CMTV reports Gonçalves refused to suspend his mandate

Luciano Gonçalves appeared at CMTV’s studios to discuss an investigative report, and the interview quickly became a source of tension inside the Portuguese Football Federation. Record reported that Pedro Proença had not been told in advance and that Gonçalves’s appearance displeased people at the federation. Days later, CMTV reported that Gonçalves had refused an invitation to suspend his mandate as president of the FPF Arbitration Council. The reported refusal leaves him in office while the federation faces questions over allegations about referee appointments and its response to them.

The refusal does not settle the allegations; it changes who must answer for the uncertainty. The FPF disciplinary case has been archived, but a separate criminal inquiry into alleged interference in referee appointments remains active. That is the immediate governance problem: the body responsible for refereeing must explain how its appointment system is overseen without treating an unproven allegation as a finding of guilt.

At the end of 2025/26, a professional referee shared information with Duarte Gomes, then the FPF’s Director of Technical Arbitration. The FPF Council of Justice opened a disciplinary inquiry into Gonçalves, and the federation referred the reported facts to the Public Prosecutor under the Sports Integrity Legal Regime.

CMTV’s report left a crucial detail unanswered: it did not identify who invited Luciano Gonçalves to suspend his mandate, or explain why the request was made.

The allegations examined by the FPF Council of Justice provide the backdrop. Reporting on the inquiry says it considered whether Gonçalves arranged officials for Moreirense-Estrela da Amadora and Estrela da Amadora-Famalicão, two of the final four league matches, at the request of a club fighting to stay in the top flight. Investigators also considered whether appointment details reached Pedro Garcia or another person associated with Estrela before they were public.

A separate allegation concerned referee Hélder Malheiro, who had reached the age limit and had been told he would not continue the following season. The inquiry examined whether Gonçalves told him he could keep officiating if Estrela beat Moreirense. These are allegations, not established findings.

On 24 July, the FPF Council of Justice archived its disciplinary case against Luciano Gonçalves. It said there was insufficient evidence to establish that he had promised referee Hélder Malheiro continued work if Estrela da Amadora beat Moreirense, disclosed appointments in advance or arranged them at a club’s request, according to A Bola and other reports.

The Council also said it could not determine the context or meaning of a WhatsApp message. Its decision noted that disciplinary proceedings could not rely on evidence obtained by intruding into private communications, a measure it said belonged to criminal proceedings and was subject to restrictions.

That is a different question from the one still before criminal investigators. The Public Prosecutor confirmed an inquiry into alleged interference in referee appointments, assisted by the Polícia Judiciária. Later reports said investigators were examining suspected leaks of appointment information and possible influence over appointments. No outcome of that inquiry has been reported, leaving the disciplinary decision and the criminal investigation with distinct statuses.

FC Porto president André Villas-Boas called for Gonçalves to suspend his duties temporarily while the facts were clarified. He also urged the FPF to take a firmer, clearer position, saying the federation’s leadership had taken direct responsibility for refereeing.

We consider it prudent for the president of the Arbitration Council to suspend his duties temporarily while he defends his good name and the facts are clarified. Not as an assumption of guilt, but to protect the person himself, the role he holds and the institution he represents.

O Jogo and other outlets reported that FC Porto was the only club to have publicly called for a temporary suspension. The club had also sought explanations from Gonçalves over a separate appointment: Fábio Veríssimo’s selection for Porto’s January 2026 Portuguese Cup match against Benfica.

Porto said it objected because proceedings involving the club and referee were pending, and that it informed Proença after the appointment was announced. It has also stressed that the council is independent and denied putting pressure on it.

FC Porto does not appoint referees. It does not take part in the process of appointing referees. It does not interfere in the decisions of the Arbitration Council.

The club’s position is therefore twofold: it wants a temporary step aside and a clearer response from the federation, while insisting it neither controls nor interferes with referee appointments.

Against the calls for a temporary departure, Gonçalves has not treated the disciplinary decision as if it erased the effect of the allegations. In a statement after the case was archived, he recognised their impact while stressing that they had not been proved.

This decision does not erase the impact caused by allegations that were ultimately not proven.

That distinction matters to the case for his remaining in office: the damage allegations may cause is not itself proof of misconduct. O Jogo reported on 24 September that Frederico Varandas was among those publicly supporting Gonçalves’s continuation. His support shows that calls for a suspension are not the only view among club leaders, even as the federation faces pressure to explain its response.

The pressure reaches beyond the question of who leads the Arbitration Council. Benfica requested an urgent meeting with the FPF board, while FC Porto sought explanations from Gonçalves, Observador reported on 1 July. Those approaches placed the federation’s handling of the matter before clubs as well as its own refereeing leadership. They also made the response a test of how the FPF accounts for decisions affecting competition, not simply how it addresses one official’s mandate.

The professional league turned directly to Pedro Proença for further information. It described refereeing as vital to the stability of competitions and the credibility of Portuguese football. That concern gives the requests a wider weight: clubs need confidence in how appointments are made, while the league depends on trust in the contests those appointments serve. Gonçalves remains in post, but the questions now reach the FPF leadership and the institutions whose confidence the appointment system needs.

At CMTV’s studios, Gonçalves addressed the investigative report in public. The next marker will come from the institutions responsible for the inquiry and the federation’s response. Record reports Proença is under pressure to take a position, but no date has been set for a statement or decision. The criminal inquiry has its own timetable. For now, the question is whether the next public step comes from investigators or from the FPF president, while the council’s president remains in office.

• Any decision or reported outcome from the Public Prosecutor’s inquiry into alleged interference in referee appointments.