Libra hits back at Flamengo in Copa do Brasil TV rights row

In partnership with

Gazeta Esportiva.com

·4 de octubre de 2025

Libra hits back at Flamengo in Copa do Brasil TV rights row

The dispute between Flamengo and Libra gained a new chapter this Friday, with the entity issuing an official statement in response to the allegations of the Rio de Janeiro club. Last Wednesday, Flamengo had sent journalists material in the "fact or fake?" format, questioning information about its participation in the league and the revenue distribution model.

In Friday's statement, Libra claimed that Flamengo had "spread misinformation" by presenting only selected information to the press, leading "even part of the specialized press to error." The entity accused the Rubro-Negro of interrupting dialogue with other clubs by resorting to the courts, blocking R$ 77 million in broadcasting rights, an amount that would be distributed among all Libra members.

OneFootball Videos

The group, which includes Palmeiras, São Paulo, Santos, Bragantino, Atlético-MG, Bahia, Grêmio, Vitória, Remo, Paysandu, ABC, Guarani, and Sampaio Corrêa, emphasized that the revenue distribution criteria are clearly described in the entity's statute and were unanimously approved in assemblies, including by Flamengo itself. According to Libra, "it is false to claim that Flamengo desires dialogue. It was Flamengo who interrupted the dialogue, with an urgent injunction, obstructing the cash flow of the other Libra clubs."

The entity also countered the allegation that the statute was silent on audience criteria: "It is false that the Libra Statute is silent on the criteria for distributing audience revenue." Libra clarified that the Rubro-Negro's proposal to replace the audience metric with the number of fan registrations was rejected by the other clubs.

🔗 Instagram

Additionally, Libra denied that Flamengo sought a "turnaround" or intended to receive a "minimum guaranteed amount" solely for itself: "It is false that the Libra Statute guarantees a minimum guaranteed amount in favor of Flamengo." The entity explained that any minimum guarantee would only be applicable if it were responsible for organizing the Brazilian Championship, which is not the case, as the competition is held by the CBF.

According to Libra, the current five-year contract, involving more than R$ 6 billion for all clubs, allows ample time for adjustments should there be a collective consensus on rule changes: "It is false for Flamengo to claim it needed to use an injunction to avoid losses."

While the legal dispute continues, Rede Globo is expected to deposit the contested amounts in court, which could reach R$ 230 million if the block extends until the end of the year. The entity has already appealed the injunction, keeping the issue open but reinforcing its commitment to transparency and dialogue.

Libra reaffirmed its respect for Flamengo and its fans, highlighting that Brazilian football belongs to all clubs and fans, and cannot be driven by individual interests that harm the collective: "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."

Finally, the entity emphasized the importance of unity among clubs: collective commercialization blocks, like Libra, aim to strengthen the championship's value, increase revenues, and develop football sustainably. In the complete statement, Libra reaffirms its commitment to Brazilian football, saying that "Together, the clubs are not worth more, they are worth much more. Separated, the clubs not only are worth less, they also destroy the value throughout the business chain that surrounds and is part of football."

Check out the full statement from Libra:

"We are surprised by the stance of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo of, on one hand, requesting confidentiality in a legal action and, on the other, disclosing selected and distorted information to the press, leading even part of the specialized press to error and spreading misinformation.

In light of this stance, LiBRA, in its commitment to transparency, dialogue, and strengthening Brazilian football, presents some fundamental clarifications between what is true and what is false within the statements made by the club.

It is false to claim that Flamengo desires dialogue. It was Flamengo who interrupted the dialogue, with an urgent injunction, obstructing the cash flow of the other LiBRA clubs, aiming to economically pressure them, without them 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 in search of solutions that benefit everyone, not just Flamengo.
It is false that the LiBRA Statute is silent on the criteria for distributing audience revenue. The rule for distributing revenue negotiated collectively by LiBRA is described in the Statute. It was approved in 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.
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 fan registrations. 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 that Flamengo publicly and judicially defends was put to a vote in 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 does not seek a "turnaround" through the courts.
It is false to claim that the LiBRA Statute guarantees a "minimum guaranteed amount" 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 that Flamengo knows that the Brazilian Serie A Championship is organized by the CBF and that, therefore, such "guarantee" does not apply currently.
It is false that Flamengo voted against changing the rules. The exact opposite occurred. Flamengo was the only Club that proposed changing the Statute to replace the audience criterion with the registration criterion. A proposal that was evaluated and rejected by all other Serie A voting Clubs.
It is false for Flamengo to claim it needed to use an injunction to avoid losses. The current contract is valid for five years and involves more than R$ 6 billion in favor of all its Clubs. An amount sufficient and ample time for any eventual recomposition to be carried out in case of a unanimous vote for changes 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 injunction and would discuss its merits in Mediation or Arbitration.

Why are we having to clarify all these doubts through press releases and not in a technical environment and within LiBRA itself? Why did Flamengo choose this path instead of keeping the discussion internal?

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, they also destroy the value throughout the business chain that surrounds and is part of football.

Instead of working for the future of Brazilian football, we are 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 – those 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 their millions of passionate fans.

Brazilian football does not have one owner.

It has millions.

It has 212 million owners.”

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