“Clubs run the risk of being relegated if they don’t show up to play”

—What is the position of the Peruvian Football Federation after the conference of the eight opposition clubs? Will they withdraw the injunction?

The Federation’s position is very clear: it is the defense of legality and the rule of law. Here there is a regulation, a statute, there is even a judicial decision that supports what the federation has been defending. So the route is respect for the regulations and statutes.

—That is, they will not withdraw the precautionary measure…

No not at all. We have had only one speech over time to defend what are the transmission rights of League 1. We have not changed our point of view at any time. On the contrary, it is the clubs that have made this conference that are proposing a completely different thing. First they talked about their television rights, the constitution, contract law, free contracting. Now they no longer talk about it, but are asking for the precautionary measure to be withdrawn for no reason, leaving aside the statute, the regulation. That is something that is not viable from a legal point of view and they know it.

—The clubs have already sent an official document to the FPF in which they formalize their position of not playing if the precautionary measure is not withdrawn?

Up to this moment we have not received any letter or official communication. We believe that a kind of media pressure is being worked on because several of the clubs have been behaving as if League 1 is going to be played. They have received the balls, the patches that have to go on the shirts, they are coordinating trips to the interior of the country, itineraries, and so on. However, some make a lecture saying the complete opposite. I think there is a kind of struggle within the clubs. They themselves do not have a defined position.

—These eight clubs also received the patches, balls and others from the Professional Soccer League?

Several of them. I don’t know if all

—Which clubs did receive?

At the moment we are not going to individualize this information. But I would tell you that the majority, the biggest, are behaving as if League 1 is going to be played. Remember that a few days ago the Universitario de Deportes itself sent a letter asking for the date change. How do I request a date change and then say I’m not going to play? Has no sense.

—Is it true that the opposing clubs are not at risk even if they do not appear in their first two games?

What they said in the conference was that if they did not form the affiliation letter, they can continue playing. And it is not like that. The regulation has not changed, it remains the same as it was published. Therefore, the consequences for not attending a game or two are provided for in the regulations.

“Is the consequence automatic descent?”

Of course yes, because that is what the regulations say. The clubs run the risk of being relegated if they do not respect the regulations.

—Assuming that happens, what will happen to the clubs that play international tournaments? Alianza and Melgar will play the Libertadores; and University, Science and Binational, the South American.

If a team leaves Liga 1, it cannot participate in international Conmebol tournaments. That is clear and planned as such. The only team that is excepted from that is Alianza Lima for being the current champion. Those who are champions have their place guaranteed within the international competition. If someone else is relegated, they will not be able to participate in an international tournament.

—The first date of League 1 will be suspended due to a lack of security guarantees due to the marches that are being called for this weekend. Did you know in the federation that this was going to happen before there was a club conference?

No. From the FPF everything was set up for it to start this week, but now that we have received the official communication, then there will be a rescheduling, but as something absolutely exceptional, it is not something we already knew about.

—The case of the ‘U’, Boys and Municipal is special. The three have a contract with the Consortium, but point out that the precautionary measure also affects them and prevents GOLPERÚ from broadcasting their matches. Is it so?

For the clubs to be able to make a claim of this nature, they would have to be part of the process. And they are not. They do not know the date of the process, they do not have the lawsuit, nor the precautionary request, nor the official precautionary decision because nobody has notified them of anything. They are being guided by documents and papers that appear in the media or the networks, but they are nobody in the process to interpret a precautionary measure. To say that the injunction affects them is false from a legal point of view. The only party to the process is the Consortium. Nobody else. The precautionary measure does not speak of the clubs or what the previously established contracts could mean.

So what should these clubs do?

Whoever reads the injunction correctly would have to look in detail at the ninth and twelfth recitals that protect the rights that emanate from old contracts, of which they have been entered into since 2016 and some last until 2025. And here it is not a matter of interpretation, is a matter of what the judicial decision itself says.

—If there are supposed to be two recitals in the precautionary measure stating that the Consortium can broadcast the matches of the clubs with which it has a current contract, why don’t they show it? Why don’t the clubs themselves seem to know?

It must be taken into account that judicial processes are reserved. We cannot disseminate documents of the process, unlike other (clubs) that do. What we are doing is giving information through communications. But these clubs cannot interpret a measure that has not been notified to them, a measure from a process of which they are not part. What I think has happened is that the Consortium is putting pressure on some clubs with the argument that it is not going to transmit anything because everything goes with the precautionary measure. Instead of the Consortium litigating in the judicial process, they are using some clubs in order to put pressure on the FPF.

Haven’t they tried to show these clubs just that? You can’t do it to the public, but to them, in theory, yes.

We would make the corresponding exhibition if the clubs were affected by the measure. But not because they are self-affected by a precautionary measure that they have not even been notified of. From that perspective there is nothing to explain because the precautionary measure does not belong to them and does not affect them. If there is someone here who is affected by the precautionary measure, it is the Consortium and it is the Consortium that must come out and explain.

—Of course, but I mean that if the FPF has had the gesture of approaching the clubs and explaining that to them…

The Federation has communicated in different meetings that have taken place from August to December, even after the precautionary measure was issued. They are official meetings that have been called, there are the marked attendances, the invitations. Several of those who have been to the conference have not attended because they have not wanted to. So the opportunity has been given and it is still open. The federation has its doors open for any question you may want to ask. If they send documentation making the query, they will be answered. And, beyond that, the federation has already communicated on several occasions that we are going to respect the previously concluded contracts. We have not changed the position.

—How is the relationship of the FPF with the eight clubs?

As a federation, we have full respect for each of the clubs and are convinced that they have to participate in Liga 1, which is why we urge them to do so. The relationship on our side is open to all kinds of dialogue where the starting point is respect for the statutes and regulations.

—But today there is no relationship. Or, at least, it seems. When does it break?

On August 31, 2022, September 23, October 3, November 11, December 1, December 2 and December 6. Those are all the meetings that have taken place in which the model was explained, its benefits, how this is going to work. In addition, there have been a number of letters and communications that have been sent to the clubs. That they have not read or have not wanted to attend the meetings is something that we do not control, but the communication has been perfectly open. If someone says that there is no dialogue, it is not from our side.

—Hasn’t the federation met individually with the clubs to seek consensus?

There was a call for meetings where there is a dialogue. And that has happened with everyone who has attended. If a club asks for a meeting, obviously there will be one. But they have not asked. All this noise is in the press, we have not received any communication, any letter on these issues.

—The clubs say that there are no guarantees or confidence in the FPF, Agustín Lozano or 1190 Sports. Why?

That is something they would have to explain. But I believe that the trust they have is with the private contracts that have been entered into individually behind closed doors, without anyone’s knowledge, under the table, in my opinion, with the Consortium. That is the confidence they have. Why? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t trust contracts that I can neither know nor show. I would trust a system like the one we are proposing to be an open system where there is only one contract and everyone knows what is charged and how the money is managed.

—Two of the points that the clubs point out is that with the Consortium there was a section in which the contract was reviewed every three years taking inflation into account. In addition, of the utilities offered by 1190 Sports in which there will not always be income…

Each club has charged for transmission rights during the year 2022, for not going that far, a certain amount. Suppose that quantity is “x”. They say they don’t know how much they will receive. But what 1190 Sports has said is that it will be 20% of what they received last year. If they don’t know how much that 20% is, it’s because they don’t know how much they received in 2022.

—That is based on what they have been declaring to the FPF…

Exact. If they haven’t testified truthfully, obviously they should be worried. If any club had lied declaring 100 when in reality they received 500, then now they will receive less because it will be 120. If that has happened, that would imply a bad practice in the administration of the club. On the other hand, the clubs that have declared with the truth, do not have any concern and are the ones that are affiliated with this new model. So I think that the concern comes from the side of the clubs that suddenly have not been so transparent in the handling of information. They feel that they will receive less.

“And what about profits?”

That is separate. If there are utilities, there are; if there isn’t, there isn’t. Before they did not receive any. And there is also the one-time payment of $500,000 for infrastructure. That goes straight to the clubs.

—Another argument that they maintain is that there is no economic support with 1190 Sports as there is with the Consortium…

We are talking about an international fund of more than 7.5 billion dollars. It is more money than some banks have in Peru.

—Did the clubs affiliated with FPF already receive payments for TV rights?

There is a schedule that is being respected. That is something that the parties will have to reveal in due course.

—I feel that there will not be an arm to twist…

The position of the federation, with the endorsement of FIFA and Conmebol, is to defend the transmission rights of the 1st League that belongs to it.

Could the FPF sue the clubs for damages?

We’ll see. It is something that has not been commented on and that is not within the actions planned by the federation, but obviously the regulation exists, also depending on how this evolves. It is not something that can be ruled out.