Shady Vasco ties, referee pressure: Palmeiras' off-pitch rows mount | OneFootball

Current Brasileirão runner-up, Palmeiras tries to win titles with moves also off the pitch

Palmeiras’ sporting success over the last 10 years is undeniable. Since 2016, the team has won four Brasileirão titles, two Libertadores and one Copa do Brasil. However, the on-field success has also been tied to a series of questionable actions off the pitch.

These moves, moreover, seem to have gained even more strength after 2025, when the green-and-white team finished as runner-up in the Libertadores and also in the Brasileirão, the main competitions on the national calendar.

Murky relationship with Vasco

Although it is a members’ club, Palmeiras has at the helm a figure with seemingly highly centralized power: president Leila Pereira. Not coincidentally, Leila is also the person in charge of Crefisa, one of Palmeiras’ main sponsors over the last decade.

And it was in this scenario, with the identities of Palmeiras and Crefisa practically merging due to Leila Pereira’s power in both, that the financial institution became involved with Vasco.

At first glance, the deal seemed simple: a loan to a club that needed liquidity to handle its financial demands. However, some terms of the initial agreement could point to such a conflict of interest that those involved were forced to change the clauses.

Initially, Crefisa would lend R$80 million to Vasco. As financial collateral, the club would leave 20% of the shares linked to the SAF. And that is where the problem begins, precisely because, by acquiring such a stake, Crefisa — which is run by Palmeiras’ president — would have veto power in Vasco’s SAF.

In other words, through her company, Leila Pereira would exercise political power over a rival in the Brazilian Championship. This situation falls under the General Sports Law (Law No. 14,597/2023), which prohibits the same individual or legal entity (economic group) from controlling or holding equity stakes in two or more professional teams competing in the same competition.

The matter, in fact, was addressed by lawyer Pedro Henrique Zaithammer, from the Suttile&Vaciski law firm, in Estadão.

Pedrinho handing a Vasco shirt to Leila Pereira

Agreement was changed after pressure

Only after the possible conflict of interest came under scrutiny did Crefisa and Vasco decide to change the agreement. The main change was the SAF percentage: 10% instead of 20%. It is worth noting, however, that the parties requested that the contract be submitted in a sealed envelope and under judicial secrecy.

With this maneuver, Palmeiras, Vasco and Crefisa legally shielded themselves from falling under the prohibition of the General Sports Law. However, behind the scenes, a close relationship between the three parties became evident. In this way, the concern raised by Zaithammer remains.

Pressure on refereeing

With Abel Ferreira leading the narratives, Palmeiras always takes a combative stance toward refereeing decisions that do not favor it. The tone of the discourse does not seem to demand balanced officiating that adopts equal treatment. Instead, the complaints seem aimed at seeking self-benefit, even when the decision is not the correct one.

Thus, the standard for complaining apparently ceases to be professional and becomes the same as that of a fan, which could amount to simple emotionally driven confusion, if the coach’s position were not relevant enough to create external pressure on referees in light of the repeated narrative being built.

In this regard, one of the most high-profile cases was the match between Palmeiras and São Paulo in the second half of the 2025 Brasileirão. On that occasion, the referee denied a penalty to the tricolor side and, on top of that, also ignored a possible red card that should have been shown to Andreas Pereira. With a clear benefit, the green-and-white team won 3-2, and coach Abel Ferreira downplayed the refereeing mistakes.

– About the play (the penalty), I’ll give my point of view. If, for any reason, when Allan slips, the ball was being contested by the São Paulo player, I would like it to be a penalty. But I do not know the laws. Allan slips and then touches the opponent. If I remember correctly, the ball is far away. Therefore, it was unintentional. If the São Paulo player had the opportunity to contest the ball, in my opinion, it was a penalty.

Penalty not given by Ramon Abatti Abel bothered rivals. But for Palmeiras, the situation was ‘normal’

Abel Ferreira’s mild tone and rhetoric changed when Palmeiras felt harmed

If before Abel seemed complacent about possible refereeing errors, calling them ‘different views,’ it only took decisions unfavorable to Palmeiras to show his outrage.

The statements against refereeing did not stop there. The coach even went so far as to belittle Flamengo’s titles in the Brasileirão and the Libertadores, without recognizing the opponent’s sporting merits. Instead, the Portuguese coach chose to say that the red-and-black club’s achievements had “asterisks.”

See this photo on Instagram A post shared by Flamengo | Coluna do Fla (@colunadofla) Lack of consistency in narratives

Abel Ferreira’s contradictions are obvious to anyone who follows Brazilian football. However, the coach’s ambiguous narrative appears to be a fully orchestrated action together with the board. After all, president Leila Pereira also adopts the narrative in her speech or attitude according to what is presented as beneficial to Palmeiras.

Leaving Libra lays bare Leila’s search for benefits for Palmeiras at the expense of the common good

A recent situation, which occurred in April 2026, was the green-and-white club’s withdrawal from Libra. This is because Palmeiras decided to leave the league after disagreeing with terms of the contract signed for the distribution of TV revenue through 2029.

However, in October 2025, when Flamengo spoke out against possible Libra definitions, Leila Pereira used mockery and provocation to criticize the Rubro-Negro.

Palmeiras’ president reinforced that the bloc existed precisely to discuss agreements that would be better for several clubs, and not only for one. In this way, she gave the impression that she was thinking about the common good of the teams. However, when there was a new agreement, with the consent of all clubs, but outside the terms considered ideal for Palmeiras, the club withdrew from the league. 

Thus, one possible conclusion is this: Palmeiras apparently is not fighting for top-level football decided on the pitch, but rather for a system that favors it, even if that comes at the cost of fairness in competitions.

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