Search

Mario Frias questioned whether the press would give extensive coverage to what he described as a supposed attempted coup that occurred that day in São Paulo. He also asked whether the Armed Forces had been activated, whether those responsible had been identified, and whether the heads of the Powers had expressed themselves in defense of democracy. Frias further asked who would pay for the damage to public property and whether the president was in the United States or at the location of the events. He questioned whether the criteria would be applied equally to everyone and whether democracy would have a side. #Democracia #GolpeDeEstado #Mídia (translated)

Carlos Bolsonaro stated that graffiti and vandalism during a pro-Lula demonstration on Avenida Paulista were treated as vandalism, while the events of January 8 had resulted in accusations of terrorism and severe convictions, with people still imprisoned and families devastated. He questioned whether the same rigor would be applied in both cases or if the Justice system adopted different criteria depending on the political side. #Justiça #Vandalismo #Política (translated)

The account (fan) REAL MADRID FANS noted that RMTV had published a video about the differences in refereeing criteria between Real Madrid and Barcelona. They considered the video to be shocking, stated that competing in the League was impossible, and urged everyone to watch it, describing the situation as disgraceful. https://t.co/6FBXShJH8t #LaLiga #RealMadrid #Barcelona (translated)

Attention, Vasco fans! It was reported that Vasco da Gama filed a motion with the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ) to defend the decision that determined the availability of Maracanã for the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana against Boca Juniors, scheduled for October 20 at 9:30 PM. According to the publication, the document was filed on Saturday (the 10th) and requested that the attempt by the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. to suspend the decision through a writ of security be rejected. The publication reported that the club argued that the court decision took into account statements from public security agencies and the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio de Janeiro. According to Vasco, the Military Police pointed to Maracanã as the preferred alternative, considering the infrastructure, urban mobility, fan organization, and access control. The club also questioned, according to the publication, the criteria used by the concessionaire to deny the stadium and argued that the requirements for preserving the pitch should be applied objectively and equally. The defense also stated that Conmebol had already announced Maracanã as the venue and that ticket sales were underway. By the morning of October 10, Vasco reported having sold 11,446 tickets and handed over 4,000 tickets to Boca Juniors for the visiting fans. Attention, Vasco fans! the club added that it warned of possible damages to the organization of the semifinal, to the supporters, and to the security planning if the decision were suspended. Vasco requested that the concessionaire's injunction be denied and that the writ of security be rejected, maintaining the decision that secured the stadium. According to the publication, the legal dispute was still ongoing. #Vasco #Maracanã #CopaSulAmericana (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha reported that Judge Marco Antônio Ibrahim, from the 23rd Chamber of Private Law of the TJRJ, ordered the match between Vasco and Boca Juniors to be held at Maracanã and took into account the history of conflicts between Vasco and the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. Tutinha stated that the magistrate pointed out that the club had already sought justice to use the stadium and that the concessionaire had repeated justifications related to the condition of the pitch, which could indicate a "personal issue" between the parties. According to Tutinha, Ibrahim also considered a Memorandum of Understanding between Vasco and the concessionaire. The club argued that the document guaranteed it four matches per season at Maracanã, excluding classics against Flamengo and Fluminense, and that any refusals should be based on objective technical and operational criteria. Tutinha added that Vasco pointed out a contradiction in how the concessionaire invoked the memorandum to restrict access but contested its binding force when it provided rights to the club. Ibrahim considered the document in his reasoning but did not make a definitive decision on the enforceability of all clauses. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)

Attention, Vascaínos! It was reported that Judge Marco Antônio Ibrahim, from the 23rd Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro, determined that the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. should make the Maracanã available for Vasco vs. Boca Juniors, for the semifinals of the Copa Sul-Americana, on October 20, at 9:30 PM. The decision was granted this Friday (9), after a request from Vasco against the concessionaire's refusal, which had alleged technical issues related to the maintenance and restoration of the field. According to the publication, the magistrate considered statements from the Military Police and the Public Ministry of Rio de Janeiro, which pointed out the stadium as a preferred alternative due to structural, logistical, and operational conditions, as well as issues of safety and urban mobility. He also mentioned previous disputes between the club and the concessionaire regarding the use of the stadium. The decision also determined that the Maracanã should be offered to Vasco under commercial and operational conditions equal to those practiced for Flamengo and Fluminense, respecting legal, technical, and safety requirements. The publication stated that compliance was urgent, as Vasco needed to inform CONMEBOL by October 10 which stadium would host the match, and that the concessionaire could still present its defense. #Maracanã #Vasco #SulAmericana (translated)

Jones Manoel stated that Meta admitted to a flaw in the counting of video views on Instagram during the second round of elections and that, until then, it had not clarified which content was affected, the extent of the problem, or whether the distribution of posts was harmed. He said that Instagram and Facebook had a significant influence on the circulation of information, while the criteria of their algorithms remained little transparent. He argued that digital and data sovereignty should occupy a central position in Brazilian politics and that foreign companies should be subjected to transparency, oversight, and accountability. Manoel also stated that Brazil needed to develop its own capacity to protect data and ensure algorithmic transparency. He said he intended to put the topic at the center of the debate in the National Congress in 2027 and rejected, in his words, that the country should be treated as the backyard of the United States. #SoberaniaDigital #Algoritmos #Transparência (translated)

Flamengo stated that the officiating by Anderson Daronco and the VAR official, Rodolpho Toski Marques, had serious errors and inconsistent criteria in the match against Santos. The club said that Barreal should have been sent off for a tackle on Carrascal but only received a yellow card. Flamengo also challenged the penalty decision and the expulsion of Jorginho after a handball. According to the club, the incident caused a stoppage of 9 minutes and 56 seconds, a record interruption in a VAR review in the history of the Brasileirão. The team stated that the decision left them a player short and removed Jorginho from the next match. A few minutes later, according to Flamengo, another penalty was awarded to Santos after a foul that should not have occurred, resulting in the second goal for the São Paulo team from the penalty kick. The club also mentioned the numbers of the championship: in 29 matches, they had received seven red cards, the second-highest total in the competition, despite being in 17th place in the foul ranking and leading in average ball-in-play time. Flamengo claimed to be one of the three teams that committed the fewest fouls yet still the second most expelled. The statement also noted that Daronco and Toski were scheduled for the classic between Palmeiras and Corinthians on Sunday and requested that the rules be applied with rigor and impartiality. The club added that they were among the five finalists for the Best Men's Club of the Year award at the Ballon d'Or and stated that officiating errors harmed the results and the image of Brazilian football. #Arbitragem #Futebol #Brasileirão (translated)

The CNMC has asked the government to relax the regulations on data centers, warning that the current requirements for renewable energy consumption may prove ineffective and lead to energy waste, in addition to proposing a review of the sanctioning regime and the criteria for water and electrical efficiency. #CNMC #centrosdedatos #sostenibilidad (translated)

God wrote that some political ideologies resembled religion because, according to him, they were not guided by rational criteria, appealed to instincts, and divided people into good and bad. He also stated that they promised a paradise, denied reality, and had myths, preachers, martyrs, heretics, and followers. #Política #Ideología #Sociedad (translated)

The Supreme Court has annulled the decree of the Government of Pedro Sánchez that tightened the criteria for the creation and authorization of private universities in Spain due to a formal defect in its urgent processing, which significantly alters the landscape for university projects. #Universidades #TribunalSupremo #DecretoAntichiringuitos (translated)

The Planet of Football reported that a judge from Rio de Janeiro denied, on the 6th, an appeal from Vasco to play against Boca Juniors at the Maracanã. According to the publication, the decision could still be changed until Saturday, the deadline for the club to indicate the location to Conmebol. The judge reportedly considered a more in-depth analysis of the evidence regarding the pitch, the calendar, and the operation necessary, in addition to requesting a response from the Fla-Flu Consortium. Vasco claimed unequal treatment and selective application of criteria, according to the post. The publication added that the Public Ministry recommended the use of the Maracanã, but the judge considered the recommendation non-binding for the Fla-Flu Consortium and insufficient to replace the contractual, technical, and operational assessments. #Vasco #Maracanã #BocaJuniors (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha stated that Judge Adriana Marques had denied Vasco's request based on technical criteria related to the Maracanã's pitch and suggested Nilton Santos as an alternative. He said that the Public Prosecutor's Office recommended Maracanã, based on a statement from the Military Police regarding public safety, and argued that the bid allowed for refusals based on technical criteria without limiting them to the pitch. According to Tutinha, the recommendation did not annul the first-instance decision but could be presented to the Court in a potential new appeal. He questioned which criterion should prevail: the state of the pitch, associated with GreenLeaf, or public safety. #SegurançaPública #Vasco #Maracanã (translated)

The article discusses the problematic consequences of the implementation of Professionalization Courses in Service (CPS) in Portugal, arguing that, although they are a solution to the shortage of teachers, they cannot be equated to master's degrees in teaching in terms of pedagogical training and evaluation criteria. #FaltadeProfessores #FormaçãoDocente #Educação (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha wrote that Vasco filed an appeal on Friday (02) at the TJRJ against the decision of the 2nd Civil Court that did not analyze its urgent request to use Maracanã against Boca Juniors and suspended the process for 20 days, after a statement from Fla-Flu Serviços in 48 hours. According to Tutinha, Vasco argued that it needs to indicate the stadium to CONMEBOL by 10/05 for the match on 10/20 at 21:30, and that the suspension could make a subsequent decision pointless. The club requested that Judge Rose Marie Pimentel Martins, from the 5th Chamber of Public Law, grant the request directly for Maracanã to be made available. As an alternative, it requested the end of the suspension and that the first-instance judge analyze the preliminary injunction without waiting for the appeal related to the popular action. Tutinha reported that Vasco also contested the technical criteria used to deny the stadium and claimed a contradiction in the concessionaire's position on the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Vasco, Flamengo, and Fluminense. The club stated that the restrictions should be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and cited ten official matches held at Maracanã in May 2026, nine of them between the 9th and 30th, including games on consecutive days: Fluminense x Bolívar on 05/19, and Flamengo x Estudiantes on 05/20; Flamengo x Cusco on 05/26, and Fluminense x Deportivo La Guaira on 05/27. According to Tutinha, Vasco also mentioned the indication of Maracanã by PMERJ as the most suitable option for security planning. Among the requests, it included non-discriminatory commercial and operational conditions, a maximum ticket load according to the authorized capacity, and a daily fine of R$ 1 million in case of non-compliance. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)

"THE FORCE WING" DISTURBS THE GAME (ONCE AGAIN) TO BENEFIT LULA In the way it is, an inevitable question arises: what are the rules of this election? Every day there is a new court decision interfering in the electoral process. This generates insecurity and feeds a serious doubt: if Flávio Bolsonaro wins at the polls, will the result be respected or could new decisions alter the course of the election? The episode of the Globo Network debate is yet another example of this discussion. A tradition from previous elections - leaving the podium empty for an absent candidate - has become the object of a court decision. Not even defining as a parameter for a high-level debate that the candidate's party has robust representation in the National Congress is respected anymore. It is also legitimate to question whether the same criteria adopted in 2022 are being applied in 2026. In the last election, for example, Jair Bolsonaro was prevented from streaming live from his official residence, as it was decided that this violated the equality of the race between candidates. Today, Lula gives live interviews to television channels from that same location. Regardless of who is the benefited or harmed candidate, democracy demands clear, predictable, and equal rules for all. When the rules change during the game, trust in the already moribund institutions is once again stabbed. And no democracy can treat this as something normal. In this way, it is better for the "Force Wing" of the STF to soon declare the winner of this and future elections. #Eleições2026 #Democracia #Justiça (translated)

🚨 VASCO CONTESTS TECHNICAL CRITERIA OF FLA-FLU, POINTS OUT VIOLATION OF CONCESSION RULES AND CITES DECISION FROM TJRJ IN ACTION FOR MARACANÃ Vasco filed an obligation lawsuit on Wednesday (1st) with a request for urgent protective measures to try to secure the Maracanã against Boca Juniors on October 20, for the semifinal of the South American Cup. In the action, the club directly questions the technical criteria used by Fla-Flu to deny the stadium, points out unequal treatment, supports violations of concession rules, and also explores a contradiction involving the Memorandum of Understanding. 📌 WHAT FLA-FLU ALLEGED In response to Vasco, the concessionaire pointed to the accumulated wear of the lawn, the climatic conditions of July and August, and the need to preserve the intervals designated for field maintenance. For 10/20, Fla-Flu specifically mentioned games of Fluminense on 10/18 and Flamengo on 10/22. With Vasco x Boca between these matches, there would be three games in five days. According to the concessionaire, this sequence would prevent procedures such as helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and repair of damage to the lawn. 📌 VASCO QUESTIONS THE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION The first counterpoint is the lawn itself. Vasco highlights that, three days after the denial, it was announced that the existing field would be removed and new Bermuda Celebration rolls would be placed, with the return of football scheduled for 10/08. Vasco x Boca will be on 10/20. The club's thesis is that it would not be possible to use the accumulated wear of the old lawn as justification for a match that will take place 12 days after the return of football to the renewed field. 📌 GREENLEAF DOCUMENT IS USED BY VASCO Vasco also retrieves the technical planning prepared by Greenleaf, the company responsible for lawn maintenance, in August. According to the action, the document shows that the same procedures cited by Fla-Flu to deny Vasco x Boca have already been carried out in a concentrated manner between matches. The petition states that helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and damage repair have even been grouped in a single day after a match, even in a winter scenario and lawn wear. The question posed by Vasco is direct: if this work could be done in August to accommodate the sequence of games from Flamengo and Fluminense, why couldn't it be repeated in October, after the complete lawn replacement? 📌 INTERVAL BETWEEN GAMES Vasco also contests the argument of three games in five days by comparing the situation with the recent calendar of the Maracanã. The action argues that sequences with reduced intervals for Flamengo and Fluminense matches have already been admitted. For Vasco, if the necessary interval for lawn recovery is decisive for denying a match, that criterion must be applied equally to all clubs. 📌 SHOWS AND OTHER EVENTS The action also points out that the Maracanã hosts shows, religious gatherings, and events from other sports, including the installation of structures and occupancy of the field area. Vasco questions how the administration can reconcile these events with lawn preservation, yet considers it technically unfeasible to host a semifinal of CONMEBOL. According to the data presented in the action, at least seven extraordinary events unrelated to official football were held between 2025 and 09/30/2026. 📌 CONCESSION NOTICE Vasco cites item 3.4 of the Terms of Reference, which gives priority to football events from the official calendars of FIFA, CONMEBOL, CBF, and FERJ over other events. Vasco x Boca is an official semifinal of CONMEBOL. The action argues that there would be an "inversion of this priority" by accommodating shows and other events and denying the stadium for a match that, under the concession rules cited by the club, should have priority. The petition mentions "distortion of the concessionaire's obligations" and "violation of the equal treatment required by the Concession Notice." 📌 UNEQUAL TREATMENT Vasco summarizes its challenge in four points: • the lawn replacement would change the premise of accumulated wear; • Greenleaf's own planning would demonstrate that maintenance could be carried out between matches; • the calendar would show reduced intervals that have already been admitted for Flamengo and Fluminense; • other events are reconciled with the necessary care for field preservation. As a result, Vasco asserts that restrictions are being applied selectively. The action further cites clause 13.2 of the Concession Contract, which prohibits favoritism and unjustifiably different, discriminatory treatment, or "without technical criteria" that results in restricted access to the Complex. 📌 THE CONTRADICTION POINTED OUT BY VASCO Fla-Flu claims not to recognize the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025. At the same time, according to Vasco, it uses the document itself—especially the provision for four matches conditioned on availability and operational conditions—to justify the denial. Vasco points out contradictory behavior and invokes the principle of good faith. 📌 PREVIOUS DECISION OF TJRJ The action also cites the Instrument Appeal No. 3023517-70.2026.8.19.0000. On that occasion, Justice Alexandre Freitas Câmara analyzed the discussion regarding the absence of Fla-Flu's signature on the Memorandum. The magistrate stated that Flamengo and Fluminense, members of the concessionaire, had signed the document and pointed out that disregarding it later could represent contradictory behavior contrary to good faith. 📌 RECOMMENDATION FROM BEPE The issue of public safety also appears as an argument for the use of the Maracanã. According to the action, BEPE (Specialized Battalion for Policing in Stadiums) recommended holding the match at the Maracanã due to the magnitude of the confrontation and the expected public turnout. Vasco uses this recommendation to argue that the Maracanã is not just a preference of the club. The petition points to the stadium as the option that best meets capacity, location, structure, security, and operational conditions to host the match against Boca. 📌 SÃO JANUÁRIO IS NOT AN OPTION Vasco also differentiates the situation from the previous process involving Vasco x Vitória, when it did not obtain a preliminary injunction to use the Maracanã. This time, according to the action, São Januário cannot host the semifinal. The South American Manual requires a minimum capacity of 30,000 spectators starting from the semifinals, while the petition indicates São Januário has approximately 21,880 seats. Vasco acknowledges the Nilton Santos Stadium as an alternative but argues that having another stadium does not resolve the issue brought to Justice: is there legitimate technical and contractual basis for Fla-Flu to deny Maracanã? 📌 WHAT VASCO SEEKS Vasco is seeking a preliminary injunction requiring Fla-Flu to make the Maracanã available for Vasco x Boca on 10/20 at 9:30 PM. The request includes the maximum ticket allocation corresponding to the authorized capacity, the use of necessary facilities for organizing the match, the implementation of a mosaic, and temporary installation of banners in the same manner allowed for the clubs that are members of the concessionaire. In case of non-compliance, Vasco requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million. Vasco must inform CONMEBOL by October 5 where it will hold the return match of the semifinal. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)

URGENT: VASCO GOES TO COURT OVER MARACANÃ! Vasco da Gama filed a lawsuit on Thursday (1st) for an obligation to act with a request for urgent protection against FLA-FLU Serviços S.A., the concessionaire of Maracanã. The objective is to guarantee the match Vasco x Boca Juniors, for the CONMEBOL Sudamericana semifinal, at Maracanã, on October 20, at 9:30 PM. The urgency is huge: Vasco needs to inform CONMEBOL by October 5 which stadium will host the match. In the action, the club argues that São Januário does not meet the minimum capacity requirement established for the semifinals of the competition and emphasizes the structure of Maracanã to host a confrontation of this magnitude. The petition also cites a statement from the Military Police in favor of holding the game at the stadium. Vasco also claims to have a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025 that provided for the use of Maracanã in matches of CBF, FIFA, or CONMEBOL competitions, in addition to establishing that any refusal should be based on technical and operational criteria. The preliminary request is clear: for the court to order the availability of Maracanã for Vasco x Boca Juniors, including the necessary conditions for the execution and organization of the match. The club also requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million in case of non-compliance with the possible court order and urgently requires the concessionaire to be notified so that the stadium can be confirmed with CONMEBOL within the deadline. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)