Judicial twist: Vasco refuse to return R$700k, demand R$300k more | OneFootball

The legal battle between Vasco da Gama and Arena das Dunas has gained new and complex chapters in the Rio de Janeiro courts. In response to the lawsuit filed by the Natal stadium, which demands the return of R$ 700,000 related to a canceled friendly match against Montevideo Wanderers, the Rio club not only contested the debt but also counterattacked. Using the reconvention mechanism (when the defendant sues the plaintiff in the same action), the Cruz-Maltino demands the right to retain the amount already received and claims the payment of the remaining R$ 300,000 of the contract, plus fines.

The request, attached to the process at the beginning of this week, asks that the Arena's action be deemed unfounded and that the court recognize the absence of default by Vasco. Vasco's defense argues that the cancellation of the match, scheduled for July 5 of last year, occurred due to exclusive failures of the organizers and lack of guarantees to the Uruguayan opponent.

+ “Illicit enrichment”: Vasco is sued in court and charged for a match that did not happen

The defense's thesis: who paid the bill?

One of the central points of Vasco's argument is the contestation of the origin of the money. In the reconvention request, the club's lawyers claim that the Arena's allegation of having made the advance payment is false. According to the defense, the deposits were made by third parties unrelated to the contract, which would remove the stadium's legitimacy to demand restitution.

“It was up to Arena das Dunas to prove with documents that it was the one who made the disbursement or that it became, in a valid way, the creditor of the amount whose return it seeks”, says a part of the defense.

Furthermore, the club claims that there was no advance payment, but rather a “partial default,” since the contract stipulated full payment of R$ 1 million on the specified date, and only 70% of that amount was paid.

Arena das Dunas, in Natal – Photo: Getty Images

Organizers' fault and the “Vitória Cup” case

Vasco requested the inclusion of the University League — one of the event organizers — as part of the process. The club maintains that Montevideo Wanderers withdrew from the trip not due to Vasco's fault, but because of the lack of guarantees and contractual breaches by the responsible companies, according to an official note released by the Uruguayans at the time.

To reinforce the argument, Vasco's legal team cited a precedent involving the same organizers: a friendly match between Santa Cruz and Defensa y Justicia, which also suffered from “commercial disagreements.” Vasco blames the “Vitória Cup” brand for the incidents and even suggests bad faith in the commercial exploitation of the canceled events.

“It is very likely that the ticket sales revenue exceeds the expenses and brings, in a reverse way that borders on bad faith, profit for the plaintiff”, the lawyers point out.

Final requests and protection against seizures

In addition to claiming the missing R$ 300,000, Vasco requested that the parties be ordered to pay a fine of R$ 10,000 for each item breached in the contract, in addition to legal costs.

The club also requested the dismissal of the Arena's request for a precautionary seizure of assets, reminding that the institution is under Judicial Recovery, which prevents this type of asset constraint.

Carregal is the legal director of Vasco da Gama – Photo: Dikran Sahagian

+ Follow Papo na Colina's social media: Thread, Bluesky, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Tiktok and Google News.

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