CONI decides the fate of the Football Federation amid pressure, poison and controversy. Here’s who will be able to express their opinion and what happens if one side or the other wins.
Friendships, betrayals, conflicts of interest, opinions and appeals. All against all on the day of truth for Italian football and sport, the moment of counting on the FIGC commissionership with the fall of Giovanni Malagò which essentially means understanding who and how will make the next move and that is to go to sports and ordinary courts as a loser. Rarely in the past has a CONI council been the central field of Italian political and sporting events as on the day of judgment on Malagò.
Should he lapse or can he remain at the helm of the Football Federation? And if placed under administration, how long will the FIGC have to remain without a determined driver at the risk of incurring sanctions from UEFA and FIFA which so far have been limited (in particular Nyon) to only a series of warnings? Also at stake is the European Championship 2032 match which Italy could lose to Turkey if the events at home were interpreted as unacceptable political interference, see the Minister for Sport Andrea Abodi and the government team.
What are we voting for and why is Malagò at risk
The story is now known to everyone, including its simple banality. Last June 22, Malagò was elected president of the FIGC with an abundant 68% of the votes, only to later discover that the documentation of his candidacy – promoted first by the Lega Serie A – lacked verification of his membership as a member of the federation. In short, the former ten-year president of CONI was not part of the “family” of the Football Federation in any way.
Appeal presented by Renato Miele, in turn running for the FIGC despite not having the qualifications because he is not accredited by any component as required by the rules. In fact, only Giancarlo Abete, second on the day of the vote, had all the qualifications to run for president in the Assembly of last June 22nd. The Malagò membership issue, raised by Miele, had been archived by the FIGC Prosecutor’s Office: an act rejected by the CONI Attorney General, Ugo Taucer, sending it to the Council and President Buonfiglio to decide what to do.
Who votes and who doesn’t: sides in the field
The fate of Malagò will be decided by the CONI Council and the subsequent National Council. At the table of the Council, which is the government of Italian sport, 16 members are seated but not all of them will be able to express themselves. Malagò himself will certainly not vote due to an obvious conflict of interest as the issue directly concerns his figure and position. The others are Luciano Buonfiglio (president), Diana Bianchedi and Marco Di Paola (vice presidents), Tania Cagnotto, Giovanni Copioli, Francesco Ettorre, Laura Lunetta and Francesco Montini (managers’ representatives), Giampaolo Ricci and Valentina Rodini (athletes), Federica Pellegrini (CIO member like Malagò), Marco Riva (regional committees), Juri Morico (sports promotion bodies) and Domenico Ignozza (territorial committees).
The commissioner resolution requires a simple majority of voters, therefore 8. Provided there are no other preclusions to the vote. In the event of the green light for Malagò’s dismissal, the Extraordinary National Council, convened to follow, will have to validate or reject the Council’s proposal; inside there are 77 federation presidents and a simple majority is needed.
The war of opinions of the jurists consulted by CONI and FIGC
In the weeks preceding the vote, the two sides, Buonfiglio for the commissionership and Malagò for the non-existence of the conditions for such a serious and definitive measure, provided themselves with opinions of the highest level of justice called to express their opinion on the matter. The result is a divided picture but with some interpretative nuances not unfavorable to the position of the FIGC president.
In summary, the four well-known jurists interviewed by CONI (“Granitic reasons” as Buonfiglio defined them) put in black and white that possession of the FIGC membership card was a necessary requirement to be eligible for candidacy and, therefore, elected. But they also postponed the modulation of the possible sanction to CONI without wanting to go into the merits of the obligation of forfeiture and administration in the face of a substantially formal violation.
The five experts involved by the FIGC focused above all on this second aspect, reaching the conclusion that any formal error is not sufficient for the maximum sentence. The members of the Executive and those of the Council have received all the papers and must study them carefully because what will happen will be analyzed in view of certain appeals (whoever loses has announced them) and the Coni is a public body and its managers risk being individually liable also on the criminal level for choices judged not to be in accordance with the law.
The war of conflicts of interest: who will be excluded from voting?
Who will really vote in the CONI Board? Without Malagò who does not have the right to express a preference about himself, the clash turned on other potential conflicts of interest. In the indicated pro-FIGC lineup there are two figures in the sights: Diana Bianchedi who was head of the national delegation for a couple of weeks, chosen by Malagò himself, before resigning in conflict with the minister Abodi and Elisabet Spina, who joined as representative of the coaches starting from the role of manager of Milan’s women’s sector.
Luciano Buonfiglio himself also entered into a war of dossiers and counter-files due to the work of his son Marco, manager of a company partnering with Venezia in the commercial management of the stadium after having been part of the Kings League (entered into litigation with Lega Pro and Dilettanti), Francesco Montini president of the Fiamme Oro affiliated to the FIGC and Tania Cagnotto belonging to the same Fiamme Oro group.
Who decides? None of the experts nor the Anac (anti-corruption) wanted to go into the matter, leaving CONI freedom of choice. It could be the Board of Auditors or President Buonfiglio himself with an act which, in the case of selected exclusions, could not fail to result in further appeals and controversies.
The fallout: what happens if…
Taking for granted the appeals that will be initiated by the losing party, with Miele having already sent warnings to everyone to vote on the FIGC commissionership, here are the scenarios that go beyond the merely administrative question. If he wins, Malagò remains president of the Football Federation while Buonfiglio is disheartened by his council (or by the subsequent council) and becomes a crippled director of CONI. The first consequence could also be the Government placing the CONI under commissionership if Minister Abodi recognized the possibility of failure to control the FIGC.
If Buonfiglio wins, net of appeals, Malagò declines and a commissioner takes control of the federation. For how long? At least to call new elections within the shortest possible time, the only solution that would avoid incurring the wrath of UEFA and FIFA. If the commissionership were to extend beyond the deadline for calling the elective assembly, we would enter an unknown field. Who commissioner? Buonfiglio himself, given the sensitivity of the issue, or his direct emanation taking into account that all the components of football (without exceptions) have said they are against external intervention.
