José Lamacchia backs R$2bn deal, eyes Leila Pereira for Vasco SAF

In partnership with

Papo na Colina

·26 de junho de 2026

José Lamacchia backs R$2bn deal, eyes Leila Pereira for Vasco SAF

The commercial backstage of Vasco da Gama has seen new revelations with major financial impact following the stance taken by the main guarantor of the transition project. In an exclusive interview with ge, businessman José Roberto Lamacchia, owner of Crefisa, confirmed that the memorandum of understanding for the purchase of 90% of the football shares has been signed. The 83-year-old investor is acting as guarantor for his son, Marcos Faria Lamacchia, in the R$ 2 billion investment designed to restructure the institution.

The billionaire made a point of stressing that the validity of the contract and the investor group’s commitment are strictly tied to the suspended president remaining in charge of the association:

Vídeos OneFootball

“This agreement has already been signed, it’s already in place. But we will only stay—when I say we, I mean my son, Marcos Faria Lamacchia. We will only stay if the president is Pedrinho. I’m the guarantor of the operation, that’s why I’m getting involved. I’m guaranteeing R$ 2 billion for my son. Although he doesn’t need it, because he has that money. My son is a clean and independent person.”

+ “My son and I are going to rebuild Vasco,” promises José Lamacchia after the SAF controversy

Criticism of the political split and security cameras

Pedrinho continues to receive full backing from the owner of Crefisa, who harshly criticized the board members that secured the court injunction removing the former player. The businessman accused former executives of seeking personal advantages at the negotiating table and revealed that he has internal records in his office to disprove opponents who deny involvement in drafting the Vasco SAF memorandum.

The investor lashed out at the conduct of the opposition and specifically named the former legal vice president as one of those responsible for the institutional roadblocks:

“That doesn’t change the desire. Obviously, I will only buy… not me, my son will only buy Vasco if Pedrinho is president, because with those people there, I have no way to do it. Marcos won’t want to stay with those guys. All they want are positions at Vasco, blackmailing people to get positions. What they did to Pedrinho was the biggest absurdity I’ve ever seen in my life. And they do everything behind closed doors. They don’t have the courage to show up and say: ‘I was the one who did it.’ They don’t show their faces, they always stay hidden. It’s a political fight that exists and only hurts Vasco. They’re even saying they have nothing to do with it. So what were they doing at my office? I have video from the cameras in my office—there are cameras for people coming in and going out. They’re all on camera. What did they go there for? Did they go there to eat ice cream? No, they went there to discuss these matters and seek perks. One of them is Felipe Carregal. He never gave a penny to Vasco. Always getting in Vasco’s way.”

A message to Flamengo and no conflict

Pedrinho was also defended by his business partner against outside claims of a supposed conflict of interest in the operation because the buyer is the stepson of Leila Pereira, president of Palmeiras. The investor explained that he consulted legal opinions supported by legislation and sent a direct message to rival Flamengo president Luiz Eduardo Baptista, known as Bap, who had criticized Vasco’s dealings in the market.

The businessman pushed back against bad-faith criticism regarding sporting rules and told the rival to focus on his own internal problems:

“There is no such thing. Marcos is my son, Leila’s stepson. If you read the law, you’ll see there’s absolutely no problem. Because this other issue of conflict of interest—if it existed, it existed three years ago. Not now, when they’re talking about it. Why didn’t they make that up three years ago? It’s bad faith on their part. I paid no attention to it. He should take care of Flamengo. Flamengo has problems too, plenty of them. He should deal with those problems instead of giving opinions on what is none of his business. I’ve never given opinions on what is none of my business. And he should do the same—that’s my advice to him. Go take care of your club and stop busting other clubs’ balls.”

Could Leila Pereira take a position at Vasco SAF?

Pedrinho inspires the governance model focused on professionalism that the pair intends to implement at Vasco SAF, using the successful restructuring carried out in São Paulo football as a reference. The owner of Crefisa revealed that his wife is exclusively fulfilling her duties at her current club, but left the door open for her to take on an executive role at São Januário after her electoral cycle in São Paulo definitively ends.

The businessman projected a future scenario of collaboration and concluded by reaffirming the strict clauses established to shield the Rio club from speculative aims:

“Of course, what works has to be copied. Marcos is going to copy that. In fact, I get the impression that Marcos was inspired by Leila to buy Vasco. And Leila, in that interview I mentioned, said that after her term ends, she would like to buy another club. Obviously it won’t be Vasco, but she could take a position, who knows. She could help Vasco. Maybe yes, maybe no—those are things for the future. But all of that, of course, only after she finishes her term at Palmeiras, because then she will no longer have any ties to Palmeiras. She can’t take part in this now because she is 200% involved with Palmeiras. And another thing, Marcos is not going to sell the club—he doesn’t want to trade the club in the future, like many banks do, buying a club only to sell it later. It’s a philosophy of life, because he likes football, wants to see football thrive, and was inspired by Leila. And he is not going to sell Vasco. In fact, during this restriction period between him and Vasco, there is a clause in the MOU saying that he cannot sell Vasco for a period of 10 or 20 years. It’s a different vision. It’s not the mindset of a fund that buys in order to trade later.”