JUE 14 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2024 - 00:58hs.
Fine from US$ 41k to US$ 103k per game

CBF overturns injunction that prohibited it from displaying competing brands of galera.bet

The Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) managed to overturn in court the injunction that condemned it to pay from R$ 200,000 (US$ 41k) to R$ 500,000 (US$ 103k) per Series A match if it exhibited competing betting sites with galera.bet. According to the operator, the CBF was breaking an advertising contract in which it should be the only brand in the sector to be displayed in first division games until the end of the 2024 championship.

The complaint by galera.bet that motivated the lawsuit was that the companies Betano and Betnacional had their brands exposed in the inflatable access tunnel for players to the pitch, on the lecterns on which the match ball rests and on the advertising boards starting from the third round of the Brasileirão. Soon after, 1xBet also appeared in these spaces.

The injunction obtained by galera.bet was handed down by Judge João Marcos Fantinato, from the 30th Civil Court of Rio de Janeiro. It provided for a fine of $ 200,000 (US$ 41k) to R$ 500,000 (US$ 103k) per match in Série A of the Brasileirão if brands belonging to the company's competitors were displayed on the field during the competition.

The rapporteur of the case, judge Wilson do Nascimento Reis, from the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ), stated that the rights of galera.bet, as a sponsor, were to “have its brand displayed on the pitch portico for the entrance ceremony of the players in all their matches, as well as in the official interview backdrop of the Championship.” And that the contract does not provide for exclusivity for advertising. The decision was supported by the majority of the Chamber.

“It is appropriate to say that if the Appellee (galera.bet) wanted to avoid any interpretative noise regarding the adjustment, it could have established that the advertising on the backdrop and on the portico would be done exclusively, in order to distance the brand from being displayed company of the same activity, but did not take care of it, contenting itself with having the exclusivity only in relation to sponsorship and not with advertising, knowing that the Judiciary, attached to the examination of the legality of the freely expressed private will, cannot dispose against what the parties agreed, even more so because it is a parity contract, with no imbalance between the contractors,” said the judge in his vote.
 
Source: O Globo