Flamengo and Fluminense challenge deal, say Vasco can't use Maracanã | OneFootball

Flamengo and Fluminense opposed holding Vasco vs. Vitória, in the quarterfinals of the Copa do Brasil, at the Maracanã. In a filing submitted this Friday (21), the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. argued that the stadium already had a pitch recovery schedule in place when the Cruz-Maltino club requested the change of venue.

The match is scheduled for next Wednesday (26), but according to Flamengo and Fluminense, the Maracanã was reserved exclusively for field maintenance work from August 23 to 29.

Fluminense points to pitch wear and maintenance schedule

According to the defense submitted by the stadium’s administrators, an assessment carried out on July 29, even before the Copa do Brasil quarterfinal draw, identified a high level of wear on the pitch due to the run of matches played at the Maracanã.

Following the assessment, the company responsible for maintenance, Greenleaf, reportedly set a schedule to restore the surface. The plan calls for a complete suspension of the stadium’s use during the week in which the Vasco vs. Vitória match is scheduled.

Flamengo and Fluminense also link the work to preparations for the NFL Rio Game, scheduled for September. According to the clubs, the maintenance carried out in August and September is part of the adjustments needed to meet the requirements related to the event.

As an argument to support the need to preserve the field, the defense attached a statement from center-back Léo Pereira after Flamengo vs. Cruzeiro, played at the Maracanã last Wednesday (19). The player said the pitch was in poor condition for both teams and that the situation affected performance on the field.

Clubs say Vasco requested the stadium after announcing São Januário

Another point raised by Flamengo and Fluminense is the timing of Vasco’s request for the Maracanã.

According to the filing, the club had announced that it would face Vitória at São Januário and only later submitted the request to use the stadium. The request was reportedly made on August 19, eight days before the match, when the pitch recovery schedule was already underway.

In the administrators’ view, therefore, it would not be possible to fit the match into the schedule without compromising the technical work planned for the period.

Flamengo and Fluminense question validity of agreement with Vasco

In addition to the issue related to the pitch, the defense presents a legal argument about the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025, a document that provided for the possibility of Vasco playing eight matches at the Maracanã during 2025 and 2026.

Flamengo and Fluminense argue that the document could not be used by Vasco to force the concessionaire to make the stadium available.

The claim is based on the fact that, although Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. appears in the document as an intervening consenting party, the space intended for the concessionaire’s signature was allegedly left blank.

The memorandum was signed by representatives of Vasco, Flamengo, and Fluminense, but according to the filing, the concessionaire itself did not sign it.

The clubs also argue that, at the time the document was drafted, the concessionaire had a specific board of directors, and any obligation assumed in the company’s name should have followed the representation rules set out in its bylaws.

Statement submitted by Flamengo and Fluminense

See below the full excerpt from the filing related to the validity of the agreement:

“Finally, solely to avoid any doubt regarding any possible attempt by VASCO DA GAMA to invoke the Memorandum of Understanding entered into in 2025 as grounds for the intended use of the MARACANÃ, it is important to note that said instrument has no validity or effectiveness to bind the Concessionaire.

This is because, although the document identifies the Concessionaire as an Intervening Consenting Party, the field intended for the Concessionaire’s signature was left blank, and the Memorandum was signed exclusively by the representatives of VASCO DA GAMA, FLAMENGO, and FLUMINENSE.

It should be emphasized that, at the time the Memorandum was entered into, the Concessionaire’s Board of Directors was composed of JOSÉ SEVERIANO BRAGA DA SILVA, as Chief Executive Officer, MARIA CRISTINA TEIXEIRA, as Chief Financial Officer, and DILSON MOTTA, as Commercial Director, all elected for a term of 3 (three).

Accordingly, no obligation could be assumed by the Concessionaire without observing the form of representation provided for in its Bylaws.”

The dispute now involves both the possibility of Vasco using the Maracanã and the validity of the document that provided for the club’s matches at the stadium. The decision on the venue for the match against Vitória will still be defined in the lawsuit filed by the Cruz-Maltino club.

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