Talk:Campeonato Brasileiro Série A/Archive 1

Overcoming partiality

It's probable that we will be facing a stalemate here, as it is likely that FIFa won't correct shortly its World club championship page since it probably judge this issue petty and not worth any disclaimer. On the other hand we will continue facing some irrational argumentation that this FIFA page is indirectly a wouldbe recognition, and these ones are not likely to be convinced.

I see actually a bigger issue: the very title of this article. If we really mean Série A because this is the current name of the Brazilian premiership, we have a problem: it just applies to last editions of the tournament as we shouldn't even consider tournamentents say prior to the "pontos corridos" era.

If we loosen the definition to include the premierships of all "campeonatos brasileiros". we have to define "campeonato brasileiro". We all know that it has had many namings and that it can even include cups not organized by CBF but backee by it. One thing should be sure: "campeonato brasileiro" cannot be directly br translated in English into "Brazilian championship". Because the latter is much broader as it conveys international opinion which is often rough and would indeed leave room to include taça de prata, robertão and even cup união, as attested by the naive fifa site page.

So my point is that there can be only one definition to the "Campeonato Brasilieiro" label: the one listed by CBF in its official page.

If anyone disagrees, I would then propose as a backup solution that we: a) either change the name of the article from "Camp. Bras. Série A" to "Brazilian championship". In this case I would add the taça de prata from Santos (as "recognized" by FIFA) and of course Robertão (as obviously an in-between) and also in this case the Copa União as a Brazilian championship (from a separate league). This would match the international, uneducated understanding about Brazil viewed, say, from Switzerland. So indeed Santos and Palmeiras would be the biggest winners in Breazilian championships. The "advantage" wo butuld be that this would match FIFA world club page statistics,as some seem to support with no clear faith. But it would seriously challenge the credibility of this article. b) and/or we maintain "Série A" and skip all the tournaments prior to 2003, when Série A began (the name Série A taken from the Italian league obviously implying an European-oriented type of tournament, which is exactly what the "pontos corridos" system means).

I don't appreciate any of these two last solutions but that's what's needed to be consistent. So again my point is: let's stick to the oficial CBF list without exceptions (with at maximum some short footnotes linking to other pages where the polemics can strive). 200.199.23.121 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a vote? I vote for sticking to the CBF definition of Campeonato Brasileiro. Concerning the name, I think that Serie A tournaments can be in the same article with the previous editions of the tournament. In my opinion, the fact that it has changed names or changed "formulae" is irrelevant here, since it has always (since 1971) been organised (or backed, as in the case of João Havelange) by the CBF as the premier division of Brazilian football. In comparison, the wikipages for UEFA Champions League and the Premiership include previous editions in which the formula and/or the name were different. Please let's not consider adding Taça de Prata or Robertão, or else we might lose the focus here and I don't know where it could lead us - perhaps to arguing about who was the Brazilian champion in 1902. Of course the Copa União issue is much more controversial, but I don´t see why turning thisen page upside down would help solve it. Lomibz 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, somehow yes. It is actually a vote about which of the three ways of making this page with consistency and trying to overcome partiality. People must be aware that claiming their "Brazilian championship" title implies also recognizing other claims and views and mean indeed turning this page upside down. Consistency here is of essence. I'm waiting a bit for some more feedback from others before I rectify. 200.199.23.121 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping the article with its current name (Campeonato Brasileiro Série A), and listing only champions from 1971 onwards. Carioca 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. I understand that putting the issue in perspective and showing the consequences in consistency has helped overcome the partiality, hopefully. I'l propose to remove the NPOV message while maintaing thus only the official CBF list from 71 onwards, as per their site. I'll thus ask anybody trying to revert this in the future to get here to discuss (with sound new arguments) before any change, otherwise it could be considered as vandalism, as we shouldn't be starting this all over again. 200.199.23.121 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Flamengo titles

FIFA reconheced 5 Brazilian Championship of Flamengo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.196.29.56 (talk • contribs) . [1]

You are correct. Carioca 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please guys, do not start his over again, leave it to the portuguese version for this ridiculous discussion with brazilian-style rethorics. FIFA does NOT recognize Flamengo's title and is NOT entitled to recognize it anyway. Don't leverage on a side page hidden inside fifa's site about world club championships written probably by a Swiss guy that barely knows which is the capital of Brazil, as 99,9% of Europeans. This has never been an official list while we all know the official list from CBF. Don't you feel silly about saying "CBF recognizes and FIFA doesn't"?? This FIFA page link is NOT a reliable and official source, if at least it was from their very World league page (which actually links of course to cbf's site). Please correct this.200.199.23.121 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add on top that the article footnote explaining Flamengo's "case" is very badly written and completely unobjective, or simply plain wrong: you cannot say that fifa recognizes sport AND flamengo because it does not mention sport ! And there is no "recognition". And, no, there is no one single "official" publications that recognizes flamengo. Placar and Mr Kfouri aare not official. Far from everybody recognizes flamengo as the winner but then as flamenguistas (as evidently you are) often say "flamengo is brazil", then of course we end up in a tautology. You are eating your own tail. And anyway this is not an argument. I prefer you could correct ourselves this before we end up making corrections and reversions or maybe we would need to appeal to moderators. Be reasonable and just consider how ridiculous is to mention that CBF and conmebol disagree with fifa when there is not one proof of that except your imagination on a typo in fifa site or that cnd and club dos 13 has any power on deciding who is brazilian champion, etc... 200.199.23.121 19:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some POV sentences and tried to make the article reflect how controversial the matter still is. I had previously removed the alleged FIFA recognition of Flamengo's title, but since it was included again I just added that it may not have been construed as official information. Hope this helps.

No lesfer (guess it´s you) you´re not helping. You shouldn´t remove "POV" sentences because you decided and which are not. It´s better to discuss and leave a post before here. Do you dispute that Botafogo and Coritiba were meant for relegation in 87 ? Why does this embarass you ? I´ve com to assume you see that this might " challenge" your pitch on 87 Flamengo claim but in fact it is completely independent. It´s a fact that there were 28 clubs (or 26 , granted , have to check) meant to be be in 87 premiership and anyway Bota (35th) and Coritiba (beyond 60th) were in any means meant for relegation whatever the format. If nobody replies sensibly i propose to revert back. And don´t try to smart out with your " trying to show the controversy" by putting the official version to a partisan one on the same level.201.32.149.14 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised actually that Carioca as changed his mind as I'd noted before he would not fall in the trap despite being an open Flamengo fan. No comments on the other guy that barely wites any word of English ("reconheced"??) and is clearly a diruptive fan. Did Carioca change really his mind bcause of this Fifa page mention ? I'm always surprised how Brazilians can misjudge Europeans and believe they really know anything about their country. BTW, if that's true than Santos has won seven times the championship. I would propose actually that if no sensible argument is given we get back to the official CBF title list as per their site. There is no way that Wiki should be a place of any unofficial "arrangement". Flamengo and Sport cannot be judged both champions. Now if Flamengo fans want to do a separate page about Copa União, no problem. But again, I'm disappoint at the irrationality of some believing there is a major "rift" between CBF and FIFA about this 87 title. CBF rules in Brazil, period. FIFA will never recognize a Brazilian title by itself. Actually I feel silly just to write this. How can you guys seriously mean what you write ? Mpbb 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As the Copa União is not recognized by CBF, and CBF is the only official source, it is better then to return to the CBF table. --Carioca 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear this from you. Your link seems broken, probably a temporary old one. I guess the site is now [2].Will make the mod and hope to have your support as there seems some vandals around...

Official?

Please tell me what official publication has recognized Flamengo's title? It just makes no sense, and looks like vandalism to me unless properly sourced. Lomibz 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is not vandalism, but it is unsourced and needs to be removed. --Carioca 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that I have rephrased it a few times, but whenever I come back to the article it has been reverted. It must be pointed out that there's nothing official upholding Flamengo's claims except that FIFA article, which can arguably be a typo. Lomibz 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, guys. Please let´s not turn the english wiki the mess the brazilian one has become, at least on this subject. It is really becoming borderline vandalism. It is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is not up to us to prove that Fifa has recognized, especially when there is a national championship page on the fifa site which directs to cbf site. Now, THAT´s official ;-). I don´t know how to settle this, should we appeal to a super admin for once ? I have no doubt that anglo-saxon legalism will prevail 201.32.149.14 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty neutral now. Or do you think I should mention the whole mess about the final match between Sport and Guarani? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's still mention of "official" publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomibz (talk • contribs)

Well, I don think it is neutral in any way to put Flamengo as champion in the table itself, as if it were on par with Sport. This is even worsened as the main title is champions of " Série A" , a recent title which refers essentially to CBF ( that's how the CBF offical site page is calles cbfnews.uol.com.br/seriea). At best you should mention "Brazilian-level or national level champions" if you want to have a blanket word (and in this case you indeed would have to add taça brasil and taça de prata championships as well)

I actually think it is only fair to mention Sport AND add a footnote that this is challenged by many (rather some) and then you could use all the footnote wording (but preferably it would be better to refer to anther wiki page on that). Unfortunately I have to tell that you seem very passionated in your words usage, because I don't know the " mess" around the "modulo amarelo" final (if you mean the penalty kicks I guess) which just showed how everybody knew this was not the final one, as should have been the same for Fla vs Inter, had not the press and the supporters made it up as the true final, as everybody knew the rules. I for mine remember very well to be outraged by this disrespect of the rules by the big 12 as another demonstration of Brazilian authoritarism and elitism . Time anyway proved that it was not CBF's fault if the Big 12 were in shambles by then, if Bangu, Coritiba, Brasil Pelotas, Guarani, América-RJ, Bahia were ruling then and how they would do everything not to get Botafogo, Fluminense and Grêmio relegated with typical gangster attitudes . Unfortunately this was symptomatic of Brazil of then (and still today) where under the cover of " renewal" you only get more of the same. So the whole pitch about how this was a reaction to evil CBF is bogus. And also, please remind (as I guess it was a typo from you ) that the match with penalty kick issue was not the final one, just the modulo amarelo final. So you see, there is plenty to argue about but you cannot put this at any near-official title. Please let at least here respect law. Wiki is not about what " should" but about what "is". And this is the english Wiki not the Brazilian one. I mean, this one is serious. 201.32.182.11 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it a lie? Several newspapers, sports magazines and television networks do consider Flamengo as the 1987 national champion. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but those sources are not official publications (as they are not from CBF). Maybe we should remove the word "official" and put something else, like "mass media publications" or "Flamengo is widely regarded by the media as the 1987 champion", or something like that. What do you think? --Carioca 04:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lesfer, you know that Flamengo is massively popular, accounts for more than 20% of the overall population, that the SP press couldn't care less about a final between their gaucho and carioca rivals, etc... Yes there were 95.000 peoples at the Maracanã that day, the semis and finals were great matches though Flamengo should never have played them as Atlético won both turnos, probably Fla would have beaten Sport and Guarani, probably Grêmio and Vasco would have done the same if it were up for them, etc... but that's not a proof, or an argument. 100 wrongs doesn't make a right. 100 reasons won't make Fla officialy the champion ever again. The Big 12 tried a coup and they lost. Sorry.

Can't you hear still today claims that Sâo Caetano, shouldn't be in first division bacause it can't pack more than 1000 people in average ? That's about the same attitude. Of course the main vested people are Fla and other Rio teams who suffer to avoid relegation every year now. If you apply this reasoning Fla should only play a championship of its own against its B team, as public attendance is any decisive fator to any title (well, in 74 you had indeed some teams qualifying on public attendance criteria...) Now let's count: there is only two newspapers that tell that (gazeta esportiva and lance) known to please their main audience as anywhere on the palnet, there is only one soccer magazine, always very anti-cbf especially at that time (led by Mr Kfouri) and there are two main sport commentators (Kfouri agian) and M. Neves (who actually support the official view, but you also may have to discard as he is declaredly anti-Rio, whatever the club). That's it. The rest are supporters and partisans. Globo officially corrected under pressure of CBF the other day one announcement that Flamengo was penta by one of their journalists. So yes it is simple: a majority of Brazilians consider Flamengo is penta because they a majority of Brazilians are Flamengo fans. So please assume a first-world attitude and admit 20% is not an absolute majority. Don't ape French Le Pen's attitude (yes it's far fetched but very similar in form), please. 201.32.182.11 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have e-mailed FIFA requesting that they correct their Flamengo article. Hope that will put this silly argument to an end.

Sure, I'm just afraid (actually almost sure) that you will get no response whatsoever, exactly for the very same reasons I've exposed above. Europeans can't care less about Southam championships except Blatter himself, and anyway they won't move a finger about something which is obviously not official to any European (or organized) mind. Even I guess if CBF asked for that they wouldn't probably take it too seriously, it's just too silly. They would just say. " don't bother, look at the national league page, that's what matters, we linked to CBF". They simply will be sincerely unable to get it, unless there is a guy who knows Brazil (and he's probably rubro-negro ;-). Let's write to Blatter ( though knowing his demagogic twists he could indeed deny CBF) ! 201.32.154.76 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What a neutral text... I won't take part in this joke. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lesfer, don't be ironic and please discuss point by point. I indeed consider this text much more neutral, though as I've mentioned real neutrality would mean not mentioning copa união at all inside the table but just in a footnote. I personally think mentioning copa união already a big concession, but definitely it is not campeonato brasileiro (observe that the mention Copa união does not exist in cbf list while copa havelange is reminded). Actually most of the issues in this article come from the very definition, ie, what means campeonato brasileiro. Série A is awfully incorrect, as very recent terminology. Campeonato brasileiro is vague, as it had many denominations (taça de ouro, série a itself, etc...) and could indeed encompass taça brasil if ones includes copa união, as it would just be an umbrella for any nation-wide tournament. Again the only safe criteria is cbf official list, which basically means campeonato brasileiro (including 2000). And again, definitely you cannot assume this marginal fifa page as a recognition, why is it so difficult for you to understand/accept this ? The default attitude is to assume nothing is new and get confirmation, not the opposite. 201.32.171.240 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The information in Fifa site is correct.

The titles listage of fifa related 5 titles, but the CBF have pressioned the organization, and it retired. But, the STJD of Brazil and "Clube dos 13" , with organized the competition of 1987, were of side of Flamengo, and the fifa put again the information in SITE and recongzinged the two clubs.

200.196.29.56 00:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not considering your point of view because a) your argumentation has not logic whatsoever and has no ground, just a juxtaposition of sentences b) worse, as before, you don't have any clue about expressing yourself in English and getting a decent argumentation. I would recommend thus that you concentrate your efforts on the Brazilian wiki and not the English one. 201.32.143.20 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Flamengo Pentacampeão

This is a consensus in Brazil the club has FIVE Brasileirão titles.

No, it´s not. And even if it were almost a consensual matter (as arguably there can be no absolute consensus on anything), it would not change the championship official status. Lomibz 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is blantant pov pushing all press in Brazil recognizes that, and ever confederations both carioca and CBF. http://flamengo.globo.com/historia/fla_historia.html

OFFICIAL CLUB STATEMENT: Campeonato Brasileiro (5): 1980 1982 1983 1987 1992 http://flamengo.globo.com/titulos/fla_titulos.html

I think this is absurd.. this article say only 4 champions is creating a pseudo-truth indulging people recognizes a fact that is wrong and consensually wrong in Brazil. --Raça Rubro Negra 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept that most of the press consider Flamengo to have been the champions, but truth is that it is not the press who organize the championship nor are the press who grants the title. As to Flamengo claiming the title is theirs, they are entitled to such a claim, which does not change CBF's official position. Lomibz 04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ths has been extensively discussed on the top of this page and we are not start this over again. This time if things go on I understand we have a case for vandalism,as there was a consensus achieved and argued above. Please go to the brazilian wiki if you want to creat bagunça. 200.199.23.121 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop disrupting Wikipedia, there is no consensus against a fact with sources and officially recognized. --201.79.27.9 12:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CBF is the only official source (so, it is the only relevant source), and, according to that organization, unfortunately, Flamengo won the competition only four times. I hope one day CBF will recognize the Copa União title. --Carioca 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you state where CBF recognize "only4 titles"? --Raça Rubro Negra 13:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Visit the CBF official website here, and click in the word Campeões. You will see this page, listing all the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A champions. As you can see, in 1987, the only champion was Sport Recife. So, Flamengo, according to CBF, won the competition only four times. --Carioca 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Flamengo claims they are 5 times champion. Wikipedia Portuguese agree with that. --Ragnarok Addict 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There has never been any consensus because most people see that, eventhough the Campeonato Brasileiro of that year was a joke since all the big teams were gone, it was indeed a Campeonatio Brasileiro. The championship the Clube dos 13 held has never been recognized by anyone and therefor cannot be seen as an actual national title. If you want that fifth national title, write it in the article of the clube dos 13 and not in the Campeonato Brasileiro one. Flamengo has just as many national titles as Vasco, Coritinhians, Palmeiras and São Paulo. Face it. The very least you could and should do is mention Sport and official championship.Kevinklop 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

There has been a revert war in the latest days concerning the 1987 editions. Have we not reached an agreement about that? Lomibz 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a consensus was reached. The consensus was to follow what CBF established. --Carioca 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The revert war is back; I think this article should be locked for good. Flamengo did not win the official Série A 5 times, and so, it has only 4 titles. Shiggy 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Flamengo is the 1987 Champion.

File:Mengopenta4ps.jpg

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZMlBv3EZo

• http://placar.abril.com.br/novo/premiacao_boladeprata.shtml

• http://img73.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mengopenta4ps.jpg

• http://www.bolanaarea.com/foto_1987.jpg

• http://livrariabeni.neomarkets.com.br/images/0121.jpg

Express yourseld in English or go play in Brazilian Wiki. Placar or even panini figures are no proof whatsoever. Please bring new arguments, not ones already fully dismissed. Read previous discussions and know that Placar is NOT an oficial source and actually played an important role in the scission against CBF. All this is self-vested rethoric. And almost sure you even weren't born (at least deducing from your mental age guessing) so don't invent out of the blue.

And do you want the link on youtube from the same Globo of two months ago explicitly recognizing Sport as champions ? I won't give because Globo either isn't any proof so I'll not embark in your "logic". But bottom line, first requirement: discuss in English or you can't have anything acknowledged. If you don't know how to, you have the Brazilian wiki to troll around... 21JuL74 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Actually I' l propose to delete your contribution if other agrees as this out of place in Portuguese. Will wait for feedback before doing it. YOur arguments are wellcome if NEW and in the appropriate language 21JuL74 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling. The sourced were added into the original article in ENGLISH. Do not corrupt Wikipedia blanking SOURCED MATERIAL. --Ragnarok Addict 13:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your childish trick don't fool anyone except yourself. At least you can write a few words in English so do it. What original article are you talking about ? Don't invent. Please read prevous discussion here. 100 documents from Placar won't make it a proof. It has been widely acknowledged that Placar anyway not official and not a SOURCE. Please understand what this means, in the same way the official website of Flamengo is also not a SOURCE. If you "contribution" above is not translated it will be deleted. People have to able to understand your "arguments". BTW, here is the link from Globo, as you insist. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xLDpSXXGzpI. Now this is a "source"from Brazilian media, a very recent one actually. 200.199.23.121 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling youre violating Wikipedia:Civility - Wikipedia is not a battleground and reliable sources was provided with video, magazines covers and Flamengo website according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. BTW who is made vandalism here is you blanking sourced material and if you continue doing this, your vandalism should be reverted. --Ragnarok Addict 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no more discussing with you and you are right this is not a battleground, I see that you learn from others how to express yourself (guess because of your poor english). We've called you to discuss and you bring no new arguments. You'll be asked to be blocked. You are actually lying as no material has been blanked, But it will now as far your portuguese language is concerned. Stop inverting everything (I guess you take pleasure form that), you are the uncivil, troll and vandal. Again, this was already discussed al nd are not OFFICIAL sources and this was the point all the time. Noone ever denied some press like Placar and of course Flamengo website as claiming its 5 titles. You just ridicule yourself (thanks) by mentioning that Flamnego website is a source Talk about selfvested! 21JuL74 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside trolling and personal attacks, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability the magazine and most important: an historic issue is a reliable source. The fact the team officialy recognize should strong be considered because is officiastatement of an involved party. --Ragnarok Addict 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that, judging by the point of view that there is not a single drop of neutrality in the club's website? Shiggy 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Current protection of the article

21JuL74 asked me to restore to a previous version of the article before it was protected, stating that Ragnarok Addict's last edit where it is currently locked was against consensus established on this talk page. I don't really want to go through all the discussions above so I ask the editors involved to please either endorse 21JuL74's last edit or Ragnarok Addict's last edit. If there is consensus endorsing 21JuL74's last edit then I shall unprotect the article, revert to his/her version and Ragnarok Addict is not to persist editing the article unilaterally. If there is consensus endorsing Ragnarok Addict's last edit, or no consensus at all, then the article shall remain protected. Endorse below.--Húsönd 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is currently protected against the established consensus. The consensus is 21JuL74's version. So, I endorse 21JuL74's last edit. Regards, --Carioca 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see endorsment of 21JuL74'sabove as before. I support 21JuL74's version.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, because my edits has reliable sources, perfect in agreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability and users who disagree should provide sources that contests my sources. --Ragnarok Addict 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Brazilian Football Confederation website clearly states that the only 1987 Campeonato Brasileiro champion was Sport Recife, check the link. The Brazilian Football Confederation organizes the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Also, if Flamengo is the 1987 Campeonato Brasileiro champion, why the club did not dispute the 1988 Copa Libertadores de América (check the link)? Sport Recife disputed the competition, but not Flamengo (check the Group 5 in the 1988 Libertadores link). The only official source is the Brazilian Football Confederation. Placar magazine, Rede Globo and others are not official sources. Which should prevail, the official source, or unofficial sources? --Carioca 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. You have "sources" that are a) self-vested (own flamengo web site, which is almost equivalent to self-promotion, but you definitely doesn get this, so it seems like lost time) and b) unofiicial " sources" like panini trading cards edited by the same company (and staff) as Placar!. We have not only "best" "unofficial" "sources" (see video of Globo Sporte, the main sportnews magazine on Brazilian tv) which dates as recently as last monthand ) but we have real, official sources (CBF) which are of course verfiable even more than yours. But actually that's not the point: you are asked in this poll to stay quiet as I did, but you are (again) showing your "style", what a surprise, as you have even reverted warnings from mediator Natl1 and asked for blocking the page posing as victim despite our months-wide patience with you and request for mediation (I not even mentioning your ridiculous request on vendalism on me without even followinf the basic procedures). I guess though you've done this intervention in despair. Hope you'll learn that you are not the center of the world and grow. So stay quiet. 21JuL74

21JuL74 please observe WP:CIVIL, there's no need to speak harshly to other editors. I have now unprotected this article, as per editors endorsing 21JuL74's position. Consensus reached, Ragnarok Addict is not to continue his/her unilateral editing. Edits that fail to abid by the consensus hereby established can be reverted as vandalism/disruption. If Ragnarok Addict believes that he/she is not being treated fairly I suggest him/her to attract more users into the dispute through WP:RFC. --Húsönd 18:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure I apologise for my stances, though never insulting. Wouldn't qualify as uncivil but rather commanding, as stemming from some exasperation on perceived immature behaviour. Would propose to add a header to the page discussion that any challenge on the consensus should be thoroughly discussed before any mod. Regards, 21JuL74 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys I've not visited the article for some time, but I do uphold 21Jul74's view, namely that Sport are the official champions and that Flamengo won the Copa União, but not the official Campeonato Brasileiro. Lomibz 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1987 champion

Somebody has just reported vandalism on my part, claiming that changing the 1987 data goes against established consensus in this discussion page. Like everything concerning the 1987 title, what I have read here is very far from showing any consensus at all. I will try to express myself as neutrally as possible on this issue, and I would like to remind you that most of the Brazilian independent media do consider Flamengo as the legitimate 1987 champions. I guess I don't have to come up with the references again, since it has been done over and over again.

Let me just state my opinion -- as a lawyer -- that demanding OFFICIAL recognition of the title by the CBF is not reasonable, since the CBF was a PART, not a neutral side, to the whole issue. I don't want to dramatize this issue even more, but sticking to the official CBF position on this one would be like sticking to Beijing's official position on an entry on Taiwan. That is just not reasonable. And, anyway, as far as official sources go, let me just remind you that the National Sports Council (CND), the legally competent organ to settle this issue back in 1988, has indeed decided in favour of Flamengo.

Anyway, since everybody seems to get emotional on this issue -- and since the bogus claim to the 1987 title seems to be the only thing that holds the self-esteem of Sport Recife fans together --, I guess the only practical solution to this mess would be to recognize both teams as champions, and crediting the title to both Rio de Janeiro AND Pernambuco.

Tinhorao 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Série A Champions - CBF

--leeeeoo (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The poor boy doesn't seem to have understood what I have just said. Should I draw a picture?

Tinhorao 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tinhorao, thanks for starting this discussion, but I request everyone to keep civil. We can try to find a solution to this question that makes most people happy. We could try to do something like my suggestions below:

List of champions

Year	Winner		Runner-up	Comments	Entrants
1987(1) Details	Sport PE	1 - 1 1 - 0	Guarani SP	Four-team final stage turned home-and-away playoff	32
	Flamengo RJ	1 - 1 1 - 0	Internacional RS	Organized by Clube dos 13, dubbed Copa União, not recognized by CBF, but recognized by th Clube dos 13, most of the media and CND	16

Titles by team

Club	State	Titles
São Paulo	São Paulo	5 titles
Flamengo (1)	Rio de Janeiro	5 titles (including the 1987 edition, which is not recognized by CBF)
Sport(1)	Pernambuco	1 title (officially recognized as the 1987 champion by CBF)

¹The championship of 1987 was controversial as CBF faced scission from Clube dos 13 which decided to organize the 1987 premiership on its own. The latter, dubbed Copa União, had Flamengo and Internacional as champion and runner-up. Despite signing an agreement with CBF in order avoid being banned by FIFA, both teams backed by Clube dos 13 decided not to match their title with CBF's tournament winners in order to unify the title. As a result, the CBF disqualified the two teams from the finals and awarded the title to Sport, who had won the yellow module, organized by the confederation.

So, what do you guys think? If you disagree, feel free to suggest changes. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion. --leeeeoo (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely my suggestion, Carioca. Much as I disagree with the CBF, I guess any neutral article on this matter cannot just ignore the fact that the CBF, for whatever reason it holds valid, does consider the Pernambuco side the 1987 champions. But neither can it ignore the fact that most of the Brazilian independent media (and fans, for that matter) consider Flamengo to be the legitimate champions. I guess this is not the place to settle that issue, so both views should be registered.

Tinhorao 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As both of you (Leeeeoo and Tinhorao) agree with my suggestion, I will first move this discussion to the bottom of this page, second I will wait a couple of days to see if someone else wants to support or oppose my suggestion, and then on April 25 (according to Rio de Janeiro/Brasília time, which is UTC/GMT -3 hours) I will make all the discussed adjustments. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I made all the discussed adjustments. The article is now changed in accordance with this new talk page consensus. --Carioca (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all and especially carioca. Haven't been visiting the page too much despite recurrent vandalism generally quickly repaired by carioca. But was surprised to see this change so I came here and found this surprising turning. We had a very long talk about and especially appreciated always carioca's attitude as a declared flamengo fan. Don know what has made him change his mind, especially after the events of last year (fifth title for São Paulo) which seemed to me to consecrate our previous (and for me still holding) consensus. Haven't seen anything new in tinhorao's proposal, actually the lack of any real argument is the most surprising point. You have seen the events so i agree that nobody disputes that Flamengo is 4 time champion in the Campeonato BRasileiro which is CBF tournament.

The fact that part of the press (far from whole) and a minority of fans (mostly flamengo fans which are very numerous) isn a fact. It is not neutral to mention it, it's only neutral to mention as a footnote as was done. I could cut and paste some old arguments here above. As noted befoe, wikipedia is not a place to inscribe beliefs. And above all needs sourcing, official. You can create a page about copa união but can't say it is a campeonato brasileiro. I've already made a point I believe that, on top, this leads automatically to have to admit Santos and Palmeiras, which most consider real brazilian champions in the 60's (I do), how could these fantastic teams not be considered national champions ? But as agreed this would confuse this page. Please read the arguments above.

So I oppose this "new" consensus of two persons (well, in the past we had Lobmitz also). I hope you could revert by yourself, will wait a few days. Otherwise I'll have too choose if I add Santos, Palmeiras and Fluminense or start reverting back to the more-than-one-year old consensus. And sorry for the law rubbish that CBF is a part, this is pure sophism. CBF is not any part, the parts are Sport and Flamengo and CBF "rules" and all signed the rules. There is no relativism here. Cheers 201.37.103.50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the current solution is better than the previous one because Wikipedia is not the right place to decide which 1987 champion is the correct one, so the logical and more neutral solution is to mention both champions, but pointing that Flamengo's title is not recognized by CBF (but it is recognized by the Brazilian National Sports Council, which was the highest level of Brazilian Sports Justice, more or less like the STJD today), while Sport's title is. Maybe someone could start an article listing all Brazilian National champions (similar to this one or this one), not only 1971 onwards. You can check Flamengo's talk page and see that there is a similar understanding. --Carioca (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Carioca, I urge you to be reasonable. What's new that you didn't know until now ? What did change your mind from the last 2 years or so ? I remember once you said that you had the hope that Flamengo would some day be reconized officially and exactly when these hopes are dashed do nil you in despair change your mind ? Is this the reason ? Wikipedia (you can check) is not the place for weasel wording. "Some journalist", "the majority of the press", etc... Wikipedia is about facts. How can you mention Flamengo's pages as a reference ?? Everybody knows about CND confirming the Copa União title (which nobody denies to Flamengo). CND had no power to confirm any title and it was defeated later (I mean, CND was supressed right then but was this debouted in court by Sport, it took years in court up to STJD). And no, CND was not near above or same level as STJD. It's in the Constitution (now and the previous). STJD can judge on CND and it did. It was a political-only body and the proof is it has been supressed - and no one is missing it since 1987). And come on, Lance (as Placar) was already mentioned and is an unreliable reference (just look how everybody is bashing Marca) living on selling daily to the masses. We are not decideing here who is the correct 1987 champion (I think Flamengo would have won it easily had he played) but who is the Campeão Brasileiro of 1987 and there is only one. That's a fact. As said many time before, a footnote is sufficient. Please be reasonable as you have always been. And plesae remove this Lance link, it's absolutely unreliable and made to please the huge Flamengo crowd with biased, light "interviews" with this former CND president, not telling for instance that this was jugded later anf the fact that the constitution changed in 1987 does not withdraw the right from STJD to judge on that matter. Common sense: If CND had the power, CBF would not be allowed to retroactively take the title from Flamengo. It' known that Sport won at all justice levels, as his president showed again and again on interviews in last year, no appeals hold whatsoever. Cheers 201.37.103.50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 201.37.103.50. You are missing the point. While the controversy still exists, it is not correct to the Wikipedians to decide if Flamengo won or not the 1987 Championship, so to be neutral it is needed to be fair to all sides of the controversy (Flamengo as the 1987 champion and Sport as the 1987 champion). The article already mentions that Flamengo's title is not recognized by CBF while Sport Recife's title is. Regarding the weasel words (I believe that you are referring to the "most of the media" part), it can be removed. Lance is a reliable source (it is one of the most important sport newspapers and magazines of Brazil, unreliable sources are blogs, personal websites, and the clubs' official websites, none of them are used as references in the article) and there is no proof that this reference was made by Lance to please the huge Flamengo crowd, also, can you find a reliable source indicating that CND's decision was judged later (so that this info can be added to the article as a reference)? It is much more neutral as the article currently is, as it accurately describe both views (and the article makes it clear that the official CBF champion is Sport while Flamengo is regarded as champion by other sources, but is not recognized as the 1987 official CBF champion), while leaving only a footnote would look like if the intention of the editors is to decide what club won that year's competition. I will not unilaterally change the article without a change in the consensus. Perhaps a new section should be created explaining in more detail this controversy, but removing Flamengo's title is not the best move as if we do this, we would be ignoring the controversy. Regards, --Carioca talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carioca. It's sad that you changed your mind and do not know why the reason of such desperation. Unfortunately the worse in that is that you claim a bogus "consensus" created out of the blue by two guys in less than a week declaring "hey, consensus", both suspiciously flamengo fans, and declared void a two-years consensus (which you helped to maintain, actually). The only consensus is the "previo, I declared youus" one, and i´ll act to maintain it. I 've been patient and polite but you are unfortunately out of arguments. What a pity. As a long time maintainer of this page (as you), Istate your new "consensus" void. Greetings 201.21.243.43 (talk)

Hi, 201.21.243.43. You are completely ignoring Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As per Controversial articles, all sides of the controversy should be accurately described, which means that Flamengo's 1987 title should be treated equally to Sport's title, but of course mentioning that Flamengo's title is not officially recognized by CBF. You are ignoring that Wikipedia is not the place to decide the correct side, so, both sides should be treated equally. Also, you are ignoring that several reliable sources, such as Placar, Lance!, and Globo 2008 Campeonato Brasileiro magazines list both clubs as the 1987 champions. You are also ignoring that consensus can change, which was what happened in this article. Your proposal essentially minimizes the controversy, as it reduces the whole controversy to just a footnote, which is a huge mistake and is not neutral. So, do you think that we should ignore the controversy, besides the aforementioned Wikipedia guideline, and choose a side (CBF's side), instead of treating equally both sides of the controversy? --Carioca (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For matters like this, I usually refer to RSSSF as the definitive answer. In this case, they list Sport Recife as the 1987 champions, with a note at the bottom of the page referring to Flamengo's refusal to play in a play-off ([3]). A full account of the 1987 season, as recorded by RSSSF, can be found here. – PeeJay 08:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I created a proposal similar to how RSSSF lists the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A champions. As RSSSF placed first the official champions and then the unofficial champion, I followed what they did, and used their site as a reference. Check my proposal here. What do you think? Do you support my proposal? --Carioca (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Good job. – PeeJay 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add my proposal to the article, as it is a fair compromise. --Carioca (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well, but the weasel words problem ("most of the media" in the comments) still exists. cheers! Salt (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the weasel words. --Carioca (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Page title in English?

This page title should be changed to something in English to facilitate research. After all, this is the English language WP. --Wloveral (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Migration of 1987 controversy to another page

We must be less passionate and more practical. This page is about the OFFICIAL brazilian football championship. So, let´s keep here only information about the OFFICIAL version of CBF and move all controversy to another page, perhaps called "Brazilian 1987 Union Cup", leaving only a footnote about that. I propose that, after the changes, an administration protect the page to avoid the change of informations each week. In this article doesn't matter what the brazilian press, with strong financial interests in the Union Cup thinks or not. But we shoul keep footnotes redirecting to a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.48.9 (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Including my signature Joaoialima (talk)

Actually this page is about the Campeonato Brasileiro, so, when there is a very huge controversy, such as the one that happened in 1987, the more neutral way to handle the issue is to list both the official champion, and the unofficial champion, as we should be fair to all sides of the controversy. Wikipedia is not the place to decide which side is correct, so we should list both the official champion, and the Copa União champion, otherwise the article will be partial. Migrating the 1987 controversy to another page and keeping just footnotes redirecting to the other article will be essentially hiding that controversy from the main competition page, which is not a neutral solution. Regarding the Brazilian press, the point is that there is still a controversy, and, as I said, we should be fair to all sides of the controversy. Finally, don't change controversial points of any page without discussing it first, and reaching a consensus. --Carioca (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Carioca, you're acting as a fanatic (torcedor) of Flamengo. Using your logic, we should include in the same statistics all tournament that existed before 1971, including the Roberto Gomes Pedrosa Tournament, that "de facto" were the Campeonato Brasileiro of that time. Unfortunately you are forgeting that Wikipedia is an enciclopedia and the name of the championship and the official opinion of the responsible of the tournament really matters. There will be no concensus with fanatics. If a version should be kept meanwhile the discussion happens, should be the official position of the tournament's organizer, CBF. But be cool, I don't have time to loose with this matter anymore. By the way, I am from Rio State and that time I was a fanatic for any Rio's team with a small preference for Americano. But what happened until 2001 in the football of Rio was really a shame. It explained the looong decadency of Rio's football. Flamengo is bigger than this and don't need to be remembered of this shame for 20 years. --Joaoialima (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First, assume good faith, second, the Roberto Gomes Pedrosa and other tournaments that existed before the Campeonato Brasileiro were separate competitions, they were not a Campeonato Brasileiro, while the Copa União was a Campeonato Brasileiro (even if not recognized by CBF). Check all Brazilian football magazines, and you will see that due to this controversy, they list both Flamengo and Sport as the 1987 champions. Third, even you admitted that the controversy exists, and so, as per Wikipedia:Controversial articles, we should be fair to all sides of the controversy, otherwise the article will not be neutral. Listing only the official champion and ignoring or minimizing the controversy will be partial, and against Wikipedia policy. Fourth, it may be fair to CBF to ignore the controversy in their official website, but an encyclopedia should never do that, as an encyclopedia should never choose a side in the controversy. --Carioca (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA, Conmebol, CBF and STJD say: Sport Recife Brazilian champion of 1987!

STJD(Supreme Court of Sporting Justice),CBF(Brazilian Football Confederation) : http://200.159.15.35/seriea/campeoes.aspx Conmebol(South American Football Confederation) : http://www.conmebol.com/articulos_ver.jsp?id=58115&slangab=S and FIFA(International Federation of Association Football) : http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/brazil2014/destination/cities/city=6099/index.html

They all say that the Brazilian champion of 1987 is the SPORT CLUB DO RECIFE

This was widely discussed here. I think booth of teams should be declared champions, since 2 championships runned that year. --Ragnarok Addict (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The current shape of the article is better, as it follows a well-known international reliable source (RSSSF), and users from different countries (thus not biased by the Brazilian press or Brazilian websites) agreed with this change. --Carioca (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not recognizing Flamengo as the National Champions of 1987 is like trying to change history. CBF and the above federations were already formed and they watched Flamengo win Internacional. They cannot change history and give the title to someone else. The fact that CBF only recently decided to recognize Flamengo as champion of 1987, after 24 years, shows their incompetence on this matter. In 1987, there were 2 champions Flamengo and Sport. Trying to change that is trying to change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football history (talk • contribs) 03:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Change in the map

I changed the map of location of the clubs because Gremio Prudente, former Barueri, has moved from Barueri to Presidente Prudente (something new in Brazil because teams are not franchises there. Well, this club seems to be a franchise...) Mateus RM ^talk 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Carioca (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Brasileirao petrobras.png image

The logo File:Brasileirao petrobras.png does not seem to be official, as I was unable to find it in CBF's page, and it was not depicted in any game of the 2010 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Probably this logo should not stay in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A article. --Carioca (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the logo has been deleted anyway. --Carioca (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1987 Championships

I suggest the creation of separate pages for the official 1987 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, organized by CBF and won by Sport Club do Recife, and for the unofficial 1987 Copa União, organized by the Clube dos 13 and won by Flamengo. Editors, feel free to support or oppose my suggestion. --Carioca (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Shame

I can not say another word...SHAME, not Brasileirão begins in 1959, as the article says, but in 1971.

As a historian of world football seems incredible that change the story this way, Pelé regrets not being able to play ever a Brasileirão now incredibly, but never, played a Brasileirao!

The Brazil Cup was a knock-out...Cup!!! this by definition differentiates in the world Cups to Championships, Roberto Gomes Pedrosa Tournament could be considered within the Brasileirão (considering it was a test to see if the format would work), but this is just an attempt to seem more football history and a great country that clearly does not need this kind of support for it.--186.62.157.165 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Name change

Almost no one calls the competition "Campeonato Brasileiro Série A", in the same light that almost no one refers to the Premier League as "Barclay's English Premier League". Most people refer to is as the "Brasileirão" or, at best, Serie A. And to any non-Brazilian, that could mean Italy's Serie A they are referring to.

Can we change the article name to Brasileirão so we don't confuse new users/visitors as to which competition is which? The logo itself gives testament to the notion. We can make a notation on the introductory paragraph as to the official name and sponsor. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I oppose moving the page to Brasileirão. The CBF's official website uses the name Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Brasileirão is just a nickname for the league. Besides that, Brasileirão redirects to Campeonato Brasileiro Série A so there is no confusion, and the introductory paragraph already mentions that the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A is also known as Brasileirão. --Carioca (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies?

Greetings,

Seeing as the CBF has now recognized the winners of past tournaments as Brazilian champions, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of some data. We know the first Brazilian champ was crowned in 1959, but is it accurate to say that the Serie A actually founded in 1959? Maybe all the name changes is the formation of a new league with the same purpose. If that's the case, wouldn't the Serie A be founded in 2003 when it became a double round-robin format? I want to open this discussion to eliminate some doubt because changing the date from 1971 to 1959 could/would be like changing the date of foundation of the Premier League from 1992 to 1888, the first year an English football championship was held. Digirami (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Série A was founded in 1971. In 2003 it was just a competition format change. The Taça Brasil and the Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa were different competitions, they were not originally recognized as the Série A, they were just the national championships played from 1959 to 1970, but CBF considers then now as part of the Série A. Hope that helps. --Carioca (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the CBF really consider them part of the Serie A, or did they just recognize the past winners as Brazilian champions? If it is there former, can you please indicate where the CBF said that because there is a big difference to both. Digirami (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Champions beetwen 1959 and 1970 are now regarded as Seria A Champions. They MUST be retrated hear as it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.197.227 (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian champion pre-1971 and Serie A champion are not necessarily the same thing. If they are, that hasn't been clearly established. What is definitively established that the Taca Brazil and Robertao champions are official Brazilian champions. Digirami (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Champions before 1971 are now considered champions of Serie A. There was no Serie A, B or C before 1974 So, 1971, 1972 and 1973 are not also champions of Serie A? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.210.88 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Serie A champion and Brazilian champion are not necessarily one in the same. Before 1971, you can be the Brazilian champion and not be considered a Serie A champ. Think of it like Premier League, in that it is a new tournament for a different purpose. That's why they say Liverpool has never won the Premier League, but have been the English champion 18 times. Santos won the Taca Brasil in the 1960s, not the Serie A. Different tournaments for the same purpose. Digirami (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the Serie A didn't start at 1971, only in 1974. Shouldn't we chance 1971 to 1974? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.187.183 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Be the champion of Robertao and Taca Brasil means now be the champion of Serie A. And there was no Serie A, B or C in the years 1973-1979, 1987 and 2000. In these years, there was only Campeonato Brasileiro. So what should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.187.183 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On January 4, 2011, CBF posted this news. Hope that helps. --Carioca (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Before Campeonato Brasileiro da Série A, there was 2 tournaments Taça Brasil and Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa. Recently, CBF recognized the champions of those tournaments as champions in Brazilian football history but CBF did not consider them as Campeonato Brasileiro da Série A champions. So, one cannot change the name of those tournaments to the official "Campeonato Brasileiro da Série A". Therefore, adding those champions from those tournaments from '59-'70 to the List of Brazilian National Champions is like adding titles to countries before the World Cup was formed and saying that those added countries were World Cup champions. I hope that clears it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football history (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clear it up. There is a huge difference in adding 1959-70 as champions and adding other World Cup winners. This difference is in the official status. Nowadays the 1959-70 champions are official Brazilian champions, while no move was made by FIFA to recognize anything before 1930 as official World Cup. You talk about the name of the tourney, but that is just ridiculous. This tournament changed name, and format, several times since 1971. Yet people try, unsuccessfuly, to find any pattern that would make the post 1971 tournaments very different from the 1959 -1970. The only real difference is that, until 2010, the 1959-70 titles were not recognized. Now they are, and they have the same status of any other year. Some supporters of teams that won no National Championship between 1959-70 are constantly trying to reduce the importance of those tournaments. Specially São Paulo and Flamengo supportters. São Paulo would be the most successful national champion

if we do not count those years, and Flamengo would tie with them if, besides not counting those years, we reconize their ongoing claim for a shared 1987 title with Sport. Now that CBF recognized 1959-70, the major national winners are Santos and Palmeiras, two of the three São Paulo's fiercest rivals. The third rival, Corinthians, also has great interest in this issue, because they won no Brazilian Championshiop until 1990, but got 5 since than. If we do not consider 1959-70, Corinthians would be the second major brazilian champion, tied with Flamengo and behind only São Paulo. But as the titles are recognized, Corinthians is way behind his 3 main rivals! Flamengo has another issue as, although still ahead of their city rivals, have seen rivals Fluminense and Botafogo add one title each, because of the recognition, while having none in the period. Atlético Mineiro's supporters also didn't like the change, as they were "the first Brazilian champions" in 1971 and now their main rival, Cruzeiro, has won an official championship before them, in 1966. Vitória has no national title and faced main rivals Bahia add a second one after the recognition. No wonder it is such a big issue and opinions diverge so much. Most supporters will do everything to promote their teams, and so the recognition of the importance of 1959-70 titles is almost allways a discussion between the teams that won them against their rivals who didn't. In those situations, the only reasonable thing to do in wikipedia is to chose the official position, instead of taking any side based on club love. Until 2010 the official position (CBF) was that those tournaments were not equivalent to the post 1971 ones. Because of this, the article recognized no champion before 1971, until the day CBF finally recognized them. 187.20.11.36 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

CBF recognized Flamengo's 1987 title

CBF officially recognized Flamengo's 1987 Copa União title, see this page. --Carioca (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CBF had to change this few months later that same year. [4]. This topic takes most of the talk page in the Portuguese article and is allways full of huge discussions. They decided to stay with the official fonts, so as soon as CBF recognized Flamengo, they included the shared 1987 title. As soon as CBF removed the title, the article did the same. I guess it's the only reasonable solution to this problem, so I did the same here. If anyone is interested, I will sumarize the situation and its side arguments:

In 1987, CBF announced it had no conditions to run the National Championship. The 13 largest clubs decided to create their own tournament. To avoid the extreme regional concentration (10 of the 13 clubs came from 3 Southeastern states) they added 3 more clubs with large number of supporters on other parts of the country. The number of supporters was the major criterion to be in the championship, wich was a huge comercial success, with large attendance avarage and support of big companies, like Coca-Cola and Globo. However, other teams were outraged by this criterion. It excluded, for example, the 1986 vice-champions (Guarani), 4th place (América RJ) and 9th place (Criciúma), while including Botafogo (32nd place) and Coritiba (44th place), just because of their supporters. To solve this problem, CBF rushed to decide the excluded clubs with good campaings in 1986 would play their own tournament while CBF would organize official matches between the top two of each tourney to decide the champion. However, Flamengo and Internacional refused to play those games, leting Sport and Guarani decide the title. The media (specially Globo) and most of the population, however, gave little credit to the official games and recognised Flamengo as champions.

The major arguments:

Flamengo: 1. They defeated the major clubs in Brazil. 2. Their championship was a media success, while little attention was given to Sport's title. 3. At the time, although not now, even the supporters of Flamengo's fiercest rivals recognized that Flamengo won THE Brazilian Championship, not Sport. 4. There was a rule that the first team to gain 5 Brazilian championships since 1971, would keep the current trophy of that time and it would be replaced. When Flamengo won the 1992 championship, CBF replaced the trophy, although, for legal matters, it couldn't give it to Flamengo. Without 1987, Flamengo's 1992 title would be only the 4th, so replacing the trophy is viewed as a de facto recognition that Flamengo won 1987 too. 5. In 2011, CBF briefly recognized a shared title between Flamengo and Sport, although backtracking this decision few months after, for legal matters.

Sport: 1. They defeated several teams that had excellent results in 1986, including Guarani, that was vice-champion of that year, while several of the major clubs playing in the 13's championship had terrible campaings in the previous year. 2. They were the official champions by the rules of CBF. 3. They played the 1988 Libertadores Cup (reserved, at the time, for 1st and 2nd place in the National Championship), while Flamengo was not allowed to play it. 4. They won basically all juridical contests of these subject, to the point of Flamengo completely abandon any hope of being declared sole champion of 1987 and change its strategy to try a shared recognition. 5. When São Paulo won their 5th title, they demanded that trophy I mentioned. They were eventually granted it, being recognized the first Brazilian club wuth 5 titles after 1971. In this view, Flamengo would have only four titles at that time, excluding its 1987 title.

Both sides have their own arguments, but I guess the enciclopedia should stick to the official result, mentioning the major controversies. For example, people might have different opinions of what is most important in a presidential election, and say it is ridiculous that Bush defeated Gore in 2000 with less votes. It is a valid controversy, and should be mentioned in any article of this subject. However, to say Gore won the election is just stupid. Bush won, period. In my opinion, the same aplies here. Sport is, by now, the sole champion of 1987. Flamengo has some valid arguments, just as Gore, but they aren't 1987 champions. As soon as CBF recognize a shared title, if that ever happens again, we should include this here.177.182.22.165 (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The List of Brazilian football champions page separates the official champions and the 1987 unofficial champion (Flamengo). --Carioca (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is not shown as an official title and it is not used in the table of number of titles, it is ok to mention Flamengo has a claim on an unofficial championship. That was the situation in that article, so I see no problem. I only wonder if we should also include other claims, such as the one Portuguesa made about the Rio-São Paulo tourneys they won 187.20.11.36 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As the Rio-São Paulo was just a competition between Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo state teams, it was not a national competition. Regarding the 1987 Copa União, the mainstream media recognizes it as a national championship, so it is the right choice to list it as an unofficial national championship. --Carioca (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1987

Champion for the CBF(Brazilian Football Confederation) was SPORT=>https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Uni%C3%A3o 201.92.203.193 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

STF

“ A coisa julgada possui envergadura maior, não assumindo a posição de instituto a envolver simples interpretação de normas ordinárias. Trata-se de garantia inerente a cláusula do Estado Democrático de Direito, a revelá-la ato perfeito por excelência, porquanto decorre de pronunciamento do Judiciário. Ocorre que o título executivo judicial implicou a proclamação do Sport Clube como campeão do torneio brasileiro de 1987. Resolução da Confederação Brasileira de Futebol não podia dispor em sentido diverso, sob pena de ganhar, nos campos administrativo, cível e desportivo, contornos de rescisória. O acórdão do Superior Tribunal de Justiça impugnado é nesse sentido. Ante o quadro, nego seguimento ao recurso. ” — Marco Aurélio de Mello, Supreme Federal Court 04 March 2016[5]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130709231034/http://www.cbf.com.br:80/Competi%C3%A7%C3%B5es/S%C3%A9rie%20A/Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es/2013 to http://www.cbf.com.br/Competi%C3%A7%C3%B5es/S%C3%A9rie%20A/Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es/2013
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131003004321/http://www.gazetaesportiva.net/noticia/2011/02/corinthians/corinthians-rompe-oficialmente-com-o-clube-dos-13.html to http://www.gazetaesportiva.net/noticia/2011/02/corinthians/corinthians-rompe-oficialmente-com-o-clube-dos-13.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303221844/http://iffhs.de/?b883e8c00bddad5384f02785fdcdc3bfcdc0aec70aeed200 to http://www.iffhs.de/?b883e8c00bddad5384f02785fdcdc3bfcdc0aec70aeed200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)