Dirceu Santos Silva, Mariana Zuaneti Martins & Silvia Cristina Franco Amaral*
*Faculty of Physical Education, State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Email: [email protected]
General Law of the Fifa World Cup 2014 in Brazil
Abstract
Sport mega-events such as Fifa World Cup and Olympic Games present a
potential to change the legislation of the host city. The aim of this study is
to analyse the processing of the General Law of World Cup (GLWC) in
National Congress in Brazil, with emphasis on the quality of democracy
and Neopatrimonialism. The analysis progresses in three stages. First, the
process of making the General Law of the Fifa World Cup (Law No.
12.662/2012) in National Congress was examined.
Second, the local
legislation in comparison to the General Law of Fifa World Cup was
examined.
Third,
the
national
media
coverage
in
two
Brazilian
Newspapers was reviewed. Results indicated that the processing of the
General Law of Fifa World Cup 2014 suspended Brazilian basics rights
during the period of the event as Consumer Protection Code (Law No.
8.078/1990) and Fan's Statute (Law No.10671/2003). The General Law of
Fifa World Cup 2014 presented an unsatisfactory level of quality of
democracy, and the amendments approved that National Congress has not
benefited the Brazilian citizen. The Neopatrimonialism indications were
evident when Congress granted to private sector (Fifa), the exclusivity in
exploitation of images, brands, ticket sales for the World Cup. Moreover,
the Brazilian government guaranteed Fifa the exclusivity in disclosure
marks, advertising products and services.
Keywords: Sports; Football; World Cup; Mega-events; Legislation.
Introdução
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (Fifa) 1 indicated Brazil as a
candidate to host the Fifa World Cup 2014. In 2006 occurred the official announcement and
since then, Fifa pressured the Brazilian government (Legislative Branch and Executive
Branch) to meet its requirements. The apex of this charging occurred the need for approval of
the GLWC, when was approached that ―[...] is critical the relationship between Fifa and the
federal government‖ (Prósperi & Chade, 2011, p.1). FIFA‘s general secretary, Jerome
1
Fifa is a private association, world football's governing body (BRASIL, 2012).
Valcke, intensified charges when he said ―[...] less democracy is sometimes better for
organising a World Cup [...] When you have a very strong head of state who can decide, as
maybe [President Vladimir] Putin can do in 2018‖ (Reuters, 2013).
Fifa World Cup 2014 has a potential to change the legislation of the host cities, which
can interfere with the rights of local citizens. This regulation of "public" space is directly
associated with the interests of the event organizers (Bonthuys, 2012: Hall, 2006; 2012;
Giulianotti & Klauser, 2010).
Thus, this paper emphasizes the processing of GLWC, and the conflicts between
FIFA and the quality of democracy in the Legislative Branch. Quality of democracy is
associated the following dimensions: the primacy of law, participation and political
competition, the modalities of accountability (vertical, horizontal and social), respect for civil
liberties and political rights, social and economic equality, the responsibility of governments
and representatives (Legislative Branch and Executive Branch) (Diamond & Morlino, 2005).
The discussion GLWC occurred in the Education, Culture and Sport Commission and
Constitution, Justice and Citizenship Commission of the Federal Government. Law No.
12.663/2012 (GLWC) was sanctioned and establishes "the norms governing the Fifa
Confederations Cup 2013, the Fifa World Cup 2014".
The discussion was guided by the following questions: What were the agreements and
conflicts between Fifa and the Legislative Branch in the sanction of GLWC? What were the
conflicts of this
legislation associated
to the quality of democracy and
the
Neopatrimonialism?
The aim of this paper is to analyze the processing of GLWC in the Brazilian
government, with emphasis on the quality of democracy and Neopatrimonialism.
Method
It is a descriptive-analytic research (Minayo, 1994) in three stages. First, the process
of making the General Law of the Fifa World Cup (Law No. 12.662/2012) in National
Congress was examined. Second, the local legislation in comparison to the General Law of
Fifa World Cup was examined. Third, the national media coverage in two Brazilian
Newspapers (Folha de São Paulo and Estadão) was reviewed. The time frame between 2009
and 2012 is justified by the increased discussion.
The paper was organized on the basis of thematic content analysis (Bardin, 2009) in
two stages: the first involves the discussion about the processing of GLWC in the Legislative
Branch and Executive Branch the light of the discussion on quality of democracy; and the
second involved the discussion on GLWC, with emphasis on Neopatrimonialism.
Processing of Cup General Law Legislative Branch
The Draft Law No. 2330/2011 was presented on October 17, 2011, the congressman
of the Workers' Party (PT), Vicente Cândido . The Draft Law expounded upon ticket sales,
alcohol consumption, half price for students and seniors citizens, visa facilities for foreigners
in Brazil and guarantees benefits to players of the Brazilian teams champions of the FIFA
World Cups of the years 1958, 1962 and 1970. The sanction of the Law occurred in June 5,
2012, and was composed of 10 chapters and 67 articles.
The discussion of the data involves the influence of political actors in the law, since
there is no consensus on the participation of the Legislative Branch in the final form of
Brazilian law. There are authors who claim that such participation is significant (Freitas,
2013) and other authors indicate that the capacity of the Legislative Branch in influencing the
political agenda the Executive Branch is restricted (Moisés, 2011, Melo 2009; 2010).
The controversial issues highlighted were: profit exclusive of FIFA, marketing,
consumption and possession of alcohol in football stadiums and half price for students and
senior citizens. These issues concentrated 64.51% of the amendments, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Amendments proposed in the processing of the Draft General Law World Cup
Emendas
Nº de
%
emendas
Controver
Exclusivity profits for Fifa
18
29,03%
sial issues
Commercialization and consumption of
15
24,19%
alcohol in stadiums
Half price for students and seniors citizens
7
11,29%
Tickets for disabled people
4
06,45%
Foreign entry visa in Brazil
4
06,45%
Consumer protection
2
03,22%
Volunteers
3
04,83%
Non
Freedom of expression
1
01,61%
controver
Urban mobility
1
01,61%
sial issues
Bureaucracies of law
3
04,83%
Job creation
1
01,61%
Public large digital screens for game
1
01,61%
broadcast
Decent work
1
01,61%
Do not privatization of stadiums
1
01,61%
Overall
62
100%
Source: Chamber of Deputies (2011-2012)
The most controversial issue was the profit exclusive of FIFA, with 18 amendments.
The GLWC secured exclusive profits for Fifa, when approved in Article 11 the following:
The Union shall collaborate with States, Federal District and Municipalities where
Events will be hosted and with other competent authorities to secure to FIFA and to
the persons appointed by FIFA the authorization to, with exclusivity, expose their
trademarks, distribute, sell, give publicity or realize marketing of products and
services, as well as any other promotional activities or of street commerce, in the
Official Venues of Competition.
The exclusivity of FIFA in commercially to exploit, within a 2 km perimeter around
World Cup arenas on match days was turned into law. This change in legislation in the host
city, according to Horne (2007), intends to create a space for sponsors enjoy profits, so that
reduces the ambush marketing of company was not an official sponsor.
Amendments related to democratize the event image, the involvement of the Brazilian
government in determining the ticket price and the free commercialization of the street
market vendors were denied. According to Reis (2012), the prohibition of commercialization
is contrary to the autonomy of the street market vendors and owners of commercial
establishments to sell product brands was not Fifa‘s sponsor.
The GLWC did not detail the system of categories but ticket prices were fixed in
descending order, the highest was the Category 1. The Art. 26 of Law describes that FIFA
has provided 10% of the ticket load per match for category 4. This load of tickets was sold
with a discount of 50% (fifty percent) for students, and participants from federal cash transfer
program (BRASIL, 2012).
The exclusivity of profits for FIFA was present in the discussion of non-payment of
National Institute of Industrial Property Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign
Trade (INPI). Two amendments sought to delete the Article that guarantees this benefit for
Fifa, with the justification that the international institution has appropriate financial means to
pay for the registration of brands.
Maintaining the principle of original Law proposed by the Executive Branch was
evident the poor quality of democracy. Thus, a restricted capacity of the Legislature Branch
to interfere in the political agenda of the Executive Branch was reported, as discussed by
Moisés (2011) and Melo (2009; 2010).
The second most frequent theme associated with controversial issues was the
commercialization, consumption and possession of alcohol, with a total of 15 amendments.
The prohibition of commercialization of alcoholic beverages was unanimity in the
amendments but the GLWC was approved hiding Art.13 of the Fan's Statute (amended by
Law No. 12,299/2010), which defined as a condition for access in the sports venue the nonpossession of: ―[...] objects, alcoholic beverages or prohibited substances or capable of
generating or enabling acts of violence‖ (Brasil, 2003).
To the subsume the article of Fan's Statute in the GLWC contradicted the federal pact,
since São Paulo (1996), Rio de Janeiro (1998), Rio Grande do Sul (2008) and Pernambuco
(2009) prohibits the commercialization of alcoholic beverages in football stadiums.
The commercialization of alcoholic beverages during the Fifa World Cup is
associated with a big sponsor of beer, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch). Caetano, Pinsky e
Laranjeira (2012) they reported that this debate is related to public health and the Brazilian
Association of Studies on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ABEAD) has made a move against the
consumption of alcoholic beverages in stadiums. The breweries have fought for the
weakening of laws that prohibit its commercialization.
The third controversial issue was the half price for students and senior citizens, with
seven amendments. Amendments approved that the half price is restricted to Category 4 (A
total of 10% of the ticket load in each match) and students with the Student Identification
Card.
Non-controversial issues discussed in the processing of GLWC represent 45.49% of
the amendments. The main themes were: tickets for disabled people; foreign entry visa in
Brazil; consumer protection; volunteers; freedom of expression; urban mobility;
bureaucracies of law; job creation; public large digital screens for game broadcast; decent
work; and do not privatization of stadiums (Table 1).
Of non-controversial issues, the most frequent was the ticket for disabled people, with
4 amendments in total. It was approved 1% of the tickets for this public. The second most
frequent issue was foreign entry visa in Brazil in total of four amendments: approved
amendments removed the visa gratuity for all visitors; and negated amendments sought to
veto the unrestricted entry into the Brazilian territory.
Third thematic of non-controversial issues highlighted the consumer rights. The
amendments criticized the unlimited power of Fifa for deciding cancellation, return and
refund ticket, which are contrary to the Consumer Protection Code (Brasil, 1990).
According to Bonfin (2012), Article 68, § 1 of the GLWC, if configured as
unconstitutional2 because suspending consumer protection during the event. The Law did not
express responsibility of the institution to repair the damage to consumers. Moreover,
guaranteed to FIFA the authority to establish the sale criteria, without previous notice.
Sydney 2000 Olympics Games also occurred the suspension of citizens' rights (Hall, 2012),
when it was prohibited into law to appeal against the projects of mega sports events.
The fourth theme was the Grass. Amendments proposed a natural grass (modular),
according the standardization of the United States Golf Association – USGA. The
justification of the substitution of artificial grass with synthetic fibers for natural grass had as
central arguments: climate diversity of each region; the high cost of artificial grass; and the
short shelf life of the artificial grass, about two to three years. The natural grass are utilized in
many sporting world events and can be removed from the game field without damaging their
quality. These proposals would attend different quality of democratic dimensions, however,
the amendments were denied, since FIFA requires a specific pattern of grass.
The fifth theme was the volunteering, and all amendments were denied: the first
defended the application of labor standards; and the second suggested that volunteer work
was remunerated (three minimum wages), qualified (guarantee that Fifa shall pay the
courses) and guarantees that Fifa would be responsible with medical expenses, transportation
and food.
Urban mobility was the sixth issue and it was authorized the use of military
aerodromes as a way to expand Brazil's capacity to receive foreign. The seventh issue is
2
Unconstitutionality has a negative value and implies the opposite of constitutionality. Not dependent of the
Constitution, and implies in the legislature's omission to guarantee the constituent values.
related to the installation of Public large digital screens and this amendment was not
approved.
The eighth issue is related to freedom of expression when it was contemplated the
right to protest and full freedom of expression.
The ninth theme it was decent work, when it was proposed to seal slave labour and
child labour. The last issue concerns the privatization of arenas and stadiums. Proposed
amendments with the aim of non-privatization of stadiums and arenas were denied, despite
use of public resources. The amendments not approved that aimed to benefit Brazilian citizen
evidences the poor quality of democracy, as discussed by Diamond e Morlino (2005).
Neopatrimonialism in the General Law of World Cup
For analysis of the GLWC, it was discussed in a democratic context. In relation to the
beneficiaries of the private sector, such conduct policy refers to a way of contemporary
patrimonialism. The notion of Patrimonialism comes from the Weberian conception of an
ideal type of legitimate domination, based on tradition and obedience to the rules of the
customs (Weber, 1968).
In the case of GLWC, we are referring to a contemporary Patrimonialism (Domingues,
2008), in which a public law was created to regulate the different services of the World Cup,
however, it guaranteed a number of benefits to Fifa, despite public interests.
Neopatrimonialism was evidenced in the Legislative Branch when it was guaranteed to
Fifa three things in law: exclusivity in the exploitation of brands, advertising products and
logos (Art 11:12Error! Bookmark not defined.8), the sale of tickets, the right transmissions supplier
and the exclusive commercial exploitation. Although Fifa not be responsible for the major
order of investments to the event, it can be affirmed that profits are reserved to the institution
and its sponsoring brands. The Brazilian government does not comply with the concept of
law proposed by Bobbio & Matteucci (1983, p. 352) to the benefit private entities through
GLWC. The law is understood as a general and abstract standard that allows give citizenship
to the interests that are not private.
As a result of Neopatrimonialism you could be found the benefits granted to former
soccer players of Champions Cups in 1958, 1962, 1970. In Chapter IX, it evidenced the
granting of benefits in Art. 37 players of Brazilian teams champions of the Fifa World Cups
―of the years 1958, 1962 and 1970 shall receive: I – prize in money; II – special monthly
stipend‖. It was added in Art. 38 that ―The prize in money shall be paid only once in the
amount of R$ 100.000 (one hundred thousand reais) to the player‖, which it is the
responsibility of the Sports Ministry to payError!
Bookmark not defined.8
. The prize and special
monthly stipend for the players were not discussed in the processing of GLWC.
Conclusion
It was verified that the main beneficiaries of GLWC are FIFA and their sponsors. The
sanction of GLWC presented an unsatisfactory level of quality of democracy, since
the legislation does not benefit the Brazilian citizen and it was against the Brazilians
rights. The approval of this law indicted that the amendments proposed by the
representatives of the Legislative Branch (Chamber of Deputies) had minimal
influence in approving the GLWC, which indicated their low power capacity in
relation to the Executive Branch in this matter.
Brazilian government to agree to host the Fifa 2014 World Cup, underwent benefit
her, through public investment and profit exclusive warranty for Fifa, which shows the
Neopatrimonialism. In the end, discussions on democratic political consequences in the
agreements signed between Fifa and the Federal Government were not incidents.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.49", Hanging:
0.01"
References
Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa, Portugal; Edições 70, LDA.
Bobbio, N; Matteucci, N. (1983). Dictionary of Politics. French & European Publications.
Bonfim, S. A. (2012) Lei Geral da Copa, Soberania Nacional e a Constituição. Revista
Brasileira de Direito Constitucional, 19, 235-253.
Bonthuys, E. (2012) The 2010 Football World Cup and the Regulation of Sex Work in South
Africa, Journal of Southern African Studies, 38:1, 11-29.
Brasil (País). Lei nº 12.663, de 05 de junho de 2012. Dispõe sobre as medidas relativas à
Copa das Confederações Fifa 2013, à Copa do Mundo Fifa 2014 e à Jornada Mundial da
Juventude – 2013. Brasília, july 5, 2012.
_____. Lei nº 10.671, de 15 de maio de 2003. Dispõe sobre o Estatuto de Defesa do Torcedor
e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, may
15, 2003.
_____. Lei nº 8.078, de Setembro de 1990. Dispõe sobre a proteção do consumidor e dá
outras providências. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, set. 11,
1990.
Caetano, R; Pinsky, I; Laranjeira, R. (2012) Should soccer and alcohol mix? Alcohol sales
during the 2014 World Soccer Cup games in Brazil. Addiction, Leeds, 107, 1722-1723.
Diamond, L.; Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Domingues, J. M. (2008). Patrimonialismo e neopatrimonialismo. In: Avritzer, L; Starling, H.
(Org.). Dicionário analítico da corrupção. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 1, 187-192.
Freitas, A. M. (2013). O presidencialismo da coalizão. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência Política)
- Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Hall C. M. (2006) Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: the
thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism, Sociological
Review, 54(2), 59–70.
________. (2012). The political analysis and political economy of events. In S. Page &
J.Connell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of events (pp. 186_200). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Horne, J. (2007) The Four ‗Knowns‘ of Sports Mega-Events. Leisure Studies, 26 (1), 81-96.
Giulianotti, R. & Klauser, F. (2010). Security governance and sport mega-events: toward an
interdisciplinary research agenda. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34 (1), 49-61.
Melo, M. A. (2010). Controle do Poder Executivo e presidencialismo de coalizão. Cadernos
Aslegis, 40.
————. (2009) Strong Presidents, robust democracies: separation of powers and the rule of
law in Latin America. Brazilian Political Science Review, 3 (2), 30-59.
Moisés, J. A. (org.) (2012). O Papel do Congresso Nacional no presidencialismo de coalizão.
Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Konrad Adenauer.
Minayo, M. C. S. (1994). Pesquisa social: teoria método e criatividade. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Pernambuco. Lei nº 13.748, de 15 de abril de 2009. (2009). Fica proibido a comercialização e
o consumo de bebidas alcoólicas, nos estádios de futebol e ginásios esportivos. Recife, april
16.
Prósperi, L; Chade, J. (2011). Fifa pressiona Brasil na festa da Copa. O Estado de S. Paulo.
Reis, H. H. B.(2012) Lei geral da copa, álcool e o processo de criação da legislação sobre
violência. Movimento, Porto Alegre, 18(1), 69-99
Reuters, T. (2013) É mais fácil organizar uma Copa com menos democracia, diz Valcke. O
Estado de S. Paulo, Esportes Futebol.
Rio de Janeiro (Estado). (1998) Lei nº 2.991, de 23 de junho de 1998. Proíbe a venda de
bebidas alcoólicas destiladas nos estádios de futebol e em suas proximidades, nos dias de
jogos, em todo o Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro. June 23.
Rio Grande do Sul. Lei nº 12.916, de 01 de abril de 2008. (2008). Proíbe a comercialização e
o consumo de bebidas alcoólicas nos estádios de futebol e nos ginásios de esportes do Estado
do Rio Grande do Sul. DOE, Abril 02.
São Paulo (Estado). (1996). Lei estadual n. 9.470, de 27 de dezembro de 1996. Dispõe
sobre a manutenção de toda a lotação com lugares numerados nos estádios de futebol,
ginásio de esporte e estabelecimentos congêneres. São Paulo, dez. 27
Weber M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Transl. E
Fischoff. New York: Bedminster Press.