Rio court denies Felipe Neto’s request

The Rio de Janeiro Court denied the request for Felipe Neto for the postponement of Botafogo x Athletico, match suspended after blackouts at the Nilton Santos Stadium. The influencer questioned the resumption of the duel this Sunday, 22nd, at 3pm (Brasília time), without an audience.

In order, the judge Orlando Eliazaro Feitosa declared that “there are rules regulating the moment in which the match must be played, in this case, the following day at 3 pm in the same location (Art. 21 of RGC-2023). Therefore, I do not see irregular behavior from the CBF and the Clubs”.

Dark brothers…

Unfortunately, the judge on duty decided that it is easier for all 40 thousand people from Botafogo to go to court asking for their rights than for the CBF to reschedule this absurd game today behind closed doors.

It was David against Goliath. He gave Goliath.

This is the CBF.

— Felipe Neto 🦉 (@felipeneto) October 22, 2023

Glorioso fan, Felipe Neto questioned the end of the match without an audience in the stadium. The Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) decided behind closed doors due to the classic between Flamengo It is Vascowhich takes place at 4pm (Brasília time).

So that the Rio club does not return to play before the minimum interval of 66 hours, the entity that governs national football postponed the confrontation against the Strengthinitially scheduled for Tuesday, 24th, at 7pm, in Castelão.

Julio Avelar, director of competitions at CBF, stated in an interview with “SporTV” that the second half of Botafogo x Athletico will end without an audience. According to him, it will not be possible to reconcile security strategies for two simultaneous games in Rio de Janeiro.

Read the order:

The action of obligation not to make a request for urgent protection is taken care of so that the defendant refrains from carrying out the Botafogo x Athlético Paranaense football match on today’s date without the presence of the public and must seek it from the clubs and the Police Provide another solution to the issue, which complies with the General Competition Regulations and ensures that fans who were in the stadium have access to the continuation of the game. He argued that yesterday (10/21/2023) the game between Clubs Botafogo x Athletico Paranaense valid for the Brazilian Championship was interrupted, after the interruption of the power supply when the match had already reached 6 minutes of the second half. He highlighted that the defendant, after the interruption, decided that the match would be resumed today at 3 pm, in the same location, however without public participation. He highlighted that he purchased a ticket in the box format, even invited several people and contracted the buffet service, for which he paid the amount of R$ 3,694.00. He highlighted that the defendant’s behavior violates the General Competition Regulations (2023), as well as tainting her consumer rights.

I’m going to decide. Preliminarily, I emphasize that the postponement of the match was determined by the CBF with the agreement of the clubs involved, therefore, the act of postponement is complex, being established by the CBF with the approval of the clubs. Furthermore, it is clear that any measure will affect the teams’ spheres. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant side should include the associations. I will analyze the merits, for the granting of urgent protection, the fundamental presence of legal requirements (Art. 300 of the CPC), in this case, probability of copyright and risk the useful result of the process. The match, as highlighted by the author, was interrupted due to a power outage at the beginning of the second half, and other interruptions had already occurred throughout the game, which is a well-known fact and widely publicized in the press. The postponement of the game until today at 3 pm in the same location, without the presence of the public, is also proven, as can be seen in the initial petition and in the news linked on the internet.

Therefore, I understand that, factually, the situation is duly demonstrated and proven. Therefore, I turn to the legal analysis of the issue. Firstly, I highlight that the redesignation of the match took place with the agreement of the clubs, according to information from the CBF, and there was compliance with Art. 21 of RGC-2023. On the other hand, it must be emphasized that failure to comply with the rules provided for in Art. 20 of RGC-2023 (interruption with less than 30 minutes of waiting) represents a violation of the fans’ rights, however this issue should have been challenged before the Court of Fans that were in full operation during the match, which did not happen. The present legal challenge only took place at 8:57 am, when the match had already been rescheduled. Therefore, fans have the right to compensation, in theory, generated by the referee’s non-compliance with the RGC-2023 rules. In another sense, I emphasize that the rescheduling of the match complies with RGC-2023 (Art. 21), because whether or not the suspension of the game is irregular, the fact is that such a circumstance has already occurred. It is only appropriate to evaluate the regularity of the game’s redesignation for today’s date, at 3:00 pm. At this point, it is clear that there is a rule governing the moment in which the match must be played, in this case, the following day at 3 pm in the same location (Art. 21 of RGC-2023). Therefore, I do not see irregular behavior from the CBF and the Clubs.

On another point of the legal issue, I assert that the absence of fans in the stadium meets an exceptional circumstance involving public safety in the State of Rio de Janeiro, in this case, the match between the clubs Flamengo and Vasco da Gama at Maracanã at 5 p.m. . It is a well-known fact that said match will involve a large security apparatus, given the large number of fans and the repeated problems of violence involving the two clubs. Therefore, I understand that the ban on spectators at the match between Botafogo and Atlhetico Paranaense is a precautionary measure. Even though RGC-2023 in its article 21, § 3 establishes the fan’s right to have access to the stadium in the event of postponement or suspension of the match, it must be highlighted that today’s situation is exceptional given the game between Flamengo and Vasco da Gama , as already highlighted. Thus, the absence of public at the Stadium (Botafogo x Athletico) was justified, taking into account the best interests of the community, consistent with public safety around the Stadiums in question. In view of this, I understand that there is no likelihood of copyright, with the exception that fans who feel aggrieved can take appropriate compensation actions. In light of the foregoing, I DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE GRANT OF EMERGENCY GUARDIANSHIP. Refer to natural Judgment.