Search

🚨 NOW! Vasco returns to court to face Boca Juniors at Maracanã. This measure was taken after another "no" from the Fla-Flu Consortium. In the lawsuit, Cruzmaltino claims that São Januário does not meet the minimum capacity required for the semifinals of the South American Cup. It also mentions an agreement signed in 2025 for the club to be able to use the Maracanã. (translated)

ATTENTION! Vasco has filed a new lawsuit in court requesting the Maracanã for the game against Boca Juniors. The Cruzmaltino has the support of the Military Police of Rio, which stated that the game would be better at Maracanã. In addition to the authorities' suggestion, Conmebol and FERJ are also in favor of Vasco using the stadium. (translated)

🚨 VASCO CONTESTS TECHNICAL CRITERIA OF FLA-FLU, POINTS OUT VIOLATION OF CONCESSION RULES AND CITES DECISION FROM TJRJ IN ACTION FOR MARACANÃ Vasco filed an obligation lawsuit on Wednesday (1st) with a request for urgent protective measures to try to secure the Maracanã against Boca Juniors on October 20, for the semifinal of the South American Cup. In the action, the club directly questions the technical criteria used by Fla-Flu to deny the stadium, points out unequal treatment, supports violations of concession rules, and also explores a contradiction involving the Memorandum of Understanding. 📌 WHAT FLA-FLU ALLEGED In response to Vasco, the concessionaire pointed to the accumulated wear of the lawn, the climatic conditions of July and August, and the need to preserve the intervals designated for field maintenance. For 10/20, Fla-Flu specifically mentioned games of Fluminense on 10/18 and Flamengo on 10/22. With Vasco x Boca between these matches, there would be three games in five days. According to the concessionaire, this sequence would prevent procedures such as helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and repair of damage to the lawn. 📌 VASCO QUESTIONS THE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION The first counterpoint is the lawn itself. Vasco highlights that, three days after the denial, it was announced that the existing field would be removed and new Bermuda Celebration rolls would be placed, with the return of football scheduled for 10/08. Vasco x Boca will be on 10/20. The club's thesis is that it would not be possible to use the accumulated wear of the old lawn as justification for a match that will take place 12 days after the return of football to the renewed field. 📌 GREENLEAF DOCUMENT IS USED BY VASCO Vasco also retrieves the technical planning prepared by Greenleaf, the company responsible for lawn maintenance, in August. According to the action, the document shows that the same procedures cited by Fla-Flu to deny Vasco x Boca have already been carried out in a concentrated manner between matches. The petition states that helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and damage repair have even been grouped in a single day after a match, even in a winter scenario and lawn wear. The question posed by Vasco is direct: if this work could be done in August to accommodate the sequence of games from Flamengo and Fluminense, why couldn't it be repeated in October, after the complete lawn replacement? 📌 INTERVAL BETWEEN GAMES Vasco also contests the argument of three games in five days by comparing the situation with the recent calendar of the Maracanã. The action argues that sequences with reduced intervals for Flamengo and Fluminense matches have already been admitted. For Vasco, if the necessary interval for lawn recovery is decisive for denying a match, that criterion must be applied equally to all clubs. 📌 SHOWS AND OTHER EVENTS The action also points out that the Maracanã hosts shows, religious gatherings, and events from other sports, including the installation of structures and occupancy of the field area. Vasco questions how the administration can reconcile these events with lawn preservation, yet considers it technically unfeasible to host a semifinal of CONMEBOL. According to the data presented in the action, at least seven extraordinary events unrelated to official football were held between 2025 and 09/30/2026. 📌 CONCESSION NOTICE Vasco cites item 3.4 of the Terms of Reference, which gives priority to football events from the official calendars of FIFA, CONMEBOL, CBF, and FERJ over other events. Vasco x Boca is an official semifinal of CONMEBOL. The action argues that there would be an "inversion of this priority" by accommodating shows and other events and denying the stadium for a match that, under the concession rules cited by the club, should have priority. The petition mentions "distortion of the concessionaire's obligations" and "violation of the equal treatment required by the Concession Notice." 📌 UNEQUAL TREATMENT Vasco summarizes its challenge in four points: • the lawn replacement would change the premise of accumulated wear; • Greenleaf's own planning would demonstrate that maintenance could be carried out between matches; • the calendar would show reduced intervals that have already been admitted for Flamengo and Fluminense; • other events are reconciled with the necessary care for field preservation. As a result, Vasco asserts that restrictions are being applied selectively. The action further cites clause 13.2 of the Concession Contract, which prohibits favoritism and unjustifiably different, discriminatory treatment, or "without technical criteria" that results in restricted access to the Complex. 📌 THE CONTRADICTION POINTED OUT BY VASCO Fla-Flu claims not to recognize the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025. At the same time, according to Vasco, it uses the document itself—especially the provision for four matches conditioned on availability and operational conditions—to justify the denial. Vasco points out contradictory behavior and invokes the principle of good faith. 📌 PREVIOUS DECISION OF TJRJ The action also cites the Instrument Appeal No. 3023517-70.2026.8.19.0000. On that occasion, Justice Alexandre Freitas Câmara analyzed the discussion regarding the absence of Fla-Flu's signature on the Memorandum. The magistrate stated that Flamengo and Fluminense, members of the concessionaire, had signed the document and pointed out that disregarding it later could represent contradictory behavior contrary to good faith. 📌 RECOMMENDATION FROM BEPE The issue of public safety also appears as an argument for the use of the Maracanã. According to the action, BEPE (Specialized Battalion for Policing in Stadiums) recommended holding the match at the Maracanã due to the magnitude of the confrontation and the expected public turnout. Vasco uses this recommendation to argue that the Maracanã is not just a preference of the club. The petition points to the stadium as the option that best meets capacity, location, structure, security, and operational conditions to host the match against Boca. 📌 SÃO JANUÁRIO IS NOT AN OPTION Vasco also differentiates the situation from the previous process involving Vasco x Vitória, when it did not obtain a preliminary injunction to use the Maracanã. This time, according to the action, São Januário cannot host the semifinal. The South American Manual requires a minimum capacity of 30,000 spectators starting from the semifinals, while the petition indicates São Januário has approximately 21,880 seats. Vasco acknowledges the Nilton Santos Stadium as an alternative but argues that having another stadium does not resolve the issue brought to Justice: is there legitimate technical and contractual basis for Fla-Flu to deny Maracanã? 📌 WHAT VASCO SEEKS Vasco is seeking a preliminary injunction requiring Fla-Flu to make the Maracanã available for Vasco x Boca on 10/20 at 9:30 PM. The request includes the maximum ticket allocation corresponding to the authorized capacity, the use of necessary facilities for organizing the match, the implementation of a mosaic, and temporary installation of banners in the same manner allowed for the clubs that are members of the concessionaire. In case of non-compliance, Vasco requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million. Vasco must inform CONMEBOL by October 5 where it will hold the return match of the semifinal. (translated)

URGENT: VASCO GOES TO COURT OVER MARACANÃ! Vasco da Gama filed a lawsuit on Thursday (1st) for an obligation to act with a request for urgent protection against FLA-FLU Serviços S.A., the concessionaire of Maracanã. The objective is to guarantee the match Vasco x Boca Juniors, for the CONMEBOL Sudamericana semifinal, at Maracanã, on October 20, at 9:30 PM. The urgency is huge: Vasco needs to inform CONMEBOL by October 5 which stadium will host the match. In the action, the club argues that São Januário does not meet the minimum capacity requirement established for the semifinals of the competition and emphasizes the structure of Maracanã to host a confrontation of this magnitude. The petition also cites a statement from the Military Police in favor of holding the game at the stadium. Vasco also claims to have a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025 that provided for the use of Maracanã in matches of CBF, FIFA, or CONMEBOL competitions, in addition to establishing that any refusal should be based on technical and operational criteria. The preliminary request is clear: for the court to order the availability of Maracanã for Vasco x Boca Juniors, including the necessary conditions for the execution and organization of the match. The club also requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million in case of non-compliance with the possible court order and urgently requires the concessionaire to be notified so that the stadium can be confirmed with CONMEBOL within the deadline. (translated)

IT'S FOR THE PENTA! 🔴⚫ Nation, tomorrow the sales for the return match of the CONMEBOL Libertadores semifinal start. Check the opening times of your plan and secure your place at Maraca. 🎟️ Visit the site and secure your ticket now: https://t.co/nqvOZwfkTz https://t.co/yDGvTj6KlG (translated)

IT'S FOR THE PENTA! 🔴⚫ Nation, tomorrow the sales for the return match of the CONMEBOL Libertadores semifinal begin. Check the opening times for your plan and secure your spot at Maraca. 🎟️ Visit the website and secure your ticket now: https://t.co/nqvOZwfkTz https://t.co/t1WiVAXxD8 (translated)

🚨 ATTENTION! PMRJ suggested to Vasco to face Boca Juniors at MARACANÃ. In a meeting on the afternoon of this Wednesday, mediated by FERJ and the city hall of Rio de Janeiro, Vasco presented a plan to play at São Januário. However, it received an indication from PMRJ that this plan would be better executed at MARACANÃ. As a result, Vasco is expected to go to court to play at Maracanã. 📰 | @diogodantas 📸 | @jpisidro (translated)

Pedrinho gave an interview to @euigorodrigues and promised to take legal action to try to ensure that Vasco plays against Boca Juniors at Maracanã. However, he made a warning: the priority is São Januário. When asked about the possibility of allocating 20% of the ticket quota to the visiting fans, the president stated that he is not afraid of the presence of the Argentinians. (translated)

In an exclusive interview with @euigorodrigues @CazeTVOficial, President Pedrinho states that the club will take the issue of Maracanã to court. The director also explains, as reported, that the priority is Vasco in São Januário, Maracanã, and then Nilton Santos. The full conversation with Pedrinho will be released this Thursday on Cazé TV and on Igor Rodrigues' YouTube channel. (translated)

Just one more here... Vasco will take legal action to play at Maracanã against Boca. And, if successful, the game will be there. (translated)

⚠️ SCENARIO ON THE MANDATE FOR THE SUL-AMERICANA SEMIFINAL AGAINST BOCA JUNIORS: - The club is trying to reach an agreement with Boca Juniors and Conmebol to play at São Januário. Vasco is working on all possibilities to ensure the match takes place at the Historic Hill. - This depends on Conmebol's approval regarding the rule of capacity above 30,000 (a "controllable" problem), but mainly on Boca's acceptance regarding visitors. The rule states 4,000 tickets. There is an attempt to reduce this number, with Vasco having the same amount at La Bombonera, but there is still no agreement. AND MARACANÃ? - The first attempt was Maracanã. Vasco exhausted all friendly possibilities to play there. With another "no" from the consortium, the next possibility is only in 2026 (Vitória and Palmeiras in the Copa do Brasil), the club is already working on the possibility of taking it to court. This is on the board's table and can be activated at any moment, based on the notice. - Playing at Maracanã is not a problem for the group of players. They also feel at home there. But in order of preference, São Januário is number 1 for the squad. - One attempt does not negate the other. Vasco does not want to be hostage to just one possibility. With the "no" from the consortium, São Januário is a priority. However, the possibility of legal action regarding Maracanã occurs in parallel. The third option is Nilton Santos Stadium, both for the board and for the athletes' preference. #CanaldoPedrosa (translated)

🚨 Agora! Deputada cobra explicações após veto de Flamengo e Fluminense ao Vasco pelo Maracanã. A deputada estadual Dani Monteiro (PSOL) enviou hoje um ofício ao Consórcio Maracanã pedindo a revisão do "não" ao Vasco para mandar no estádio a semifinal da Sul-Americana contra o Boca Juniors. A Secretaria de Estado da Casa Civil também foi oficiada. "O Maracanã é público e não pode ser administrado como se tivesse dono. É preciso explicar por que o gramado serve para NFL e grandes eventos, mas, quando chega a vez do Vasco, surgem todos os tipos de justificativa para impedir o uso", afirmou. "Não estamos falando sobre qualquer clube de várzea, mas de um dos maiores do Brasil, jogando 3 dos maiores campeonatos do continente. O Vasco tem uma história que se confunde com a democratização do futebol e com a luta contra o racismo. A gigante torcida vascaína também é parte da história do Maracanã; não à toa existe a estátua do Bellini ali. Se existe um critério, que ele seja público e aplicado a todos, inclusive aos times do Consórcio. O que não pode existir é uma regra para cada clube", completou Dani Monteiro. 🗞️ @pedrosa 📸 Divulgação/Alerj #Maracanã #Futebol #Vasco

⚠️ Deputada a estadual Dani Monteiro cobra explicações ao Consórcio e à Casa Civil após mais um veto ao Vasco no Maracanã A deputada estadual Dani Monteiro (PSOL) encaminhou nesta terça-feira (29) um ofício ao Consórcio Maracanã cobrando a revisão da decisão que negou ao Vasco o direito de disputar no estádio a partida contra o Boca Juniors, pela semifinal da Copa Sul-Americana. A Secretaria de Estado de Casa Civil também foi oficiada pelo mandato parlamentar, segundo apurou o #CanaldoPedrosa. Entre as justificativas apresentadas pelo consórcio estão as condições do gramado, o calendário de jogos e até os efeitos do fenômeno El Niño. No ofício, Dani Monteiro questionou os argumentos. “O Maracanã é um equipamento público e não pode ser administrado como se tivesse dono, estamos falando de uma concessão. É preciso explicar por que o gramado serve para uma partida da NFL, para grandes eventos e para diferentes programações, mas, quando chega a vez do Vasco enquanto mandante, surgem todos os tipos de justificativa para impedir o uso do estádio”, afirmou. Ainda no documento, a deputada solicita os estudos técnicos, laudos agronômicos e pareceres que fundamentaram a negativa, além dos critérios utilizados pelo Consórcio Maracanã para autorizar ou recusar partidas e eventos. O ofício também cobra tratamento isonômico entre os clubes que utilizam ou solicitam o estádio. “Não estamos falando sobre qualquer clube de várzea, mas de um dos maiores do Brasil, jogando três dos maiores campeonatos do continente. O Vasco tem uma história que se confunde com a democratização do futebol e com a luta contra o racismo. A gigante torcida vascaína também é parte da história do Maracanã; não à toa existe a estátua do Bellini ali. Se existe um critério técnico, que ele seja público, transparente e aplicado igualmente a todos, inclusive aos times do consórcio. O que não pode existir é uma regra para cada clube”, completou Dani Monteiro. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol

ATENÇÃO! A deputada estadual Dani Monteiro (PSOL) está ajudando o Vasco a jogar no Maracanã. Em postagem, a deputada comunicou que enviou um ofício ao Consórcio Fla-Flu e a Secretaria da Casa Cívil questionando os motivos pelo qual o Vasco está sendo impedido de usar o Maracanã. https://t.co/T9Fir4KQQX #Vasco #Maracanã #Política

Acabei de jantar com um alto membro da direção do Flamengo. Ele me revelou que clube estuda expulsar do quadro associativo e até proibir de entrar no Maracanã quem votar no Lula. Inclusive ele me garantiu que Rubro-Negro de verdade não vota no PT em hipótese alguma. JAMAIS! #Flamengo #Política #RubroNegro

Porra gente, numa boa… Onde estão os “vascaínos” que compõe a política do Rio de Janeiro? Eai @eduardopaes? Eai @DouglasRuas_RJ? Eai @pedroduarterio? Eai @MottaTarcisio? Não é possível que vamos aceitar que o EL NIÑO seja a desculpa para não liberar o Maracanã para o Vasco. Isso já virou esculacho e constrangedor! #Vasco #RioDeJaneiro #Maracanã

🚨 Agora! Consórcio Fla-Flu cita NFL e até El Niño para negar Maracanã para Vasco x Boca Juniors. Flamengo e Fluminense atribuíram a negativa às condições do gramado. O Vasco avalia recorrer à JUSTIÇA, mas prioriza uma autorização da Conmebol para jogar em São Januário. Segundo o consórcio, o clima prejudicou a recuperação do campo. A concessionária afirma que o agravamento das condições climáticas pelo EL NIÑO exigiu um planejamento especial. O Consórcio citou ainda a preocupação da NFL com o gramado para o jogo realizado ontem como motivo para ter cautela ao programar eventos. Fla e Flu dizem que a decisão NÃO é uma restrição ao Vasco. Lembram que o Cruzmaltino usou o Maracanã 6 vezes desde abril de 2025 e apontam o NILTON SANTOS como alternativa para a semifinal contra o Boca. 🗞️ @OGlobo_Esportes | @diogodantas 📸 Gilvan de Souza/CRF #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol