Not just Juventus. Football on trial and the clarity that is missing

The sentence of last January 20, that minus fifteen inflicted on Juventus, is only the first act. A starter series of judicial appointments which, between pronouncements and appeals, risks rewriting the rankings of this Serie A several times. And questions the entire Italian football system in a broader sense. There is Juve, especially Juve. But not only.

In few days, by 30 January at the latest, the reasons for the first provision issued by the Federal Court will be published, the one imposed following the reopening of the capital gains trial – the same one on which the acquittal had arrived in recent months – which brought the Juventus team to mid-table, exonerating the other teams involved. “A clear unequal treatment”, the lawyers of the Turin team defined it. They also referred to the fact that the law does not provide – unless new and different evidence emerges – to be tried twice for the same accusation. But also to the absence of rules on capital gains. The prosecutor of the FIGC Giuseppe Chinewhich had also asked “only” for a 9-point penalty, was not of this opinion, instead describing a “system” according to which the individual market transaction would not be as important as the overall economic results produced and such as to prove the “disloyalty” of Juventus.

For all of this, before any further consideration, it will be essential to understand the reasons that led the judges to go far beyond the prosecution’s requests. In Turin they have already announced the appeal to the Coni guarantee college, which however will not express itself on the merits but on the admissibility of the sentence: it will be able to cancel it, confirm it or still refer the judgment to the Court for a new trial. After this pronouncement, Juventus will still be able to appeal to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court and the Council of State. And there are also those who have evoked the European court. While UEFA is also at the window.

However, these are not the only problems for the Bianconeri. Because the former management – from Agnelli to Paratici and Nedved, downwards – is challenged by the Turin prosecutor’s office, in the context of the Prisma investigation (the same from which the Federal Court drew its inspiration), the 2020 and 2021 salary package, which would have made it possible to ease the accounts during the pandemic. Maneuvers that could lead to false accounting and even heavier criminal and sporting consequences. Individual players also risk being disqualified. The preliminary hearing of the trial will take place on 27 March.

And also in this case, the federal prosecutor has already announced the opening of new investigations, while a new trial should be held on February 22, the center of which is capital gains. It will concern Juventus, the cases not considered in the first sentence, and the other teams with which business has been done: we are talking about Atalanta, Udinese, Sassuolo and Empoli, but also Milan and Rome. Difficult to make predictions, but new upheavals wouldn’t surprise at this point. So much so that there are even those who wonder about the regularity of a championship with variable points.

In the meantime something is also moving in Naples, where the judiciary – after an open file in France – investigates theSigning of Viktor Oshimen from Lille. It cost around 70 million euros, 20 of which covered through an exchange involving four players: goalkeeper Karnezis, who only played one game, and three young players from the spring who have never been to France and play today between Serie A C and Excellency. Reasons that prompted the magistrates to ask for a six-month extension for the investigations that also involve President De Laurentis. Also in this case false accounting is assumed.

Sports justice and the clarity that is missing

Complicated to be able to clarify immediately. Not to mention that the cases mentioned above must be considered for the specific weight, which is very different according to the teams. And if from this point of view caution, the presumption of innocence, should be obvious, one can be a little less cautious on a general level.

There is, and the ongoing proceedings prove it, not only a problem of legality but also an equally important one concerning sports justice, understood as a legal system. Who claims to be independent, but lacks the tools to investigate, often forced to go towed by this or that power of attorney. Thus we end up carrying out trials in one day and in which the sentence is based on those interceptions made available by the prosecution, even before the criminal trial begins. That is, even before those same interceptions are admitted to trial, and that the interested parties can attempt a defense.

The result is that of one justice that sometimes appears too fast, approximate, fueling distrust. And not only in the fans of the sanctioned team. We have been talking about capital gains for years, Milan and Inter were tried and acquitted as early as 2008. And despite the alarms, the ever-widening diffusion of a practice that gives life to clubs (when it comes to the real enhancement of a player) there has been more frequent magnanimity and abuse, the Fgic has never intervened on the regulations. To prevent everything in the end from being reduced to the search for a scapegoat, to justicialist support.

“There is a need that must be met, because explaining is as important as deciding. I await the reasons and whoever is responsible explains this decision and why no others have been taken,” said the sports minister. Andrea Abodi, framing the Juve case. He announced that something, for what belongs to him, will be done. And the other competent bodies should do the same. “There are autonomy, there are roles. But we want to make a contribution to improve and what will be the responsibility of the Government will be done in concert with Parliament”, explained the minister, appealing to everyone’s sense of responsibility. But above all, he underlined: “We don’t have time because I perceive the distrust of public opinion”. Maybe that time has come.