FPF: “They have not generated a crisis for us, the crisis is between the Consortium and the clubs” | League 1 Betsson

Carlos Caro, the FPF’s legal advisor, explains to us what the current situation is under consideration by the Federation. He assures that no problem has arisen in La Videna, on the contrary, the crisis occurs between the Consortium and the four clubs in question.

What does it mean that the injunction has been annulled?

This precautionary measure was raised on a provisional basis. The possibility of revocations was within the possible legal scenarios. We believe that we have gained a lot in this period because since the beginning of the process, which was in November of last year, it has become clear at the level of journalists, fans, companies and clubs, that the TV rights belong to the Federation. That scenario did not exist last year. When we started the process there was confusion and today everyone makes it clear that the rights belong to the FPF. We are going to file the corresponding appeal before the Supreme Court for this decision to be reviewed.

But the Precautionary Measure was presented so that Consorcio does not broadcast the matches

The confusion last year was with 19 clubs at the table. Today, 11 are fully immersed in the contract with 1190 Sports. There are four clubs that are Universitario, Mannucci, Boys and Municipal, which have a contract with the Consortium until 2025 and the FPF respects those rights. The whole problem has been reduced to four clubs. There are four of them and the corresponding legal procedures will continue until it is achieved that they respect the rights of the FPF. The legal spokesperson for Alianza Lima, Liliana Campos, said on Channel N that they are discussing the rights of the FPF, what is missing is for them to follow the Federation model.

Does the annulment of the precautionary measure open the doors for the Consortium to broadcast the matches?

Only the four clubs with which it has a valid contract until 2025. The Federation does not recognize any contract that the Consortium has entered into with any renewal club. Outside of Universitario, Mannucci, Boys and Municipal, there is no contract that we know of or that we are part of or that has been delivered. They are not contracts that will take effect for the Federation.

They told us from the Consortium that the annulment of the precautionary measure opens the doors for them to respect the right of preference in the renewal of contracts

We are not aware of these preferential rights, neither the Federation nor FIFA nor Conmebol are aware of these contracts. The preference exists to the extent that there is a right and the right does not belong to the Consortium, it does not belong to the clubs. It’s a vague, gassy preference. It does not exist, it is unexecutable. Any court will say what preference they speak of if the right does not exist.

Is the scenario like the uncertainty at the beginning of the year?

The scenario is that now there are only four clubs…

But so be it only one, there is a problem that has not been solved

From the point of view of the Federation, the scenario remains the same as last week, with or without precautionary measures. These clubs have decided not to align themselves and this has its consequences on the legal level and the Federation has its legal strategy to enforce their rights that are provided for in the Statute and in the FIFA and Conmebol model.

The regulations were changed on the fly to force clubs to let 1190 Sports broadcast their matches. Can the clubs file a claim in this regard?

There are several processes initiated by the ADFP and none have been won by them. First there was an amparo action in Cusco presented by Cienciano, who lost it in the first instance. An action in Lima by the ADFP that has lost and has another amparo in a constitutional civil court in Lima that has not yet been sentenced. And there are three or four more processes that are dead. They have tried to challenge the statute and regulations and have not been successful. The possibility that you propose to me already exists and has already been carried out and they have not had results. In addition, lawyers know that roulette is prohibited, which is to file the same thing in several courts to see who agrees with me. We have not done anything about that, just defend ourselves.

They are practically forcing the clubs not to comply with the contracts they signed with the Consortium

It is not to force or pressure. In the colloquial plane everything can sound like that, but from the legal point of view it is not a threat, it is not pressure, it is demanding that the regulation be complied with.

But now the Consortium can sue the clubs

That contract is not a contract that binds the FPF. It has been said inaccurately that the Federation has a copy of the contracts, and that is not true. If there are preference clauses, we are not aware of it. If there is a penalty, we are not aware of it. That is a problem between the Consortium and the club and it is a problem of having agreed to something based on a right that does not belong to them.

So, for you, the signing of these contracts is as if it did not exist

As it is. These clubs have appeared in some of the processes to want to be part and the Judiciary has forced them to reveal the contracts. A court is forcing them to disclose the contracts. When we all know what they say, the corresponding actions will be taken. The clubs are worried because they have to hand over those contracts.

Beyond that they do not know, they are also unknown

They are not valid because they are agreed by rights that are not yours. This foreclosure or default lawsuit argument is a bluff. The two know that they have agreed between something that does not belong to them.

Consorcio can demand the clubs to let it broadcast and apparently that will not be possible

With which they have not generated a crisis for us. They have generated a crisis between them. They are the ones who have a crisis to resolve due to a contract based on a right that does not belong to them.

But if we put the Consortium-Clubs contracts on one side and the League 1 Regulations on the other, which one has more weight?

The contract has no legal force. The regulation and the statute have an endorsement within the framework of sports regulation. In addition, the law that regulates the matter says that the FPF regulates itself through its statute. The statute is supported by national law and sports law versus a contract that binds only two. The statute binds everyone equally. The effects of these contracts cannot have effects for third parties.

—

PRESS RELEASE FROM 1190 Sports

“We reaffirm that Liga 1 matches will continue to be broadcast solely and exclusively by Liga 1 Max, with the exception of the matches of those clubs that have a valid and recognized contract by the FPF with the Consorcio Fútbol Perú only until 2025 (Universitario, Boys, Mannucci and Deportivo Municipal)”

1190 Sports

—

What happens if the clubs let in cameras from 1190 Sports but also those from the Consortium?

We have not contemplated that scenario. We believe that the clubs are going to comply with the regulation, but putting ourselves in that scenario we have to carry out the corresponding legal analysis and apply the consequence that is foreseen in the Statute and in the Regulations, it is the only thing that could advance you at this time.

Will we see suspensions or walk overs?

I am referring to compliance with the regulation, whatever the Regulations or Statute contemplates.

What changes in the FPF with the annulment of the precautionary measure?

Nothing, because the photo remains the same. Of the 19 clubs, eleven aligned, four in the process of transition and only four with which they could persist in having it transmitted through the Consortium. The photo remains the same. In addition to going to the Supreme Court, it will mean that some or other legal action can be taken to protect our rights.

They are going to continue insisting on the precautionary measure, so

Once the Appeal of Cassation is filed before the Supreme Court, the Court could revoke and reinstate the precautionary measure. That is defined and that is what is going to be done.

What unites the clubs with 1190 Sports? The affidavit?

What unites the clubs with 1190 Sports is the regulation and the statute. This affidavit is a kind of adhesion, but it does not generate law. What generates the right is the statute and the purpose of joining is to record that it is being done with the consent of the clubs.

If it does not generate rights, why are clubs forced to sign it?

Because one way to find out who was in compliance with the regulation is through affidavits. It is a tool that is used in law when there are discrepancies.

He will continue the legal fight then

I imagine so, but nothing is closed. The Federation exists based on its members and is not made to be in confrontations. The doors are open for dialogue.

What conclusions can be drawn from the moment?

For us it is already a success that this discrepancy is reduced to four clubs. Last year we had him potentially at 19. That’s progress. It is a success to complete the Apertura with the new model, except for those discrepancies. It is a success that the Clausura has started this weekend. Therefore, the execution of the agreements with 1190 Sports will be completed at the end of the year. We are waiting for the closure because 70% of the profits will be distributed among the clubs. That is where the benefit of the model will begin to be felt.

—