Flamengo & Gerson: Immediate Action on Brazil Return

Both Flamengo and Gerson do not speak about the matter publicly because the process is under judicial secrecy and the contract is confidential.

Through their advisors, two lawyers gave their opinion on the case:

Mauricio Corrêa da Veiga, partner at Corrêa da Veiga Advogados, specialist in entertainment law

“Every contract generates rights and duties for both parties. Flamengo’s charge is valid, but must follow the rules of the General Sports Law. The image contract is unrelated to the employment contract and has a civil nature, as provided for in the legislation. Furthermore, the law limits remuneration per image to 50% of the athlete’s total income, so any amount charged by the club must respect this ceiling.”

Gabriel Caputo Bastos, lawyer specializing in Sports Law,

“The controversy requires separating two legal relationships: (i) the labor-sports relationship, arising from the Special Sports Employment Contract (CETD) signed between Gerson and Flamengo; and (ii) the civil relationship, arising from the image contract signed between the athlete, FGM Sports and the club. The General Sports Law, in art. through a contract of a civil nature, with rights and duties unmistakable with the CETD. Based on this premise, in theory, two compensations can coexist, precisely because they have different objects and triggering events: one linked to the early termination of the employment contract on the athlete’s initiative and the other linked to the early termination of the image contract, which, according to the news, is the basis for charges against the athlete and the legal entity that exploits their image rights.”