Listen to the audio version of the article
The general impression is that the issue of the agency to be set up to control the accounts of professional clubs has (for the moment) fallen within the scope of institutional discussion. At the end of the afternoon meeting in the offices of the Ministry for Sport and Youth, the statements of the protagonists appear to be characterized by cautious optimism on the possibility of avoiding the creation of a government body that would undermine the principles of autonomy of the sports system. The compromise solution could be to create a truly third-party and independent Authority, therefore not appointed by the government, on the model of Consob and Antitrust. In any case, the compatibility of a structure external to the sporting world will need to be verified, given that Covisoc and the accounting control bodies in Europe currently operate within the sporting ecosystem.
Minister Abodi’s position
«I am satisfied with the meeting, during which all parties expressed their opinions and points of view. The text, forwarded to the Football Federation on Friday morning, represented a working hypothesis and as such was supposed to serve to open that discussion which today found a point of failure and not a definitive document for approval. The meeting was an opportunity to explain the reasons that led us to imagine the establishment of this new Authority – technical and independent – and to proceed in full respect of the autonomy of sport, which has always been among my priorities together with transparency, respect and fair competition. I listened and gathered the position and suggestions of all the members at the table. Now we will proceed with the appropriate assessments, before bringing the decree-law to one of the next Council of Ministers”, underlined the Minister for Sport and Youth, Andrea Abodi.
The position of the FIGC
A third and independent Authority whose establishment by decree law obviously does not appear correct. «We reiterated our absolute agreement on the common objective, that of giving greater stability to economic-financial management and there is absolutely no doubt about this. We do not share the tool. We reiterated that over the last twenty years Covisoc has worked not well but very well”, said the president of the FIGC, Gabriele Gravina. Adding: «In the last 20 years we have only had two appeals accepted at the TAR and two at the Council of State. We asked the government to assist us, to help us and therefore, in addition to CONI, the sports department could possibly establish, as happens in Spain, as is happening in England, some principles that we can adhere to.” A concept echoed by the president of the Italian Basketball Federation Gianni Petrucci: «We have expressed our considerations, something will be changed but let’s see. The climate was collaborative, now the definitive text counts, but there were no controversies, just great civility.”
The position of the FIGC is clear: a government agency is in clear contrast with the absolute prohibition of political interference in the regulations and activities of the FIGC, enshrined in articles 14 and 15 of the FIFA Statute, to which all Federations must obligatorily comply, under penalty of possible sanctions. To this, taking into account that the activity relating to the checks of professional clubs and admissions to championships is subject to the careful supervision of CONI, there would also be the evident contrast with rule 24.6 of the Olympic Charter, which requires CONI to preserve their autonomy and resist any type of political pressure.