According to Jogo Hoje, this is one of those weeks where football logistics collide with legal theatre. Palmeiras released an official note attacking both the STJD’s handling of Abel Ferreira’s disciplinary case and the CBF’s decision to postpone the Fla-Flu, arguing that the system is drifting away from sporting equality and from consistent regulatory criteria. In plain terms: when the rules are stressed, some clubs seem to get different answers.
What Palmeiras said in the note
Palmeiras didn’t just complain. They framed the issue like a procedural problem—an instance disciplinar and a federation decision that, in their view, don’t match the standards historically used.
On the disciplinary side, the club says the STJD punished Abel Ferreira in a way it considers disproportionate, pointing to what it calls “imprecisions” in the ruling, including a reading of lip movements without what the club deems proper expert support. Palmeiras also claims the session dragged in past episodes, even though—according to their line of argument—that doesn’t justify what they see as a harsher outcome this time.
And on the competition side, Palmeiras ties that disciplinary pressure to the calendar conflict created by the Fla-Flu reschedule. The club insists that the CBF’s acceptance of Flamengo’s request—made after an international travel disruption tied to the delegation’s flight from Cusco, Peru—raises questions about fairness across the league.
Why Abel Ferreira became the core of the criticism
From a sports-law angle, Palmeiras’ sharpest point is not only the punishment itself, but the denial of an effect suspending request.
They explain that the request for an effect suspending was filed on Thursday (9) and then rejected by the STJD on Saturday (11). Palmeiras argues that in “similar cases” the same tribunal had previously granted such requests to protect the amplo direito à defesa—the broad right of defense. If the precedent exists, why wasn’t it applied here?
That’s the heart of their legal framing: in a disciplinary process, consistency isn’t a luxury. It’s part of credibility. When a tribunal declines a protective measure for one coach while granting it elsewhere, the club believes the sport starts drifting toward unequal treatment, undermining sporting equality and the credibility of the competition.
And yes, Palmeiras also questions the logic of elevating a single professional as a kind of “scapegoat” for what they call a collective issue. It’s a familiar argument in regulatory disputes: if the underlying conduct involves a broader context, why does punishment land with such imbalance?
How the Fla-Flu postponement fed the backlash
The Fla-Flu issue adds fuel because it’s not abstract. It’s a concrete calendar decision that affects travel, rest, preparation, and competitive rhythm—exactly the kind of thing that becomes explosive in a tight schedule.
Palmeiras highlights the timeline: the Fla-Flu of the 11th matchday in the Brasileirão was moved from Saturday (11) to Sunday (12). Palmeiras also points out Flamengo’s justification: an alleged delay tied to the flight of the delegation coming from Cusco, Peru, and the fact that the request was accepted by the CBF with the Fluminense’s agreement.
Palmeiras’ question is blunt and regulatory: if one club’s logistical problem is treated as sufficient to alter the fixture, what happens when other clubs submit similar requests? Why are those systematically rejected?
That’s more than whining about scheduling. It’s about the criterion regulatório—the decision logic that should be transparent and applied evenly.
The sporting equality point: why the club talks about unequal treatment
Palmeiras is essentially running two parallel arguments that reinforce each other.
First, they claim the disciplinary process failed the test of sporting equality because the STJD’s approach to Abel Ferreira—particularly around the effect suspending—does not align with how the tribunal has acted in comparable situations. Second, they argue the CBF’s fixture change also lacks consistent regulatory criteria, because it appears to reward one club’s request while denying similar ones to others.
In legal terms, Palmeiras is hunting for precedent. They want the same standards applied across the board. If the rules are flexible, then who gets the flexibility—and who gets stuck with the consequences?
And that’s why their wording hits: they say arbitrary decisions compromise the credibility of competitions. When the system looks selective, teams start treating the schedule and the disciplinary machinery like a lottery, not a set of rules. That’s a dangerous precedent in itself.
What this changes in the debate over CBF, STJD, and the calendar
At this stage, Palmeiras’ note doesn’t just request a reaction—it tries to reshape the debate.
By linking the disciplinary timeline (Thursday request, Saturday denial, punishment discussed in the note) with the fixture timeline (Saturday originally, moved to Sunday), Palmeiras is showing a pattern: decisions that affect competitive balance are being made under pressure, and the club believes that pressure is not distributed evenly.
For the league, the practical consequence is clear. In a tight schedule, small changes matter. If clubs perceive that the criterion regulatório is inconsistent, the next disputes won’t be limited to one matchday or one coach. The entire framework risks being challenged as lacking sporting equality.
And for regulators, the uncomfortable truth is this: once teams start talking about unequal treatment and precedent in the same breath, the governing bodies face a reputational problem—not only a football problem.
O Veredito Jogo Hoje
Palmeiras isn’t “making noise for noise’s sake.” They’re building a legal-logic bridge between the STJD’s refusal of an effect suspending and the CBF’s acceptance of a fixture change—then daring the system to explain why one standard applies to some and another standard applies to others. If the instance disciplinar and the competition authority can’t show consistent regulatory criteria, the league doesn’t just lose points on the table; it loses trust. And in football, trust is the only thing more valuable than three points.
Perguntas Frequentes
Why did Palmeiras criticize the Fla-Flu postponement?
Because they questioned the CBF’s decision to move the 11th matchday fixture from Saturday (11) to Sunday (12) after Flamengo cited a travel delay from Cusco, Peru—while Palmeiras argues other clubs with similar requests have been denied, suggesting a lack of sporting equality and inconsistent regulatory criteria.
What did the club say about Abel Ferreira’s punishment?
Palmeiras claims the STJD punishment was disproportionate and points to what it calls a “lip reading” reference without proper expert backing, plus the use of prior episodes. They also stress that the STJD rejected an effect suspending request filed on Thursday (9) on Saturday (11), arguing this differs from how the tribunal behaves in comparable cases.
Could the rescheduling of the classic create a precedent in the Brasileirão?
That’s exactly the worry Palmeiras is raising. When one club’s logistical request leads to a fixture change while similar requests are allegedly refused elsewhere, it can shape expectations and future lobbying. In regulatory terms, it risks creating an informal precedent that undermines the sense of consistent criterion regulatório across teams.
