Juventus and the sports justice reform: all the knots – Corriere.it

Nobody talks about it, but in the Council of State – the highest organ of administrative justice – still pending, the last hearing was on May 4, dtwo appeals by Juventus for Calciopoli, whose trials in the sports arena were held in 2006 (with a tail, Inter’s prescription, in 2011): 17 and 12 years ago. Well, the Calciopoli sports trials were celebrated after the championship ended, as it is claimed by many that should have been done in the case of Juve’s capital gains. The circumstance has certainly not sheltered from controversy. And we all remember the defenses that complained about the rights being violated due to the excessive haste with which the trials were celebrated. But let’s leave Calciopoli alone and come to today.

No one argues that the best of all possible worlds where a team sees its penalties changed several times during the season. But the refrain repeated by everyone, and the subject of a letter from the Minister of Sport Andrea Abodi to Coni, we need to reform sports justice risks remaining an empty slogan. Reform is fine, but how? And, above all, for what purposes? Let’s start from the most heartfelt argument, the one on timing: The Juve trial was to be held at the end of the season, trials cannot be held during the season (Massimo Gramellini also talks about it in today’s café). Apart from the fact that every year there are trials for unpaid salaries that lead to penalty points during the season, let’s move on. Serie A season this year it ends on June 4th (that of C, for example, on 12 June). The day after, UEFA asks for the standings to decide which teams go to the Cups and the following season starts on 1 July. This means celebrating the two levels of judgment in the FIGC plus the third in the College of Guarantee in 25 days. What about defense rights? The alternative is to finish judging with the next championship that has already started, with the risk of finding yourself back to square one.

The FIGC has recently reformed its code in the name of speed: setting of the hearing within 30 days of the referral, device within the day, the reasons within a week and seven days to appeal. Hard to hurry. The real point that appears to be improved (and the Coni Council acted in this sense yesterday) in the guarantee college
. Here we can intervene on the times: there are 30 days available to appeal to the Collegio (and the Juventus defenses have legitimately used them all, perhaps hoping to shift the penalty to the next championship). Why not cut them? The appeal arrived on March 1 and the hearing was set for April 19 because there are no peremptory deadlines. The president of Coni Giovanni Malag, as mentioned, seems to want to intervene: We want to change the timing that protects the rights of the applicants. Then we can discuss: is the third degree really necessary? Or are two enough and then you go to the Tar? And how is it needed now? Let’s talk about. But if, in passing from one degree to another, the sentences reformulate the penalties (from -15 to -10, because the zero of the guarantee college was only a technical passage awaiting the new Court of Appeal and if the players of the Juventus another state was a mistake) we are not at the market (as we read), but within the physiological course of justice. Otherwise we might as well have only one degree of judgement.

But do we want sports justice?

In order to start a debate, however, it is necessary to share at least the premises: that is, that sporting justice is needed. And that it must maintain traits of specificity independent of criminal justice. Certain interventions, such as that of Economy Minister Giorgetti who, instead of giving penalty points, would like to seize the stadium, seem to undermine the assumption.

When it is said that Juve’s criminal trial in Turin has not yet started and that it is relying on the prosecution papers, they are telling the truth, but disciplinary justice cannot wait for the criminal trial to conclude to move. Judge on other and with other criteria (the principle of non-loyalty does not exist in criminal law, nor does the concept of afflictivity) and there are many cases of acquittal in criminal proceedings and sports convictions which do not therefore constitute scandals. Pretending that there are fixed scales of penalties is unrealistic (and not even so in favor of the accused in terms of law), punishing financial doping crimes only with fines? We are sure? Sports justice binds only people who they accepted it, when, without being forced, they got together to carry out an activity: let’s reform it, but be careful not to do worse.