Tavares slams Benfica's silence on Prestianni: presumption of guilt | OneFootball

The communication of Benfica has been the target of constant criticism over the past week, due to the various controversies in which the Club finds itself involved. Now it was Fernando Tavares’s turn to target his former club. The former vice-president of the Eagles says that the Reds have poorly managed the controversy between Prestianni – who confided in the squad – and Vinícius Jr.

"After the post-match press conference, where Benfica’s position was made clear – that is, no comment because the process is under a kind of ‘judicial secrecy’ – the Prestianni case brings to the public sphere an issue that goes beyond football: how should organizations manage communication when facing suspicions, doubts, or scrutiny? Absolute and prolonged institutional silence, in a fast-paced media environment, creates an information vacuum that is quickly filled by speculation. A public presumption of guilt sets in, even if there is none", reads the post published on the social network LinkedIn.

"A parallel with the oil industry, where I spent most of my professional career, highlights the experience lived at a critical point: the difference between legal risk management and strategic reputation management. For decades, the industry faced recurring accusations of price-fixing, high profit margins, and not passing on, the very next day, barrel price fluctuations to the price paid by the consumer. Here too, there was a presumption of guilt, not of innocence", Fernando Tavares continues.

"The subject was technically complex and legally sensitive. Any poorly calibrated statement could have significant legal implications. The initial temptation was extreme caution. But it quickly became clear that absolute silence was consolidating a narrative of guilt. The response was not aggressive confrontation, but structured pedagogy. Periodic explanations to journalists specialized in economics about fuel price formation, the impact of barrel price fluctuations, tax burden, competitive dynamics, and the effect of the dominant company in the market. All of this coordinated with proper legal advice. But not subordinated to the lawyers. The difference is decisive. The boundary between advising and leading", the post reads.

"Lawyers exist to protect the organization from legal risk. Management exists to lead, including reputation, trust, strategic positioning, and brand value. Often the greatest damage does not come from a lawsuit. It comes from the slow deterioration of credibility. In a mature organization, legal advises, communication structures, and management decides. When this order is reversed, a defensive culture sets in. Communication becomes minimalist. The narrative is handed over to third parties. The brand loses its ability to frame the facts", added the former director of the Clube da Luz.

"Good management does not mean ignoring legal risk. It means integrating it into a broader decision. This means exercising leadership. Organizations that understand this realize that communication is not a legal appendix. It is a strategic instrument for building trust. When the principles of good management are inverted, that is, when legal fear overrides strategic leadership, it is the brand that pays the price", Fernando Tavares finally wrote on his official LinkedIn page.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.