being organized so we can discuss the matter. And in this debate, some course of action may emerge, which could be seeking dialogue with the CBF itself, or a dialogue within the National Congress so that parliamentarians can express their opinions... After all, in my interpretation, what they defined when they drafted the PROFUT law was distorted. In this club meeting, which has no defined agenda, we can discuss the matter and try to determine the best way to address it," he concluded.