São Paulo ethics committee drops bid to expel Massis over mismanagement | OneFootball

São Paulo’s Ethics Committee ordered the definitive dismissal of the complaint that requested the opening of disciplinary proceedings, the removal, and the expulsion of president Harry Massis.

Filed on July 30 by an opposition group led by council member Carlos Sadi, the complaint accused the executive of alleged reckless management, bylaw violations, and harm to governance.

Led by rapporteur Milton José Neves Júnior, the decision ordered the termination of the case without a ruling on the merits. The resolution was based on three central pillars: the loss of the underlying purpose, the expiration of the deadlines set by club rules, and the lack of concrete evidence in the other accusations.

Grounds Cited by the Ethics Committee for the Dismissal

Transfer Ban and Loss of Purpose: The main time-related element of the accusation was the transfer ban imposed by FIFA due to the debt owed to Lazio in the signing of player Marcos Antônio. Since the board paid the amount of 1.05 million euros (about R$ 6.2 million) on August 5, the punishment was lifted. The rapporteur found there had been a “subsequent loss of purpose,” also concluding that the delay did not prove bad faith or reckless management, but rather a temporary complication.

Untimely Complaints: The Committee pointed out that almost all of the cited facts were time-barred. The club’s Internal Rules set a 15-day limit for filing complaints; only the transfer ban issue was submitted within the permitted window.

Generic Allegations and Lack of Evidence: Complaints about delayed salary payments and football management were classified as “vague, purely circumstantial, and generic.” The opinion stressed that the complaint relied on news reports without gathering sufficient documentation to specifically attribute the conduct to Massis.

Administrative Res Judicata: Questions about the legality of the composition of the Board of Directors were dismissed because they had already been the subject of a prior decision in another internal proceeding.

Opposition Reaction

The resolution sparked strong dissatisfaction among the council members who filed the request.

The opposition criticized the strict interpretation of the 15-day deadline and the body’s slowness in deciding the case, confirming that they are considering appeals and other appropriate measures to challenge the dismissal through administrative channels.

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