A legal opinion endorsed the business model signed by Futebol Forte União (FFU) clubs in the sale of arena rights.
Signed by Fábio Ulhoa Coelho, one of the main references in commercial law in Brazil, and Rodrigo Rocha Monteiro de Castro, the document states that clubs have the autonomy to sell or share these rights with investors.
Formed by 32 clubs — 10 of which are from Series A —, the FFU is one of the blocks seeking to organize a unified league for Brazilian football.
In 2023, the teams then forming part of the group sold 10% to 20% of their revenue from broadcasting rights to investors for a period of 50 years.
Read more:
In the document, to which the InfoMoney had access, lawyers argue that arena rights — linked to the commercialization of matches, including broadcasting rights — belong by law to the host clubs.
Continues after advertising
These rights are classified as available property rights, protected by the Federal Constitution, which, according to the opinion, gives them freedom to contract with third parties.
The text also highlights that the FFU only has a representative function, being neither the holder of commercial rights nor a member of Condomínio Forte União (CFU), a vehicle for co-ownership of rights that brings together clubs and investors.
The authors state that the rights were not transferred to the FFU, but transferred directly through contracts signed between each club and the investors.
Continues after advertising
In recent weeks, the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) has started to act more intensely in discussions about the formation of a unified league in the country and has criticized agreements to transfer commercial rights to investors.
Another question came from the Ministry of Sports, which released a technical note pointing out possible irregularities in the permission for private investors to maintain and influence the exploitation of arena rights — a prerogative that, according to the body, should only be the responsibility of organizers of competitions, such as a possible league.
In the opinion, the lawyers argue that the General Sports Law, when mentioning the transfer of rights to entities that regulate the sport, deals with a “specific hypothesis of optional transfer”, and not exclusive.
Continues after advertising
They also maintain that the CFU structure is limited to the economic exploitation of assets, without interference with competition rules, calendar or arbitration.
