The friction between Vasco and Fla-Flu raises controversy over the future of the Maracanã – 06/13/2022

Vasco complained and protested against the administration’s use of the Maracanã, which was used in the match against Cruzeiro. The Flamengo and Fluminense pair, who manage the stadium, replied that they could not provide the club with the same conditions, as they are responsible for maintenance costs. At the end of the line is a discussion about the power of using the Maracanã in the future.

To explain the context, since 2019, Flamingo has been granted a temporary concession to the Maracanã as a Fluminense actor. A bidding process is underway by the state government, which seems yet to be completed.

In this scenario, the Maracanã administration – Flamengo and Fluminense – ruled that Vasco would have to pay R $ 250,000 for the rental of the stadium, that he would still have to pay R $ 130,000 in stadium costs and would not be able to pay. keep the bars. He also banned a banner of Respect and Club Inclusion. In their games, the Fla-Flu duo pays R $ 90 thousand in rent and is entitled to income.

Vasco’s board of directors sent letters to the stadium’s management questioning the decision. Due to the terms agreed in the concessions, the manager says that they were obliged to provide the same conditions to other clubs in the use of the stadium.

The second article of the concession, paragraph 10, states: “The licensee must allow other professional football clubs to be used under the same conditions.”

When asked, the Maracanã administration denies that it is necessary to give the same income to a third party as regards the Fla-Flu couple. In a statement, the stadium management stated that the two clubs “have a legal and contractual right to use the stadium at any time or for free use. they will have to pay a sufficient amount to deal with it.

When the Maracanã was awarded to the Fla-Flu duo in 2019, there was a promise, yes, that other clubs would have the same conditions of use for the stadium. And there was a forecast of a rent of R $ 90 thousand. The Cruzmaltino club presented clauses stipulating these conditions, the Fla-Flu duo did not show that this was removed from the concession. In the absence of any new information, Vasco is right about this specific friction. And it makes no sense to read his banner banning “Respect, Inclusion and Equality.”

That said, the current friction has a broader debate as a backdrop to the stadium’s final competition, the rules of which have already been set by the state government. According to the proposed tender, there would be 70 matches in the Maracanãn, which would only be possible with three clubs. In other words, the conditions imposed push all three to manage the stadium – Vasco has already shown interest in joining the fight.

The problem is that 70 matches in the Maracanã make it impossible to keep a sensible grass in the stadium. In practice, precarious football will be played on the field.

And yes, all clubs have the same rights over the Maracanã – it was a great day at the Vasco fan party on Sunday – but they have the same duties. The Maracanã has been on its own since 2016 when Odebrechet stopped investing in the stadium after the Olympics. It was Flamenco who put the money into his recovery. It was the red-and-black club even now, along with Fluminense, that renovated the grass.

It is a company created by the Fla-Flu duo, which trades boxes and safeguards to make the stadium viable. In addition to the games, the Maracanã has high maintenance costs, which will be even higher considering the innovations and other modernizations that need to be done on its roof – something that only the Fla-Flu duo did.

The reality is that so far Vasco has not invested a penny in the Maracanã, neither in effort nor in money. The club’s management talks to 777 members about participating in the competition and does not rule out participating with Flamengo and Fluminense as well – the current friction has not caused a break. But so far the club has spoken more than anything concrete for the stadium. If it were in the hands of Vasco, the Maracanã would be ruined in those six years.

The solution to the Maracanã is quite complex. The pitch doesn’t have the number of matches the three clubs in the stadium want to support – Vasco wants 15 to 25 games, all home games for Flamengo and Fluminense (30-30). Only Vasco residents have an alternative stadium for games with a smaller audience. And at the same time, the opening of the Maracanã to an audience of less than 30,000 people is poor, as was the case in some recent tricolor games.

The friction between the Vasco and the Fla-Flu duo is therefore another part of a discussion about the future of the stadium. The current competition rules of the state government do not solve the problem, much less the belligerent attitude of the clubs. The only possible way is for everyone to sit at the table and the parties sought concessions for a common solution. Or an official note will remain and there will be no grass in the Maracanã.

Leave a Comment