STJD president rejects Grêmio's appeal to overturn bookings | OneFootball

This Thursday, the president of the Superior Court of Sports Justice in Football (STJD), Luís Otávio Veríssimo, denied the request for an injunction submitted by the Sports Justice Prosecutor's Office to suspend the effects of the cards received by players Walter Kannemann and Marlon Rodrigues Xavier from Grêmio in the match against Red Bull Bragantino, held on October 4th, for the Série A of the Brazilian Championship.

With the decision, the athletes remain prohibited from playing in the match against São Paulo, scheduled for Thursday night at 7 PM (Brasília time) at the Grêmio Arena, for the 28th round of the Brasileirão.

The request was initially made by Grêmio itself, which sought to nullify the red card given to Kannemann and the third yellow card received by Marlon. The club claimed a refereeing error acknowledged by the CBF's Refereeing Commission and argued for the suspension of the penalties to ensure the principle of sports justice.

Upon reviewing the case, the president of the STJD acknowledged the urgency of the request and even cited international precedents where similar penalties were nullified due to refereeing errors. However, Veríssimo considered that the issue is unprecedented in Brazilian football and should be reviewed collectively by the Court's Full Bench, not by an individual decision.

“Even so, one cannot ignore the fact that adopting a similar measure in the Brazilian context is unprecedented and, therefore, requires a detailed collective analysis, as it involves a sensitive issue with potential systemic repercussions for the stability of competitions and uniformity of sports jurisdiction,” the president highlighted in his decision.

  View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Grêmio FBPA (@gremio)

Before concluding, the president emphasized that the full analysis of the case should be conducted by the Full Bench of the court, highlighting that the issue requires a broader reflection within Sports Justice.

“Thus, I deny the injunction request made by the Sports Justice Prosecutor's Office, without prejudice to the merits analysis by the Full Bench of this Court. Forward to the Sports Justice Prosecutor's Office. Comply.”

With the denial, the case will now be forwarded to the Full Bench of the STJD, which will analyze the merits of the measure on a date yet to be determined. Until then, the penalties remain valid.

See the full decision below:

“This concerns an Unnamed Measure, with a request for an injunction, filed by the Sports Justice Prosecutor's Office against the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), aiming to annul the disciplinary effects of the cards applied to athletes Walter Kannemann (red card) and Marlon Rodrigues Xavier (third yellow card) in the match between Red Bull Bragantino and Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense, valid for the Brazilian Championship Série A, on 5/10/2025.

The Prosecutor's Office argues that the cards resulted from a notorious refereeing error, acknowledged by the CBF's Refereeing Commission, and that maintaining the penalties would compromise the principle of fair play and the integrity of the competition. It requests, on an urgent basis, the immediate suspension of the disciplinary effects, allowing the athletes to play.

This is the brief report.

Regarding the requested injunction, in a summary cognition judgment, I recognize the presence of urgency, as outlined by the Prosecutor's Office. The proximity of the subsequent match and the technical impact of the suspensions constitute a risk of sports damage that is difficult to repair, justifying a swift analysis of the request.

As for the likelihood of the allegations (fumus boni iuris), I consider that:

The Prosecutor's Office presents and supports the similarity of the case under analysis with a recent international precedent, in which legal effects were annulled, notably the automatic suspension for a red card, due to a manifest refereeing error, in the case of Gonzalo Plata (Flamengo, 2025). In the same sense, I also observe the cases of Dedé (Cruzeiro, 2018), in the CONMEBOL Libertadores, and Evanilson (Bournemouth, 2025) and Alexis Mac Allister (Liverpool, 2023), in the Premier League/FA.

These precedents show that, in exceptional contexts, there is room for flexibility in disciplinary rules to correct injustices without affecting the sports result.

It is worth noting that in the international cases there was an exception to rules similar to those in the CBJD and the general and specific regulations in force in Brazil. The international precedents were not formed from express authorizations but by making exceptions to rules with the same spirit perceived in the Brazilian sports order.

Even so, one cannot ignore the fact that adopting a similar measure in the Brazilian context is unprecedented and, therefore, requires a detailed collective analysis, as it involves a sensitive issue with potential systemic repercussions for the stability of competitions and uniformity of sports jurisdiction. Thus, in a perfunctory analysis, there is not enough likelihood to grant the requested injunction.

Therefore, it is necessary to recognize that the complete evaluation of the factual, legal, and interpretative aspects must be conducted by the Full Bench of the Court, which can deliberate more broadly on the pertinence and scope of any exceptional measure.

Consequently, weighing the direct impacts of any injunction decision and considering that the matter requires broad institutional reflection, prudence recommends that the issue be submitted to the collegiate body for a duly substantiated final decision.

Thus, I DENY the injunction request made by the Sports Justice Prosecutor's Office, without prejudice to the merits analysis by the Full Bench of this Court. Forward to the Sports Justice Prosecutor's Office.

Comply.”

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