Clarification note regarding column published on the UOL website
By Flamengo Regatta Club - inLast Tuesday (20), an article was published on the UOL website with the following headline: “CADE: Palmeiras and seven teams support collective TV agreement, Flamengo disagrees”. Clube de Regatas do Flamengo comes forward to clarify that the content of the text in question is biased and alters the reality of the facts, since it does not faithfully translate Flamengo's statement before CADE (Administrative Council for Economic Defense), since there is no effective disagreement.
Flamengo has absolutely nothing against collective bargaining, but emphasizes that each club's freedom to negotiate its rights is a fundamental and fundamental principle and should be protected by law. This freedom is essential to prevent situations like the one that occurred in the Campeonato Carioca, where Flamengo was trapped in a contract it didn't sign, simply because all the other clubs did.
In its responses, Flamengo made it clear that it was presenting an initial and superficial perspective that needed to be further developed, reinforcing that this was a new law and that only with more experience would it be possible to determine the most advantageous model for the clubs. However, despite Flamengo's caution in responding to CADE, without committing to new and still unknown models in Brazil, this was not the approach taken by the column's author, who wrongly concluded, on their own, an understanding different from that presented by the Club, which could lead to an undue misunderstanding among its sister clubs and society as a whole.
It is important to transcribe Flamengo's statement so that it can be seen that there is no preconceived position for or against any type of negotiation, but several reservations that the Club does not yet have a fully formed position:
From a principled standpoint, the direct negotiation model appears to be more profitable for clubs. This involves the club having the freedom and autonomy to directly negotiate its rights with companies interested in broadcasting its matches, and individually, with the home team negotiating its rights. These models are also adopted in other countries, especially in Europe, and in more modern leagues. However, there is no objection to collective bargaining, as long as the club has the freedom to opt out if it so wishes. Freedom to negotiate is a fundamental asset for clubs, strengthening them in the eyes of broadcast rights buyers. It should be noted that this is an initial and superficial view, as a different model has been adopted nationwide for years, and only a few months ago did it become possible to negotiate this way in Brazil, due to the change introduced by Provisional Measure 984/2020. Everything indicates that, as these models mature nationwide, they will indeed be more profitable and advantageous. However, as a precaution, Flamengo emphasizes that this will only be possible over time. it will be possible to determine the best model to be adopted”.
Therefore, the column, which exposes Flamengo as claiming a supposed disagreement between the club and other clubs, which does not exist, is unfair. The statement to CADE does not reflect the club's actual position nor does it warrant the conclusion that there is a disagreement. It would have been prudent to consult with the board before publishing the article. Flamengo's actual position, which is worth noting, is that the union of the clubs is as important as their freedom, since those who are free when they seek unity do so with much greater propriety, awareness, and pleasure. Flamengo fully supports the commercial union of the clubs, with competition restricted to the sports arena.