Search

The Pedrosa Channel reported that Luis Felipe Salomão, president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), rejected the request from Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. this Thursday (15) to suspend the decision that determined the match between Vasco and Boca Juniors to be held at the Maracanã on October 20 at 9:30 PM. According to the channel, the court's order for the match to take place at the stadium remained valid. According to the published summary, Salomão considered that the managing company of the complex did not have standing to appeal through a request for suspension of security, an instrument that, according to him, was intended to protect collective interests. The minister assessed that the case involved private interests related to the exploitation of the Maracanã and that there was no demonstration of public interest that justified the measure. The channel reported that the manager claimed wear of the pitch, concentration of games within a short interval, and security risks due to the gathering of fans, as Flamengo and Botafogo would also be playing a basketball game at the Maracanãzinho. However, Salomão understood that no concrete evidence was presented of a serious threat to public order or safety. He also noted that the questioned decision already anticipated moving the basketball event to avoid overlapping audiences. According to the Pedrosa Channel, Salomão concluded that he did not consider the request as he understood it did not meet the requirements to be analyzed through this avenue. The minister added that any eventual questions regarding the actions of the judges should be presented through the appropriate appeals in the Court of Justice of Rio. The channel emphasized that the decision maintained the existing authorization but did not settle the dispute over the use of the stadium. #STJ #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)

Attention, Vasco fans! It was reported that the President of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, did not grant, on Thursday (15), the request from Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. to suspend the decision that authorized Vasco x Boca Juniors at Maracanã on October 20 at 9:30 PM for the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana. According to the report, Salomão considered that the concessionaire, constituted by Flamengo and Fluminense, did not have the legitimacy to appeal to this legal instrument, as it is a private company and does not act as a delegate of public service. The minister also understood that the choice of the stadium did not constitute a primary public interest that would justify the exceptional request. The publication stated that Fla-Flu Serviços had claimed risks related to the meeting of the fans, the operation of the stadium, the pitch, and the need for a minimum interval of 72 hours between matches. According to the report, Salomão concluded that the company did not prove a serious threat to public order, security, or the economy. He also pointed out that the transfer of the basketball game between Flamengo and Botafogo alleviated some of the concerns. Furthermore, according to Attention, Vasco fans!, the minister considered that potential damage to the pitch would not constitute serious harm to public assets nor justify the suspension. The publication added that he evaluated that the request could not substitute for a judicial appeal and that any questioning regarding the actions of judges from the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro should follow the appropriate appeal channels. The decision maintained the authorization for the match at Maracanã without suspension by the STJ. The publication described the outcome as a procedural victory for Vasco but noted that it did not end all possibilities for judicial contestation. It also informed that the decision concerning Safety Suspension No. 3,678/RJ was signed at 12:49 PM on October 15, 2026. #Vasco #BocaJuniors #Maracanã (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha stated that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) did not acknowledge the request from the Fla-Flu Consortium in process SS nº 3678/RJ, related to the legal dispute over Maracanã. According to him, the decision, recorded at 1 PM this Thursday (15), did not analyze the merits and represented a procedural setback for the consortium. Tutinha said that the decision in favor of Vasco, issued by Judge Marco Antonio Ibrahim, continued to serve as the basis for holding the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana between Vasco and Boca Juniors at Maracanã, as long as there was no other court order suspending its effects. He stated that the publication of the STJ decision was scheduled for October 19 and that the full text still needed to be analyzed to confirm its foundations and effects. #STJ #CopaSulAmericana #Maracanã (translated)

Attention, Vascaínos! It was reported that the court did not acknowledge the appeal presented by the consortium operator Fla-Flu in the dispute over the use of Maracanã by Vasco. As a result, the appeal did not pass the admissibility phase and the merits were not analyzed. The profile stated that J. Américo had anticipated the possibility of inadmissibility due to a lack of jurisdiction. However, since the decision was not yet fully available, it claimed it was not possible to confirm whether this was the justification adopted by Judge Salomão. According to Attention, Vascaínos!, the legal dispute involved the holding of the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana at Maracanã between Vasco and Boca Juniors. #Justiça #Maracanã #FlaFlu (translated)

The Football Planet reported that Judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto rejected the argument of the Fla-Flu Consortium that the process had lost its object after the deadline to inform Conmebol of the match stadium. According to the publication, the magistrate stated that the entity granted a new deadline, which was met by Vasco, and that the sale of more than 46,000 tickets made it unfeasible to transfer the fans to another stadium. The publication added that Almeida Neto criticized the previous decision for mentioning a basketball game at Maracanãzinho and said that the consortium's arguments contradicted the technical assessments of the security agencies. The judge stated that changing the location would create a “serious and insurmountable” security risk. According to the report, the Public Prosecutor's Office expressed itself twice in favor of holding the game at Maracanã. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)

Attention, Vasco fans! It was reported that the judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto reconsidered, on the morning of Tuesday (13), the decision that suspended the release of Maracanã and reestablished the order for the concessionaire Fla-Flu to make the stadium available for Vasco x Boca, for the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana, on October 20. According to the profile, the magistrate recognized the competence of the president of the 23rd Chamber to authorize the match, cited favorable opinions from security agencies, and took into account the sale of more than 46,000 tickets. The judge also considered that the preservation of the field should not take precedence over public safety and determined the change of location or time of the basketball game between Flamengo and Botafogo, scheduled for the same day at Maracanãzinho. Attention, Vasco fans! It was added that the process would still be analyzed by the Special Body of the TJRJ on the eve of the match. #Vasco #Maracanã #CopaSulAmericana (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha wrote that Judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto reinstated the injunction that required the Fla-Flu Consortium to make the Maracanã available for Vasco vs. Boca Juniors on October 20 at 9:30 PM. According to Tutinha, the magistrate considered that moving the match could pose public safety risks and disrupt the planning already in place, giving weight to the opinions of the Public Ministry and security agencies. Tutinha stated that the judge rejected the consortium's arguments regarding the preservation of the field, believing that any material damage could be compensated for as loss and damages. He also noted that the judge deemed the sale of 46,014 tickets to be significant and dismissed the claim that Vasco's request had become irrelevant with the end of the CONMEBOL deadline. According to the author, the magistrate recorded that the entity had set the new deadline for selecting the stadium as October 13 at 12 PM, Brasília time. Still according to Tutinha, the decision mandated that the basketball game between Flamengo and Botafogo, scheduled for the Maracanãzinho on the same day, be transferred or rescheduled for a time that did not coincide with the flow of fans. He added that the case would be analyzed by the Special Body of TJRJ in the first in-person session, scheduled for October 19, the eve of the match. #Maracanã #Vasco #SegurançaPública (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha stated that Suely Lopes Magalhães, vice president of TJRJ, was in the Netherlands and was not part of the judiciary's on-call service when she made a decision that he considered disconnected in a writ of security. According to him, the judge responsible for the appeal later overturned the decision. Tutinha also asked if they could talk about her calmly. #Justiça #TJRJ #MandadoDeSegurança (translated)

Danteskoo said he had been criticizing daily, in OVOV and Expresso, what he called a loss for the consortium for hosting another football match in October, which he considered insignificant. He cited the assessment of a judge that any material losses incurred by the concessionaire could be compensated, while the risks to public safety caused by the change of stadium would be harder to remedy. The author criticized what he considered a lack of common sense in the decisions and mocked that it seemed as if Vasco was practicing another sport or would be doing work on the Maracanã lawn. #Futebol #Vasco #Consórcio (translated)

newscolina reported that the judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto, from the Special Body of TJRJ, determined that the Flamengo x Botafogo match, scheduled for Maracanãzinho on the same day as Vasco x Boca Juniors, be transferred or rescheduled to a time that does not coincide with the flow of football fans. According to the publication, the NBB game had been used by the Consortium as an argument to prevent Vasco from playing in the stadium for the semifinals of the Sul-Americana. The publication credited the information to PodCruzmaltino and the photo to Matheus Lima. #Flamengo #Botafogo #TJRJ (translated)

A news outlet reported that the judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto, from the Special Body of TJRJ, reconsidered the emergency decision that suspended the authorization for Vasco x Boca Juniors at Maracanã. According to the publication, he ordered Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. to make the stadium available for the match, scheduled for October 20 at 9:30 PM, and reinstated the guardianship previously granted to Vasco. The decision was signed on Tuesday (13) at 7:11 AM. The publication cited PodCruzmaltino and credited the photo to Dikran Sahagian. #Vasco #BocaJuniors #Maracanã (translated)

The Cruzmaltino Podcast reported that the judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto, from the Special Body of the TJRJ, reinstated the authorization for Vasco to face Boca Juniors at Maracanã on October 20 at 9:30 PM. According to the report, the decision was signed on Tuesday (13th) at 7:11 AM, and determined that Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. would make the stadium available. The podcast stated that the judge reconsidered a previous ruling that had suspended the authorization. Among the reasons, he pointed out that the prior decision was based on an outdated version of the Internal Regulations of the Court, without considering a change approved in September. The rule, according to the report, allowed the president of the Chamber to review urgent requests when the rapporteur was absent. Since the original rapporteur was on vacation and there was a deadline to inform Conmebol about the stadium, the judge recognized the competence of the president of the 23rd Chamber to grant the authorization. The Cruzmaltino Podcast also reported that public safety weighed into the decision. The magistrate reportedly considered favorable technical assessments regarding Maracanã and the potential impacts of a stadium change on policing, access, fan separation, the press, and broadcasting. The document recorded, based on information presented by Vasco, the sale of 46,014 tickets. According to the podcast, the judge assessed that any material damages to the concessionaire could be compensated, while the risks to collective safety would be harder to repair. Regarding Conmebol's deadline, the report stated that the judge rejected the argument that the request had lost its purpose. The decision reportedly noted that the initial communication occurred within the deadline, and that, according to Vasco, the entity granted a new deadline: that same day at noon. The podcast added that Flamengo x Botafogo, scheduled to take place at Maracanãzinho on the same date, should be transferred or rescheduled for a time that did not coincide with the flow of fans from the football match. It also reported that the process would continue in the Special Body, with consideration expected at the first in-person session the day before the match. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)

Attention, Vasco fans! It was reported that the Institute of Cooperation, Human and Social Development (CODHES) presented, on Monday (12), a factual news item to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio de Janeiro, requesting urgent measures regarding the denial of use of the Maracanã for Vasco vs. Boca Juniors. The match was scheduled for October 20, for the semifinals of the Copa Sudamericana. According to the publication, the document, signed by the president of the institute, José Roberto da Costa Junior, requested that the responsibilities of the presidents of Flamengo and Fluminense and the administrators of the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. be investigated. CODHES also requested clarifications regarding the powers of the concessionaire and about a possible influence of sports rivalry on the decision. The entity further requested that the Public Prosecutor's Office examine the situation of Judge Suely Lopes Magalhães, who, according to journalistic information cited in the statement, was in the Netherlands when she suspended the authorization for the match. The request included clarifications about the trip, any functional suspension, and the exercise of the magistrate's duties during that period. The publication stated that the document mentioned more than 45,000 tickets sold and requested an assessment of possible losses for fans in terms of travel, accommodations, and transportation. The institute pointed out the possibility of compensation for material damages and potential collective moral damages, if the legal requirements were met, in addition to requesting measures to prevent clashes and risks related to the uncertainty of the stadium. According to Attention, Vasco fans!, CODHES also admitted the possibility of filing a collective lawsuit and resorting to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights if it identified violations attributable to the Brazilian state and if the legal requirements were fulfilled. #Maracanã #CopaSulAmericana #Vasco (translated)

Attention, fans of Vasco! It was reported that Vasco da Gama presented a 32-page manifestation to the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro and asked the judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto to reconsider the ruling that suspended the authorization to use Maracanã for the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana against Boca Juniors, scheduled for October 20. According to the publication, the club pointed out the extension, by CONMEBOL, until October 13, at noon, of the deadline to confirm the stadium. It also questioned the writ of security from the conceding company Fla-Flu, invoked the priority of official football games provided for in the concession agreement, and cited assessments from the Military Police and statements from the Public Ministry regarding security and logistics. Vasco acknowledged that Estádio Nilton Santos could host the match but argued that this did not justify preventing the use of Maracanã. The publication added that the club requested the restoration of the decision by judge Marco Antônio Ibrahim, from October 9, which had authorized the game in Maracanã, and contested the adequacy of the writ of security from the conceding company. The request still depended on a new court decision, the profile reported. #Vasco #CopaSulAmericana #Maracanã (translated)

Planeta do Futebol reported that, after an unfavorable court decision, the Fla-Flu Consortium asked the court to reject a new appeal from Vasco regarding ticket sales for the match against Boca Juniors. The concessionaire stated that the club should assume the risks of having sold tickets while the injunction could still be suspended. The Consortium argued that the appeal had lost its object due to the proximity of the deadline and that it repeated already rejected arguments. It advocated for the match to be held at Nilton Santos Stadium and stated that there would still be time to reorganize the event. According to the publication, Vasco urgently requested reconsideration of the suspension and claimed that it had begun sales for Maracanã after receiving court authorization. The club argued that the capacity of Nilton Santos, which is 44,661 people, was less than the 46,014 tickets sold, which would require cancellations and refunds. It also pointed out the need to accommodate 4,000 visiting fans and maintain separation areas between the supporters. The appeal from Vasco and the statement from the Fla-Flu Consortium were awaiting analysis from Judge Suely Lopes Magalhães, reported Planeta do Futebol, based on ESPN Brazil. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)

The Planet of Football reported that a decision by Judge Suely Lopes Magalhães suspended the injunction that required the Fla-Flu Consortium to release Maracanã for Vasco vs. Boca Juniors, for the semifinal of the South American Cup. According to the publication, the legal dispute continued. The judge reportedly understood that Marco Antônio Ibrahim could not alone review the decision of the rapporteur Alexandre de Carvalho Mesquita and that the appeal should be analyzed by the rapporteur himself or by a panel. She also reportedly pointed out the risk of having three rival fan bases in the same area, as Flamengo vs. Botafogo, for basketball, would be held that evening at Maracanãzinho. According to the report, Suely cited a report from BEPE that deemed Nilton Santos suitable to host the match and stated that the police's preference for Maracanã did not make its use indispensable for safety. The decision, the publication added, did not determine whether Vasco had the right to the stadium nor whether the consortium's refusal was legitimate. The writ of security would be forwarded to rapporteur Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto, and the decision would be submitted to the Special Body of TJ-RJ. The publication attributed the information to the newspaper O Globo. #Maracanã #Vasco #Justiça (translated)

The Planeta do Futebol profile reported that the Fla-Flu Consortium appealed to the president of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro to try to reverse the decision that authorized Vasco x Boca Juniors at Maracanã. According to the profile, the consortium filed a writ of security and requested an urgent measure while the appeal was being analyzed. The consortium stated it had authorized six requests from Vasco since the start of the concession, including classics against Flamengo and Fluminense. The authorization for the match with Boca Juniors would remain valid, unless the court accepted the request, the profile added, citing O Globo Esportes and Diogo Dantas. #Vasco #BocaJuniors #Futebol (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha reported that Judge Marco Antônio Ibrahim, from the 23rd Chamber of Private Law of the TJRJ, ordered the match between Vasco and Boca Juniors to be held at Maracanã and took into account the history of conflicts between Vasco and the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. Tutinha stated that the magistrate pointed out that the club had already sought justice to use the stadium and that the concessionaire had repeated justifications related to the condition of the pitch, which could indicate a "personal issue" between the parties. According to Tutinha, Ibrahim also considered a Memorandum of Understanding between Vasco and the concessionaire. The club argued that the document guaranteed it four matches per season at Maracanã, excluding classics against Flamengo and Fluminense, and that any refusals should be based on objective technical and operational criteria. Tutinha added that Vasco pointed out a contradiction in how the concessionaire invoked the memorandum to restrict access but contested its binding force when it provided rights to the club. Ibrahim considered the document in his reasoning but did not make a definitive decision on the enforceability of all clauses. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)