The tension between the traditional power of Uruguayan soccer and the attempts at modernization reached a new peak this week. In a key meeting between Francisco "Paco" Casal, owner of Tenfield, and Ignacio Alonso, president of the Uruguayan Soccer Association (AUF), the businessman once again pushed to broadcast the local championship for free or at derisory prices for the public, going so far as to threaten not to carry out the audiovisual production of an upcoming matchday if his demands were not accepted.
Alonso, tired of the confrontational strategy, decided to end the meeting and left abruptly.
This episode, leaked in circles close to soccer and confirmed by journalistic sources, is not an isolated clash: it is the clearest manifestation of a tactic that critics bluntly call predatory dumping, an anticompetitive practice that Casal and Tenfield seem willing to deepen in order to regain the almost absolute control that they partially lost after the historic 2025-2026 bidding process.
From historic monopoly to the new scenario: why does Casal not accept it?
Until December 2025, Tenfield held the exclusive rights to Uruguayan soccer since 1999, an opaque contract that caused millions in revenue for the company while the clubs received crumbs (around US$ 17 million per year).
The AUF, under Alonso's management, broke that scheme with an international public bidding process that tripled the revenue: US$ 67.5 million per year for the 2026-2029 period, distributed among nine companies.
- DirecTV/Torneos kept the cable broadcast.
- Tenfield matched offers and retained streaming (online platforms) and audiovisual production (cameras, production, and base signal), in addition to advertising/merchandising.
Despite maintaining strategic positions, Casal can't digest the loss of the full package. Instead of adapting to a more competitive and transparent market, he chooses to force an artificial devaluation of the product: he demands free or almost free broadcasts (on free-to-air TV, cheap or subsidized streaming) to discourage competitors and make the market value plummet.
Dumping: selling at a loss to eliminate rivals
Dumping—offering below the real cost or market value—is not philanthropy or defense of the fan; it is a classic maneuver to monopolize in the medium term.
- By massively giving away or subsidizing access, the bidding processes lose appeal: why would an international operator invest millions if the dominant actor is willing to lose money temporarily?
- Without real competition, Tenfield could regain full control and, once the rivals are eliminated, impose more favorable conditions (higher prices in advertising, exclusive sponsors, or expensive resale of the content).
- Threatening not to produce the signal is the low blow: without cameras or professional production, there is no legal broadcast, sponsors walk away, clubs lose immediate revenue, and the AUF is left in an extremely weak position.
This is not the first time that Casal has used similar pressure. His track record includes dubious matching of offers, questioned ties with political power, and a discourse that mixes "soccer belongs to the people" with actions that prioritize his company's profit.
The real damage: poorer clubs, weakened soccer
Uruguayan clubs depend to a large extent on TV rights to survive: salaries, debts, youth development, and infrastructure. If dumping prospers and devalues the asset, revenue falls, the ecosystem becomes poorer, and the spectacle loses quality.
The fan pays in another way: worse production, fewer options, suffocating advertising, or, eventually, hidden costs when the monopoly is reestablished.
The AUF achieved a milestone by opening up the market and multiplying resources. To try to reverse it with threats and dumping is not progress; it is a desperate attempt to restore privileges. Uruguayan soccer deserves genuine competition, not a return to the same old fiefdom disguised as "free access." The ball is on the AUF and the clubs' court: they must resist or yield to Paco Casal's old logic.
