Justice targeted and publicly shot at Juventus

Justice targeted and publicly shot at Juventus


Fiat iustitia, pereat mundus” is the slogan Ferdinand I of Habsburg, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire from 1556 for 1564, had resumed from the words associated with the assassination of Caesar Gaius Cassius Longinus. The uniform of the fanatics of all times, ready to sacrifice the whole world to do justice, can be adjusted in the face of the judgment given to Juventus by the Court of Appeal of the Football Federation: “fiat iniuria, pereat mundus”. Or: injustice be done (but Latin insult sounds more appropriate) and let the whole world perish. Football, of course. But maybe not only that.

While we are waiting for the reasons to be published, knowing what a more serious decision on the validity will be possible, it is now possible to reflect on the judgment given at the end of the summary process, which reminds those of the military courts of the First World War concluded with a bullet in the front. The results are confusing. For reasons other than capital gains, which provoked the inevitable bubble to burst sooner or later, more than sports management which leaves us worried, but which was not a secret to anyone and which all the newspapers talked about calmly, the questions remain all. Fans of Juve, and also of other teams that are not blinded by hatred, and perhaps in their hearts even blinded, have asked themselves in recent days.

There is a question (already raised Linkiest last Saturday) of no idemthat is, “the right not to be charged or punished twice for the same crime” (article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union): a fundamental principle also in the Italian legal system, which is apparently unknown to the system in parallel with license. of arbitration which is the right of sports, which last April 15 acquitted Juventus and ten other clubs involved in the case of obtaining capital.

It is true that new things have emerged at the same time as a result of the development of the Prisma investigation (all of which will still be evaluated at trial), but it is also true that these new elements were able to emerge following the intervention authorized by the Judge. for a preliminary investigation because Juventus, unlike others, is a company listed on the Stock Exchange (which obviously imposes a different liability, to be investigated in criminal cases). And this is already a balance, or, to remain in the relevant context, something clearly “unsportsmanlike”.

But is the absence of new features enough to explain how the other ten clubs whose removal has been upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal? And why hasn’t an investigation been launched against all the clubs Juventus have made capital gains through high-value transfers?

Here is also a reason (usually explained by Gazette dello Sport): Juventus would have set a “system” which for some could be a practice here and there. In other words, the qualitative difference of crime would be determined by its quantitative difference (from quantity to quality: Aristotle would have to object).

But if I had killed one person I would have been more of a murderer than if I had killed several people: perhaps I would have deserved one life sentence instead of several life sentences, and perhaps I would have hoped for a commutation of the sentence, but. I certainly would not be exempt from guilt.

And then why don’t you think that such “systems” could have emerged against these other companies if their phones were also used by wire, ie not only during the negotiations with Juventus?

Of course, the courts judge on the basis of their features, but the fact that the search for features is not examined in relation to other subjects creates a negative impression of a doubtful difference in treatment.

The biggest problem, however, is another. In the reasons for the judgment that last April acquitted the eleven clubs referred by the federal prosecutor, it was stated that there is no single method or objective to determine the real value of a player: “this value”, as stated on the FIGC website, «is given and the birth of the free market, moreover characterized by the need for the joint will of the two companies. and the player concerned”.

An unquestionable observation, even obvious, but now contradictory. That the value of two young men who have never entered the first team is not the one associated with them in the exchange of value was clear and there for all to see, but it is equally clear that no one can compete: how, on the basis of what criteria? And above all: why has no one (read FIGC) ever intervened to put a regulatory barrier on this unsustainable practice?

We remember that the process of acquiring capital is not a new thing, it has been done since the beginning of the 2000s, especially with Inter and Milan who at that time exchanged several players, including Seedorf, Guly, Coco, Helveg, Simic. So it was the beginning and let it go. But twenty years later?

In the absence of a regulatory system that manages the issue and provides appropriate sanctions, the use of capital gains has increased (not only at the national level), with the hypocritical indifference of theoretical regulatory institutions that pretend that nothing has happened and cover up. open both eyes except for one to drop a one-way penalty each time.

Right made to measure. Juventus is accused of violating a law that does not exist, as its lawyers say. The same Minister of Sports Andrea Abodi (former president of the Serie B League), who had initially given the impression of wanting to stay away from the conflict, in a subsequent interview with Republic he hoped that everything “is not defined by typhus” and, remembering “the need for transparency and honesty”, he warned that “what is happening does not contribute to the achievement of these goals, and therefore it is possible that I will have to propose an intervention that concerns the reformation of efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and understanding of sports justice as well as models of professional sports management”. In short, if the sports authorities continue to cry, politics will have to intervene. Let’s hope.

In Italy, as in many parts of the world, soccer is more than just a game. As a result of the XII (2022) edition of Soccer Report, an annual report edited by the FIGC Research Center, professional football is an important resource for our country, with an indirect and caused impact on the national income of 10.2 billion euros, which provides more than 112,000 jobs. It is indisputable that Juventus, the team with the most followers in Italy (from 8 to 14 million, depending on the research, and in any case a large percentage of one in three football fans), contributes significantly to this result. And it is clear that the temporary closure of Juventus outside the “main tour” (even UEFA is waiting for the end of the Italian criminal cases and sports to decide on the exclusion of the cups) harms the football system and indirectly country system.

The introduction is self-explanatory. In 2006, the year of Calciopoli, Serie A was no longer “the best competition in the world” but competed equally with another major European championship: at the world final in Berlin, between the Italian national team (winner) and. the Frenchman replaced eight Juventus players (ten considering the former Zidane and Henry, as well as the former coach Lippi); after being quickly condemned by Juventus, relegated to Serie B and forced to disband the team, Italian football entered a phase of decline – in terms of results, appeal, economic value – which it has never regained (despite Europe’s two gaps of the past in World Cup qualifiers). And now thousands of Juventus fans (it seems above all in the South, eleven thousand in Puglia alone), protesting the “unfair restrictions”, do not think of starting a world war, but are already canceling their subscriptions to the streaming platforms: less money for TV means less money for football (and for the other sports that football, through CONI, contributes to), and therefore less resources to establish competitive teams, less entertainment, less results, less audiences, less persuasive activities. And a few jobs.

And with this we are brought back to the second part of the Latin sentence quoted at the beginning. That is, the event that pereat mundus, as a result of the fact that (in) justice was done. But, as pointed out by Amartya Sen (The idea of ​​justice, translation. that. Mondadori 2010), if the world ended there would be little to celebrate.