Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 64 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.64 June 2013 |

Olympic Sport in Brazil: the Institutionalisation of Power through Law

Bárbara Schausteck de Almeida & Wanderley Marchi Júnior

Abstract

In this paper, we review the articles from Brazilian law 9,615 of 1998, known as Pelé Law, where there is mention of the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) related to sport management in the country. Data collection was based on pieces of this law, in which BOC was cited, to make a qualitative analysis. Through this process, we noted that this Brazilian law institutionalises the dominant position of BOC in the Brazilian sportive field, when it puts BOC as the first entity of management and with priority to receive public funds. This result evidences the long-term power of this institution in Brazil, which helps to understand the public support for the successful bid for the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Key words: Olympic, Sport, Law, Brazil.

Introduction

The creation of sport governing bodies in the mid- to late years of the nineteenth century covered a very specific necessity of that time: to somehow organise an activity of social interest and benefit (Anderson, 2012). Their roles intended to be specialised into specific sports to act in coordination, dispute resolution and policy formulation (Hargreaves, 1986). The bureaucratic organisation, specialisation and rationalisation in which these governing bodies were born are distinctive characters of modern sport (Guttmann, 2004). Not occasionally, modern sport and its institutions were created under the influence of other major processes (Horne, Tomlinson & Whannel, 1999) with a similar aspect to some of the logics applied by the capitalist industry, as described by Weber (1978).

Although some aspects are still similar after more than a century of development, the social and economic relevance of sport grew and its management was no longer as autonomous as many institutions would like to be (Anderson, 2012). Modern forms of States, governments and policies more or less interfere with how sport is organised and managed. This interference is relatively bigger when we consider sport mega-events, as their current proportions affect many other social areas and cannot be conceived without the support of public funding and governance (Roche 2000; Horne & Manzenreiter, 2006). This became a forward issue in Brazil, as the country will host two mega-events in a short period of time: the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

For the present text, we focus on the Olympic debate to discuss the power of the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) as a governing body that manages Olympic sport in Brazil. Our goal is to understand how Brazilian law considers this entity and its role in the national sporting field. Through this analysis, we show how the BOC power is institutionalised, which is a form of turning power from symbolic into material or substantive by a recognised certification (Bourdieu, 2007), or how it is legitimised in a national territory by law. But more than just an exigency of the IOC, the Brazilian case has been legitimating a broader power to its Olympic Committee for a long time and for this reason, diminishes the power of other forms of sport.

Sports in Brazil and the Pelé Law

Sport became part of the Brazilian Constitution in 1988, after members of the sporting sectors had political entrance to include and contribute to the Constitutional text in one of its articles (Veronez, 2005). This first initiative, still in force, has a broad regulation establishing that it is the duty of the State to promote sport as a right of each Brazilian. This article also sets that: sport institutions have autonomy in their organisation and management; educational sport has priority to receive public funding and elite sport should only in “specific cases”; professional and amateur sport should receive different treatment; sports of national creation should be protected and supported; and the sport justice is the main organ responsible for managing issues related to discipline and sports competition (Brasil, 1988).

After this constitutional insertion, several other more specific laws were approved to regulate certain subfields sports. Among these laws, a regulatory mark in force was the Law No. 9,615 of March 24, 1998. Because this law was approved during the period when the former football player Edson Arantes do Nascimento (Pelé) was the Extraordinary Minister of Sport, it is called “Pelé law”. Aiming to “establish general rules about sports and make other arrangements”, this law came to replace the Law No. 8,672/1993, known as “Zico Law”, when another former football player, in this case Arthur Antunes Coimbra, was Secretary in charge of sport. Although the Pelé Law proposes to replace the Zico Law, Veronez (2005, p. 305) calls our attention to a few changes arising:

‘If you observe carefully the two laws that propose to modernise the sport in Brazil, we see that 30 items are exactly alike or with minor differences, 13 are similar, but their transcription is different; 12 are substantially different; 18 received modifications by Federal Chamber in relation to the original design.’

Thus, the more recent text is divided into 11 chapters and standardises sports practice in its principles, nature, purpose, organisation, jurisdiction, funding, operation of bingo, among other general provisions. In this sense, the Pele Law regulates the 1988 Federal Constitution when it comes to sport.

The first relevant mention of the BOC is given in Chapter 4 “The Brazilian system of sport”, section 4 “The National Sport System”. When article 13 appoints and orders which governing bodies are responsible for the administration of sport in the country, it puts the BOC first on the list, followed respectively by the Brazilian Paralympic Committee, national and regional administration of the sport, national and regional leagues and other sports entities, affiliated or not to those aforementioned.

In the following Articles 14 and 15 of this section, the text continues to place a high degree of importance to the entity within the national sports system and also ensures the right to defense and the use of “Olympic properties”:

> > > > ‘Article 14. The Brazilian Olympic Committee and the CPOB-Brazilian Paralympic Committee, and the national administration of the sport which are their affiliated or linked, constitute specific subsystem of the National Sport, to which it will apply the priority under section II of the Federal Constitution’s article 217. This appliance is only possible if their statutes comply fully with the Federal Constitution and other country’s laws in force.
> > > > Article 15. The Brazilian Olympic Committee, BOC, legal entity of private law, has the responsibility to represent the country in the Olympic events, Pan American and others of similar nature, in the International Olympic Committee and in the International Olympic movement. It also has the responsibility to promote the Olympic movement in the country, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, as well as with the statutes and regulations of the International Olympic Committee and the Olympic Charter.
> > > > § 1 The Brazilian Olympic Committee-BOC represents Brazilian Olympism in the Brazilian government.
> > > > § 2 It is privative to the Brazilian Olympic Committee - BOC and the Brazilian Paralympic Committee - CPOB the use of Olympic and Paralympic flags, slogans, symbols and hymns, as well as the names “Olympic Games”, “Olympics”, “Paralympic Games” and “Paralympics”, allowed the use of the latter in the case of events linked to sport education and participation. (Amended by Law No. 9,981 of 2000)
> > > > § 3 To the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) the rights and benefits conferred by law to the national administration of the sport are granted.
> > > > § 4 The use and register, for any purpose, of signals that integrates or contain the Olympic symbol, the anthem and the Olympic motto are forbidden, except with the authorisation of the Brazilian Olympic Committee-BOC.
> > > > § 5 It applies to the Brazilian Paralympic Committee, as applicable, the provisions of this article.’ (BRAZIL, 1998)

In Article 14, with the reference to paragraph II of Article 217 of the Federal Constitution, we must remember that this item describes the issue of how funding of sport is treated (Brasil, 1988). Being the BOC an entity comprising the “specific subsystem of the National Sport”, placed first in the list as seen in Article 13, that we can interpret this law, and specifically this article as putting the BOC as priority in the receipt of public funds.

Article 15 delegates responsibility to the BOC in relation to the Olympic movement in the country. The prerogatives of this article are consistent with the Olympic Charter, ensuring state protection for the use of Olympic symbols. This preserves the authority and right to use the valuable Olympic brand to the BOC, and consequently the IOC.

Still dealing with the great power that the BOC has, Article 18 states the following:

> > > ‘Only will benefit from tax exemptions and transfer of resources from the federal government under item II of article 217 of the Federal Constitution directly and indirectly, those entities of the National Sports that:

> > > > > I - have autonomy and financial viability;
> > > > > II - present favorable opinion of the Brazilian Olympic Committee-BOC or Brazilian Paralympic Committee-CPOB, when their affiliates or related;
> > > > > III - meet other requirements established by law;
> > > > > IV - are in good standing with their tax obligations and labor.'(Brasil, 1998)

Regarding this item, it is important to consider that the power delegated to the BOC allows control over the other confederations, since they are linked and affiliated entities, about whether or not to show positive benefits of tax exemption and the receiving of public funds.

Accordingly, we reflect, for example, on maintaining leadership positions in the BOC. Even if elections take place with the participation of the Presidents of sport confederations, Article 18 of this law strengthens the dependence of affiliated entities and the power of the BOC, which is represented by its President who has remained in office since 1995, and will continue to do so until 2016. Thus, the opportunity of perpetuation in office and maintenance of positions in the dominant and dominated the subfield of the Brazilian Olympic sports are reinforced by the legislation itself.

Final Considerations

Due to the fact that the entity represents an institution like the IOC in Brazil, the BOC has some safeguards and protections by the Constitution of 1988, mainly under Item I which guarantees the autonomy of sports bodies, and several articles of the Pelé (Law No. 9.615/1998), which often assist in the maintenance of dominated and dominant positions in the Brazilian sports field.

When reviewing these points, we see that the BOC is guaranteed a position in the administration of sports in the country, ahead of the CPOB, and other entities at the national or regional level. This prominence is given with respect to the “National Sports System”, which is assumed “to promote and enhance sports activities income” (Brasil, 1998). Not any other public entity, institution or office was placed in such a privileged position in national sports administration. This situation helps to the exclusivity of promoting sports that are present in the Olympic Games, maintaining and even enhancing the power of the BOC. Interestingly, in the context of adoption of this law, the Ministry of Sport did not exist in the format that it has since 2003. Even after its creation, other articles of law were changed, yet there was no inclusion of any federal entity to administer the sports income.

In this article, we see that BOC and CPOB are placed as priority entities for receiving public funds in cases prescribed by paragraph II of Article 217 of the 1988 Federal Constitution. Indeed, Article 18 also guarantees that tax exemption and the transfer of funds will be given to institutions that comprise the National Sports System (ie, entities of elite sport) and, among other criteria, only after receiving the favorable manifestation of BOC/ CPOB, when affiliated. Again, we reinforce that this item can aid in the perpetuation in power of the heads of these two institutions, which are elected by affiliated entities. Signs of resistance to this maintenance may suffer financial penalties, allowed by law itself. The other permissions to promote and use the Olympic properties comprise the State “counterpart” to have a National Olympic Committee according to the IOC regulations. Then, it ensures protection for the use of Olympic symbols, the valuable brands that should be under the control of the BOC, and consequently, the IOC.

The support of BOC’s projects, such as the 2007 Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro and the successful bid for the 2016 Olympic Games were supported by the Brazilian government and compromised the majority of sport federal funds (Almeida et al, 2012). Considering the importance of the Olympic Games in national policies (Green, 2007, Grix & Carmichael, 2012), Brazilian scholars raised their worries on how hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup and 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games can affect not only sport public funding, but also Physical Education practices and the variety of sporting opportunities for youth (Betti, 2009; Mascarenhas, 2012; Mattos, 2009; Ouriques, 2009). From these aspects, we can see that not only is the BOC symbolic dominant position in the Brazilian sports field to be maintained, but it will also be improved for the coming years with questionable profits for the non-Olympic and elite sports.

References

1. .Almeida, B.S., Coakley, J., Marchi Júnior, W. & Starepravo, F. (2012). Federal government funding and sport: the case of Brazil, 2004–2009. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4 (3): 411-426.

2. Anderson, J. (2012). Sports Law in an Olympic Year: Citius, Altius, Fortius? Legal Information Management 12 (2): 72–80.

3. Betti, M. (2009). Copa do mundo e jogos olímpicos: inversionalidade e transversalidades na cultura esportiva e na Educação Física escolar. Motrivivência, 21 (32-33): 16-27.

4. Brasil (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília: Senado Federal.

5. Bourdieu, P. (2007). Os três estados do capital cultural. In: M.A .Nogueira & A. Catani. Escritos de Educação. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
   Filho, A and Berzoini, R. (1998). Lei nº 9.615 de 24 de março de 1998. Institui normas gerais sobre desporto e dá outras providências. Brasília: Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil.

6. Filho, A and Berzoini, R. (1998). Lei nº 9.615 de 24 de março de 1998. Institui normas gerais sobre desporto e dá outras providências. Brasília: Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil.

7. Green, M. (2007). Olympic glory or grassroots development? Sport policy priorities in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, 1960–2006. The international journal of the history of sport, 24 (7): 921–953.

8. Grix, J. & Carmichael, F. (2012). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International journal of sport policy and politics, 4 (1): 73–90.

9. Hargreaves, J. (1986). Sport, Power and Culture: a social and historical analysis of popular sports in Britain. Cambridge: Polity Press.

10. Horne, J. & Manzenreiter, W. (2006). Sports mega-events: social scientific analyses of a global phenomenon. Oxford: Blackwell.

11. Horne, J., Tomlinson, A. & Whannel, G. (1999) Understanding Sport: an introduction to the Sociological and Cultural analysis of sport. London: E&FN SPON.

12. Mascarenhas, F. (2012). Megaeventos esportivos e Educação Física: alerta de tsunami. Movimento, 18 (1): 39-67.

13. Mattos, R. S. (2009). Conteúdos da Educação Física no Período Pré-Olimpíada de 2016: avanço? Motrivivência, 20 (31), 301-318.

14. Ouriques, N. (2009). Olimpíada 2016 - o desenvolvimento do subdesenvolvimento Motrivivência, 21 (32-33), 126-155.

15. Roche, M. (2000). Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge.

16. Veronez, L.F.C. (2005). Quando o Estado joga a favor do privado: As políticas de esporte após a Constituição Federal de 1988. PhD Dissertation in Physical Education. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

17. Weber, M. (1978) The Origins of Industrial Capitalism in Europe. In: W Grunciman. Max Weber: selections in translation. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 331-340.

Acknowledgements:
This research was developed while the two authors were receiving scholarship from the CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil -- Processes n. 9443/12-6 and n. 1105/11-6, respectively.

Contact

Bárbara Schausteck de Almeida
PhD Student
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Brazil
Email: barbara.edf@ufpr.br

Dr. Wanderley March Júnior
Lecturer
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Brazil
Email: wmarchijr@gmail.com

http://www.icsspe.org/