Shady Vasco links, pressure on refs: Palmeiras' backstage rows | OneFootball

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

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 success on the field has also been tied to a series of questionable actions off the pitch.

These moves, in fact, appear to have gained even more momentum after 2025, when the green-and-white side finished as runner-up in both the Libertadores and the Brasileirão, the main competitions on the national calendar.

Murky relationship with Vasco

Despite being a members’ club, Palmeiras is led by a figure whose powers appear to be highly centralized: president Leila Pereira. Not coincidentally, Leila also heads Crefisa, one of Palmeiras’ main sponsors over the last decade.

And it was in this context, with the identities of Palmeiras and Crefisa practically blending together 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 meet its financial obligations. However, some terms of the initial agreement suggested such a clear conflict of interest that those involved were forced to change the clauses.

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

In other words, Leila Pereira, through her company, would wield 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 shares in two or more professional teams competing in the same tournament.

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

Pedrinho handing a Vasco shirt to Leila Pereira

Deal was changed after pressure

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

With this maneuver, Palmeiras, Vasco, and Crefisa legally protected themselves from falling under the ban imposed by 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 them. The tone of the discourse does not seem to be a call for balanced refereeing and equal treatment. Instead, the complaints appear aimed at securing an advantage, even when the call is not the correct one.

As a result, the standard for complaining apparently ceases to be professional and becomes the same as that of a fan, which could be dismissed as simple emotionally driven confusion if the coach’s position were not significant enough to create outside pressure on referees in light of the repeated narrative being pushed.

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

– About the play (the penalty), I’ll give my point of view. If, for any reason, at the moment Allan slips, the ball was being contested by the São Paulo player, I would want it to be a penalty. But I don’t make the rules. Allan slips and then makes contact with the opponent. If I remember correctly, the ball is far away. So it was unintentional. If the São Paulo player had the opportunity to challenge for the ball, in my opinion, it was a penalty.

The penalty not awarded by Ramon Abatti Abel upset 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 mistakes, describing them as ‘different interpretations,’ it only took calls going against Palmeiras for him to show outrage.

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

Ver essa foto no Instagram Um post compartilhado por Flamengo | Coluna do Fla (@colunadofla) The lack of consistency in the 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 aligned with the board. After all, president Leila Pereira also embraces whichever narrative, speech, or attitude appears most beneficial to Palmeiras.

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

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

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

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

Thus, one possible conclusion is: 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.