TMW exclusive
“I didn’t expect anything different from Malagò’s disorganized statements.” Talking is Belardino Feliziani, for all Dino, who knows the events of Italian sports politics like few others. From 1983 to 1986 head of the federal inspectors, until 2015 in the Federation, 16 years auditor, then deputy commissioner of the Lega Pro after the Macalli case, before that with Montezemolo at the head of the Italia ’90 organization for 6 years, yes he is also involved in the admission of Roma to the championship after Viola’s death, the evaluation and sale of Pontello’s Fiorentina and the evaluation of Torino’s player base pursuant to law 21/2003. We joined him up TMW to comment on the ongoing institutional clash between the world of football and that of politics, after the news of a new government agency, which essentially takes the place of Covisoc, wanted by the Minister of Sport, Andrea Abodi: “Malagò represents power, Andrea Abodi with his meekness represents the values of sport. It is the fixed point from which I would start, and I think it is good to make a excursus of Malagò’s sporting career, who I have known since Italia ’90. I believe that an effective summary is to say that he has always favored his telephone numbers over the deepest and truest values of sport, which has instead become a center of power. Long live Abodi.”
Malagò spoke of a potential global fool.
“We remember how his election as president of CONI came about, after the famous mockery dinner, when he promised the presidents of the various federations a cut in contributions to the FIGC to favor the other 44 federations, which happened two years later with 38 million less to the FIGC and 500,000 euros more to the others. Today’s speech by Malagò on Abodi’s proposal, if we want to talk about it seriously, leaves out an important topic, relating to UEFA and FIFA”.
Many fear violations of the rules of the two confederations.“I remind everyone that in December 2023 the European Court of Justice, in its ruling on the Super League, established that the rules on the a priori approval of other competitions are potentially contrary to European law. Abodi’s proposal comes at a time of great crisis financial situation of professional clubs, which must have worsened even more in recent years. The latest football report, which however reports news dating back a year, refers to a total debt of professional clubs of 5 billion euros, of which 3, 7 in the hands of Serie A clubs alone. Gravina took too long to intervene: the new liquidity indices, already watered down by the complaints of the Serie A League, demonstrate that an intervention like that of Abodi is not only appropriate but necessary to avoid find such a massive financial intervention on the shoulders of all of us. Because sooner or later this is what the system will ask the Government for.”
But isn’t this an interference in sporting autonomy?
“No, because it does not interfere in the management models. It puts a point on the organizational and control model: it is something different, as the Bank of Italy does on banks and Consob on listed companies. And in fact Abodi reiterated that, after control of this authority, the Federation will be free to admit or not admit teams to the championships. But this is not all.”
Please.
“The second thing that is jarring is that Gravina, after the ‘resignation’ – which arrived before the end of the mandate – of the previous Covisoc, made up of accountants, appointed five members of which four are judges of the Council of State. Two problems arise: the judges reason in matters of administrative law and budgets based on cash, not on competence. Furthermore, they may have a conflict of interest, given that the Council of State is the final body in the event of a dispute between the company and the Aver Federation compacted the summit with people of his absolute trust suggests, obviously I cannot say that this is necessarily the case, that the necessary professional economic-corporate competence and independence are not guaranteed. We note that the federations are public law bodies when they manage the funds of CONI and private law companies when they manage various revenues, above all obviously commercial ones”.
Let’s go back to Abodi’s speech. He considers it necessary.
“To avoid drift. If I can give a little advice it is that this new authority is not made up of bureaucrats, but of accountants of proven competence and independence”.
Do you have anyone in mind?
“Umberto Lago (among the fathers of International Financial Fair Play and professor of business economics at the University of Bologna, ed.). He was the only Italian president of the Financial Control Body of UEFA, the first to open a dispute with PSG. Now is a member of the FIFA clearing house: I would very much like this agency to be chaired by Professor Lago. The important thing, however, is that its members are not friends of friends, have not had any relationship with any football club and are real consultants: I also believe that among the tasks of this body there is the proposal to resort to the business crisis code, to ensure that part of the debts of football clubs are structurally written off”.
Is the situation that serious?
“Five billion in debts is half a financial sum, you can say. In ’96 Veltroni made a sensational mistake, as deputy minister with responsibility for Sport, when, in introducing professionalism into sport, especially football, he inserted a clause which provided that 10 percent of the profits were allocated to the youth sectors: he didn’t know that football clubs don’t produce profits, it would have been better to foresee even just 2 percent of the turnover. We bring with us three errors: this is the first, the Melandri law , which gave extraordinary power to players and coaches, is the second. Finally, the division of mutual aid funds among the C clubs regardless of the projects, which in Lega Pro at the time, for example, I verified firsthand. The main dish, however, is something else.”
I certainly won’t stop her.
“In 2011, reluctantly I must say under the presidency of Abete, the regulation for admission to the championships (the NOIF, ed.) was modified, which is in clear contrast with the federal statute. The statute provides that multiple shareholdings in companies are not permitted professional teams of any series, while from 2011, the regulation was modified establishing that multiple participations in clubs of the same category are not allowed: it was a gift to Lotito in 2022, to help Aurelio De Laurentiis, this possibility was extended until 2028. The hierarchy of the rules provides that the statute prevails over the internal regulations: however, the auditors have the obligation to expressly verify compliance with the law and the statute, but this has not been done at the level historical, there is also a sensational precedent: in the past Moratti, who had bought Spezia, was forced to sell Inter or Spezia within a month, which he did by selling the second. Are we sure that from 2012 onwards admission to the Italian championships was regular? You have to have the courage to ask yourself.”
Put like this, the answer is in the question…
“This discussion is linked to the main one: is it appropriate for the Government to intervene to exercise greater control over professional clubs? I return to the initial question: CONI has not monitored the statute, and I believe it is appropriate for the executive to be able to directly exercise greater controls , which do not concern management but regulatory compliance”.
However, the question remains: couldn’t it be political interference in sport?
“I have already reminded you of the ruling of the European Court of Justice, which goes even further.”
However, if the objective is to remain within the UEFA and FIFA perimeter, there is a risk.
“We are talking about rules of an organizational nature, not a management one. The model is the Bank of Italy or Consob: both control, despite there being different internal control mechanisms both at banks and at listed companies. They are all government authorities, and carry out checks Given the precedents, one cannot invoke intrusiveness from the government which seeks to intervene in a comatose state of football and wants to understand how the matter can be resolved.”
Let’s go beyond UEFA and FIFA: many fear that the IOC also sees this as political interference in sport.
“It’s a question that goes beyond my expertise: I can talk about FIFA, I can’t. However, I rule out the possibility of interference, as it is a rule of an organizational and not managerial nature.”