The Peruvian Football Federation (FPF)asked the Judiciary for clarification of the precautionary measure regarding the transmission rights of the clubs that renewed their contract with the Peru Football Consortium (GOLPERU).
The request for clarification on the court ruling regarding the suspension of contracts related to the commercialization of TV rights involves only the defendant clubs that “do not have the express authorization or approval of the Peruvian Football Federation.”
infobae consulted Julio Garciaa lawyer specializing in sports, who pointed out that this new precautionary measure does not mean any change, but that it applies legally as a clarification, because some clubs in League 1 have a different interpretation from the one held by the FPF.
“This clarification was not needed, it does not change anything, it is more media. This is a position of two parties that are in dispute and each one tries to position what is convenient for them. We are talking about contracts signed with 8 clubs, and there are 19 clubs, that is, there are 11 clubs that recognize the FPF the right, it would be absurd for them to be affected and not be able to broadcast their home games,” he said.
It may interest you: Eight clubs will not play League 1 2023 for TV rights: the war declared on the FPF
The lawyer indicated that the only teams prevented from broadcasting their home matches are those that renewed with the Soccer Consortium: Alianza Lima, Cienciano, Deportivo Binacional, Melgar and Cusco FCbut what GOLPERU interpreted and declared before the public opinion that no team could do it.
“As the FPF It has not been successful in positioning its position, now it seeks to clarify, because the Consortium has positioned the concept that the precautionary measure was wrong, because it reached everyone and nobody could broadcast their matches. I do not think it was wrong, it was not applicable to anyone, but only to those that had to do with the contract signed with the Consortium, because what the lawsuit sought was to render void those contracts that were not signed by the FPF“, he pointed.
García Torres also explained that the precautionary measure clearly indicated that the only affected clubs were the defendants: “The original precautionary measure has nine pages and develops all the concepts, there it talks about the communications sent by the FPF and the approval of the statute as a starting point. The resolutive part indicates to suspend all the contracts, in front of the plaintiff. I imagine that this request will end up clarifying, ”he sentenced.
It may interest you: Who is the judge who issued a precautionary measure in favor of the FPF for television rights?
Julio Garcia He also explained that, for a precautionary measure to take effect, it means that the judge considers that there are many possibilities that the plaintiff, in this case the FPFbe right.
“All the precautionary measures that one presents to a judge have to go through some filters. The most important is the appearance of the law, this means that the judge, when he receives the precautionary measure, has to look at it and see what are the grounds on which the claim is based and that, apparently, it seems that he is right. If so, the precautionary measure is accepted, but it is imposed on the defendants, for no one else, ”he added.
Julio García pointed out that the precautionary measure does not affect the clubs that had a current contract with GOLPERUbecause the FPF You cannot ignore an unsigned contract.
“Nobody is discussing the validity of the contracts of academic, Municipal, Sports Boys Y Mannuciif the FPF discusses them, it would be against the law. It didn’t make sense that the ‘OR‘ Do not broadcast Cream Night, it was legally enabled. The FPF cannot disregard the contract and not prevent GOLPERU broadcast their matches, that is already a matter of solidarity or economics, because the clubs say that the contract signed by the FPF”, he clarified.
KEEP READING:
