Prince of Peace: Massis calms derby nerves, praises Leila, downplays row | OneFootball

While Rui Costa, São Paulo's football executive, responded to concerns about refereeing for this Saturday's (21) derby at Morumbi, causing exaggerated reactions from the Palmeiras side, São Paulo's president, Harry Massis Júnior, avoided the provocative tone of the rival.

Last Thursday (19), during the draw for the Copa Sudamericana groups, the tricolor leader avoided controversy and, in a conciliatory speech, praised the gaucho Anderson Daronco, the referee of the match that takes place at 9 pm (Brasília time), at Morumbi, and also emphasized that he has a good relationship with the rival president, Leila Pereira.

“I think Daronco is an excellent referee, he has everything to handle the derby smoothly. We have full confidence in him, no doubts. Behind the scenes, let them discuss, we have no problems. Leila and I get along very well. They have to do this, fight for the club they work for, but we are calm,” he said.

It is important to note that Massis's statement to ‘ESPN‘ occurred before the somewhat hypocritical response from the Palmeiras side to ‘Globo‘, where she agreed with her football executive, Anderson Barros, and provoked by mentioning the long winless streak of the Tricolor against the green team.

In other words, in a way, while Massis poured cold water on the fire, Leila poured gasoline.

“São Paulo has to remember that we won the last five games against them and are unbeaten in eleven games. Is it always the refereeing that benefits us? It's always either the pitch or the refereeing.” She also mentioned the 2022 incident, ignoring the many more recent controversies that favored her team: “Why didn't he remember what happened in the Copa do Brasil in 2022? He could remember. What did we do? We complained, talked, discussed with the CBF, and moved on. I don't want to put pressure before such a relevant derby.”

There is a starting point that should not be controversial: São Paulo has objective reasons to complain about refereeing in recent games against Palmeiras, in a series of significant incidents with a direct impact on results, which were widely questioned and, in some cases, almost consensual. Still, on the eve of another Choque-Rei, the public debate took an interesting turn.

Abel Ferreira opened the discussion, not to address specific episodes, but to suggest a vague conspiracy theory involving “two or three teams,” completely lacking in support. The tricolor response came in a simpler tone: Rui Costa limited himself to establishing a fact — the recent damages — and to asking for something elementary: that “the refereeing team apply the rules.” Even without any insinuation, it was enough to provoke a reaction from Palmeiras football director Anderson Barros, who chose to direct his criticism at the São Paulo executive, not the coach who had started the controversy. He called the statement “opportunistic” and stated that “football is far beyond this type of practice that was done in the past.” The question remains: what practice? And why is it associated with someone who only asks for rule compliance?

The inconsistency expands when the same discourse starts to invoke a supposed historical “way of acting” of São Paulo, without clarifying exactly what it is about. Even more so when confronted with the recent sequence of errors in Choques-Rei, including the October derby, where multiple incidents favored the green side. It sounds like an attempt to shift focus.

Similarly, president Leila Pereira used the term “hysterical” to describe the tricolor statements, while mentioning an alleged error in 2022, also cited by Barros and equally ignoring the more recent history. She also stated that she does not like to create pressure before derbies. The contradiction is evident: the pressure she claims to avoid had already been placed earlier, much more forcefully, by one of her subordinates, reinforcing the feeling of a selective discourse.

What has been seen in the last 48 hours is a clear contrast of postures. On one side, a club with a recent history that supports its complaints and opted for a direct approach. On the other, a set of statements that oscillate between baseless accusations and criticism of behaviors that, in practice, are reproduced by those who condemn them. Amidst this, tomorrow's game ends up being tainted by noise that adds little to the central discussion: the need for refereeing that simply follows the rules.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.