17 May 13 | Americas
Brazil loves football – and it loves the game so much it’s hosting next year’s World Cup finals. But a huge number of fans from the state of Paraná are having a very hard time following their team this year because of media restrictions imposed by directors of the local club, Rafael Spuldar reports.
Atlético Paranaense from Curitiba, one of Brazil’s top flight teams and Brazilian champions in 2001, banned press conferences and independent media work during their weekly activities and on match days.
On top of that, no staff member — including players and managers — of Atlético is officially allowed to speak to the media. The club says that radio stations and newspapers should pay for the right to report on the club, along the lines of fees television stations pay to broadcast matches.
However, a 2011 federal law forbids football clubs from charging money for radio broadcasts.
The club’s policy is that all information about the team will be funneled through official channels ike the team’s website, online radio and TV. Independent journalists will be limited to background information and off-the-record statements.
It’s a common practice in Brazil’s football industry to have at least two press conferences a week with players and managers and regular media activity on match days. It’s also usual in the country to have people from clubs on sport shows airing on TV and radio, which makes Atlético’s move a rare one in Brazilian football.
“The content we offer is not of a primary importance to the audience, it’s pure entertainment. So we don’t feel obliged to let anyone enter the club’s premises and profit from our business without paying for it, like radio stations do”, says Mauro Holzmann, Atlético’s director of communications and marketing.
“Less than thirty years ago it was OK for televisions to broadcast football matches without paying for it, but now it’s unthinkable to do so. So why don’t the other media pay for it? We know it’s a paradigm shift, but maybe other clubs will do this too”, Holzmann told Index on Censorship.
Broadcasting of matches became another problematic issue. Atlético did not reach an agreement for Paraná’s State Championship with TV rights holders RPC – a local affiliate of national media giant Rede Globo. Because of that, fans were not be able to watch the games unless they bought tickets and went to the pitch.
“This is a complete enclosure that ends up damaging everybody”, says Leonardo Bonasolli, reporter at Gazeta do Povo, Curitiba’s biggest newspaper.
“The club loses exposure at the media, and exposure means more sponsorship money. The press loses the chance of providing a different, independent point of view and, of course, fans also lose because they are not interested only on the team’s monolithic media work”, Bonasolli told Index on Censorship.
Atlético’s chairman Mário Celso Petraglia said the State Championship – which runs from January until early May – is not profitable, so he would not only deny TV broadcasting but would also put the Under-23 team on the pitch, while the main squad would have an extended pre-season in Europe until the start of the Brazilian Championship.
About the media ban, Petraglia said in a rare interview that the club “reached a limit” in its relationship with the press, and that journalists “should be neutral and conduct [their work] in an ethical and moral way”, something he believes does not happen in Paraná.
Petraglia’s disturbed relationship with the press has a long history – it started in the late 1990s, when he was involved in a bribery scheme with referees to fix match results. He was neither convicted nor banned because of the episode.
Atlético first tried to charge money from radios to broadcast its games in 2008. However, a judge ruled the fees were illegal and radio stations have since been given stadium access on match days.
Atlético’s media ban was effectively shut down in early May, during the State Championship finals against historic rivals Coritiba. Rede Globo, which also owns the TV rights of the Brazilian Championship, made a deal with Atlético to allow both matches to be aired. It also closed an agreement for broadcasting the State Championship in 2014 and 2015.
After the game, Atlético’s players gave interviews normally, even to outlets other than Globo, as if there was no ban.
Paraná’s Sports Journalists Association believes Atlético’s attitude towards general media won’t change much, even with the upcoming Brazilian Championship, which draws national attention to all clubs.
“When the Brazilian championship starts, Atlético will be forced to speak to Globo, and they will also feel pressed to hold conferences after matches, because there will be so many journalists from the whole country. But I doubt they will allow other radio or TV stations inside the club during the week, so Globo will do all interviews and share their material to the other outlets”, says the Association’s president, Isaías Bessa.
Local journalists also say the club’s lack of transparency damages Curitiba’s position as one of the host cities of the 2014 World Cup – Atlético’s stadium will a venue. Renovations on the stadium are said to be the most behind schedule of any of the 12 World Cup venues, but independent media was never allowed inside after the works began.
Atlético’s Mauro Holzmann firmly says the stadium will be ready by the end of 2013, like FIFA demands, and blames all delays on “Brazil’s bureaucracy” to deal with public financing.
10 Apr 13 | Brazil, Uncategorized
A judge from the Brazilian State of Goiás has ruled that a football club director allegedly linked to the killing of a sports journalist must remain in prison while he awaits trial.
Radio presenter Valério Luiz de Oliveira was gunned down at the front door of 820 AM radio station in the state capital Goiânia on 5 July 2012.
Businessman Maurício Borges Sampaio, who acted as Atlético Clube Goianiense’s vice-president up to 10 days before Oliveira’s murder, was arrested in February this year accused of having ordered the killing. He denies having any link to the crime.
Days before being killed, Oliveira went on air to strongly denounce Atlético’s management for the team, after poor results on the pitch led to the club’s relegation to the second tier of the Brazilian league later that year .
Among other statements, the presenter compared Atlético’s directors to “rats” that abandon a ship before it sinks .
In a testimony given to the Police, Sampaio admitted signing a document that barred Oliveira’s radio staff from the club’s premises. The former director also claimed the radio presenter had already being banned from Goiás and Vila Nova, two other football clubs in Goiânia.
Three other people accused of acting in the journalist’s killing are also being held in prison.
18 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
On 17 January, the European Parliament endorsed a resolution addressing ongoing human rights violations in Bahrain. The resolution, led by Dutch European Parliament member Marietje Schaake, called for “targeted EU sanctions against human rights violators in Bahrain”. The country has faced ongoing unrest since protests for reform began in February 2011, and the country’s security forces have been condemned internationally for using excessive force against protesters. Schaake condemned the usage of “tear gas and bird shots fired at close range”, as well as a lack of consistency in the judicial system — citing the inconsistencies in the cases of both activists and doctors jailed for treating protesters. The resolution also criticised the country’s failure to implement reforms based on recommendations issued by the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry in November 2011, which was commissioned by King Hamad. In addition to clamping down on protests, Bahrain has also taken measures against activists online.
Meanwhile, human rights defender Said Yousif was released on bail today, but must return to court on 29 January on charges of spreading “false news with the intention of damaging state security.” Yousif was arrested on 17 December while monitoring a protest in Manama, Bahrain’s capital.
Said Yousif was released on bail today
A journalist in Somalia who was arrested for interviewing an alleged rape victim has been accused of fabricating the story by Somalia’s police commissioner. General Sharif Sheikhuna Maye issued a statement on 16 January saying that Lul Ali Hassan, who claimed she had been raped by Somali soldiers on 10 January, was bribed by journalist Abdiaziz Abdinur and members of a women’s rights group into concocting a false story. The general said the alleged victim told police she was offered extra rations and money at the displaced women’s camp she had been living in. Medical examinations, he also said, had proven that there was no evidence of a rape occurring.
Dutch football club Ajax Amsterdam has been fined by UEFA, after fans protested the prices of football tickets during a game. During the Champions League match at home to Manchester City in October, fans held banners displaying messages saying “80 euros for the away section is ridiculous,” with others holding banners emblazoned with offensive messages to Chelsea, Manchester City, Red Bull Salzburg and Red Bull Leipzig. The club was fined €10,000 (roughly GBP£8,400) for the “display of a provocative and inappropriate banner.”
An Iranian human rights lawyer who was jailed for defending several human rights activists in court was temporarily released on 17 January. Nasrin Sotoudeh was released on leave for three days from Evin prison, a period that could be extended. Sotoudeh was arrested in September 2010 under charges of promoting propaganda under the regime and acting against national security — initially sentenced to 11 years in prison, but reduced to six years upon appeal. Sotoudeh, an award-winning legal defender of free speech, has criticised death penalties issued to minors. While in prison she went on hunger strike to protest her treatment. She was denied visits from her children and husband, as well as access to lawyers.
Social networking and news websites in Tajikistan were blocked by the government, news sources reported yesterday (17 January). Sites were blocked under Tajikistan’s Association of Internet Service Providers, but remained accessible under other network providers. Asomuddin Atoev, head of the Association of Internet Service Providers said that the government’s communication department ordered the blocking via SMS. Communications chief Beg Zuhurov said the sites would return in “two or three days”, claiming the disappearance of the websites was due to a technical issue. Last year, over 130 websites were blocked for “technical repair” ahead of the December elections.
15 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
It was a few minutes before kick off last Sunday when when the banners went up. To be fair they were more painted bed sheets than banners. One read “£62 and we’re still here.” Another said “£62!! Where will it stop?” The tone of the first was defiant, the second quietly despairing. Either way, as protests go, they were well mannered.
There had been much debate about the price of away tickets for Manchester City fans at Arsenal. Premiership clubs offer a bizarre pricing hierarchy whereby fans of the most successful clubs (invariably the richest clubs) are charged most for tickets. This might have a degree of fairness if, say, Manchester City’s owner Sheikh Mansour paid for the fans’ tickets, but he doesn’t. The reality is that a Manchester City fan is just as likely to be struggling financially as a Reading or QPR fan.
Even by premiership standards £62 for an away ticket is ludicrously high. Some fans boycotted the match, and 900 of the 3,000-strong allocation were reportedly returned to Arsenal. Others (me included) decided to go, enjoy the match (City’s first league victory at Arsenal in 37 years as it happens) and sing their heart out about the injustice of it all.
City supporter Richard Taylor, an estate agent from Stalybridge, had painted the banner the previous night in Manchester. He says he was impressed with the result. “It’s a lot neater than I thought it would be. Ticket prices are a big problem, especially for away supporters. I thought the banner might get the issue a bit of publicity.”
The banner that was banned from the Emirates at Richard Taylor’s home before the match –
photograph Richard Taylor
So 10 minutes before kick-off, he unfurled his handiwork.
“We’d only had it up a few seconds when a steward came over. He said we’ve been instructed by our bosses to take it away. Actually, he said ‘I agree with what you are saying’, but I’ve been told I’ve got to take it away’. I told him he had no right to take it off me, that it was peaceful protest, and there’s nothing offensive about the banner. He said ‘Don’t make my work harder for me because then I’ll have to get the police involved’.”
Reinforcements soon arrived in the form of the Metropolitan police. A couple of officers hurdled empty chairs Sweeney-style to reach the refuseniks. “They came over quite aggressive actually, jumping over the seats to get to us. Two came over to me and two stood at the end of the aisle. They demanded Taylor hand over the banner or be arrested. “Well I wasn’t going to walk out and miss the match. I’d paid £62 for it, so I gave the banner to them. We tried to argue about it, but it wasn’t worth getting kicked out when we’d paid £62.”
Did they say what they would arrest him for? “No.”
By now the whole away end were singing “£62 and we’re not here” [an adaptation of an old Manchester City chant].
This is by no means the first time peaceful protest and freedom of expression have been issues at football matches. In 2010, Manchester United fans said that they had been over-policed after unfurling banners protesting against the club-owners, the Glazer family. In 2008 anti-censorship campaigners (including Index on Censorship) complained after there was talk of banning Glasgow Rangers supporters from taunting Celtic fans with a song about the Irish famine (“’From Ireland they came, brought us nothing but trouble and shame’.) In 1998, Swindon Town chairman Rikki Hunt threeatened to ban fans for life after they had staged a sit-down protest following a 4-1 defeat and chanted for the sacking of their manager.
I asked Arsenal if they felt a football match at the Emirates was an inappropriate venue for protest and whether they did not believe in freedom of expression. The spokesman laughed and pointed out Arsenal’s admirable record on inclusion (they were the first club to be awarded anti-racism campaign Kick It Out‘s Advanced level of the Quality standard). “Of course we encourage freedom of expression, but in this case the banner was just too big. It impeded the views of supporters and was a health and safety issue.” What would Taylor have been arrested for? “Breach of the peace.”
So I mentioned another incident that happened just after Taylor’s banner was removed — police approached a man in the crowd wearing a felt-tip scribbled T-shirt. This time there were around a dozen officers.The police asked him to remove his T-shirt, and eventually he did.
I asked Arsenal if this was also a visibility/health and safety issue. The club said it had no record of this encounter, but asked what the fan had written on his T-shirt. “You can stick your £62 up your arse,” I said.
“Ah well, that’s just offensive isn’t it?” said the spokesman. “It’s nothing to do with the views expressed, just the language.”
At the end of the match, Richard Taylor retrieved his banner — the police had left it with the stewards for him to reclaim. Although he was “disgusted” by the club’s reaction to the banner, he believes it has only served to publicise his cause.
He mentioned model football clubs such as Borussia Dortmund, where he travelled to early in the season in the Champions League. “Our tickets were £24, and we had free travel on the day” For Taylor his campaign has now become two-pronged — not only is he fighting football clubs that charge excessive prices, he is also campaigning against those whom he believes are prohibiting the democratic right to peaceful protest.
Simon Hattenstone is a feature writer for the Guardian and a Manchester City supporter. He tweets at @shattenstone
