It is not today, it has always been this way: the practice that involves the contracts of transmission of football championships in the country is invariably contaminated by the unrivaled requirement that the seller must be preserved from criticism or compromising revelations made by the buyer.
As if a purchase and sale operation became a company between the parties.
For decades, Globo’s monopoly worked and the company’s promiscuous relations with CBF and state federations.
Impossible to stop using the first person as a witness to the method that publisher also Abril began to use when its operation on closed TV began – in an TVVA.
For 25 years the Placar Magazine, from 1970 to 1995, was noted for criticizing the delay and corruption in the management of Brazilian football with more than absolute freedom-compliments of the company’s management.
Until the day Ricardo Teixeira, then president of the CBF, told Roberto Civita, owner of Abril, he said as he asked for understanding and the end of criticism: “Roberto Marinho sends on Globo, I send at CBF, and you don’t send April. I can’t negotiate with you while the score keeps hitting me with each edition.”
Faced with the unacceptable proposal for the end of criticism, it followed Abril’s note to explain that, by editorial differences, as I made a point of imposing, my participation of a quarter of the company was closed in the company.
So, I came to stop in this Sheet. There are 30 years there.
Not long later I learned that Civita said in a meeting with her executives: “Kfouri is right. This Ricardo Teixeira does not meet what promises to sit.”
April has never been able to break Globo’s monopoly, whose negotiator with CBF was a compadre of Teixeira, Marcelo Campos Pinto, then reported at Fifagate.
This is how it works.
Sad to see when commercial interests overlap with journalism, when the fine border that separates the church from the state is disrespected and the interest of citizenship is passed behind.
Hence, too, the increasing trend of treating football only as entertainment and setting aside its ills, with the justification that no one is interested in whether or not the top hat, because fans want to know goals, wins, signings, etc.
Things have changed in the field of transmissions, and the emergence of the internet, streaming, democratized the means of transmission and increased competition for their rights, something healthy.
The way of negotiating, however, has changed little.
International rights give less headaches, either because treated with intermediaries, or because those who sell them do not know how the product is treated by buying vehicles.
In the parish is different.
None will never admit that he asked the head of a journalist or complained to the company’s summit.
But it is recurring practice.
In the conflict of interest that is established, the seller argues that it is absurd to buy an event and criticize it, the buyer ponders that he needs to protect his interests, and the journalist is finked to this rock struggle with the sea-or go down.
Decision that depends on the circumstances of each one and dismisses heroes with the neck of others.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
