Analogies and differences between the events of the clubs: what has changed between 2017 and 2025? Was the hand of the FIGC too light with the Milanese clubs? Here is the answer to the questions of the fans
Because Inter and Milan have bargained and Juventus, at the time of the investigation into relations with the ultras and infiltrations of the ‘Ndrangheta, right? And why did Inzaghi and Calhanoglu get away with a day of disqualification, while Agnelli was inhibited for 12 months (moreover then reduced to 3)? Sports justice was “feather” with the Milanese today and “Fero” with Juventus in 2017, or the sporting ending of the investigation of the FIGC prosecutor born from the cards of the Milanese one of the double curve investigation is more or less what could be expected, code in hand?
Without uncomfortable Verdone and the famous joke pronounced by Mario Brega (“Sta as they are Fero and little feather”) in ‘Bianco, Rosso and Verdone’, some of the questions that shake the Italian sports bars since the news of the plea bargaining for all the protagonists was made official, except Calabria, with closure from the sporting point of view of the investigation. The suspicion, not too hidden, is that a favor was done to Milan and Inter and above all to the Nerazzurri, with a huge disparity compared to what happened to Juventus in 2017. Then the cards from which Falone was born in the hands of the prosecutor Giuseppe Pecoraro – that of the interception never existed concerning Agnelli and the ‘Ndrangheta, even brought to the anti -mafia commission and then portrayed – Alto Piedmont on the Calabrian gangs in Turin and surroundings. At the end of the sports procedure, Juventus had been sanctioned with a fine of 600 thousand euros and the closure of the South Curve for a day, Agnelli had been inhibited for 3 months (100 thousand euros of fine) and Francesco Calvo had been stopped for a year.
Now, however, the plea bargain proposed by Milan and Inter and welcomed by the FIGC Prosecutor’s Office has seen the two clubs sanctioned with 30 and 70 thousand euros, Inzaghi and Calhanoglu disqualified for a turn, Javier Zanetti fined (14,500 euros) and a series of managers in charge of relations with fans inhibited for a month and sanctioned with pecuniary penalties. So much or little?
Meanwhile, the first or fundamental difference is that Milan and Inter have made use of the Institute of Painting which in 2017 did not exist in the Sports Justice Code. Article 126 (and following) entered in 2019 and is the same principle used by Juventus in June 2023 to close the story of the salary maneuvers and relations with the prosecutors, the rib of the process of capital gains. Then the Juventus club had made use of article 127, or the plea bargain proposal after referring, having changed defensive strategy in the running. Milan and Inter first made an agreement that preceded the referral thus taking advantage of the discount that can reach the middle of the sentence.
Why wasn’t Marotta in the cards of the Milan prosecutor’s office in the Milan prosecutor’s office? Because he demonstrated, documents in hand, that he had informed procurement Figc and Digos in advance when he came into contact with the Ultras groups, which Agnelli had not been able to do at the time. But was the situation of Inter more or less serious than that of Juventus? From a very similar sports point of view. Both clubs (and also Milan), not even registered in the register of suspects in the criminal procedure, both considered “injured party” and “victims” of mechanisms tolerated in order not to create problems and both in the defect before sports standards. Juventus had been contested above all the management of the ticket office, illegal for the FIGC code. What was identical for both is that the federal prosecutor has evoked for all the mythological article 4, the one on the principles of loyalty, correctness and probity that in the popular vulgate should have opened to exemplary punishments, up to penalties in points or similar. Contested at Inter and Milan as well as then at Juventus, without not even Pecoraro dreaming of evoking a penalty.
Other questions and answers, randomly taken by the popular debate. Why, as Report revealed, did the Figc Prosecutor informed the cones of the plea bargain proposal? In principle, because the rules provide for it, given that one of the actors of the agreement is the Prosecutor General of Sport, at the Coni himself (article 126 paragraph 3: “The federal prosecutor, where he deems the sanction or commitments indicated in the agreement proposal, informs the Prosecutor General of the sport which, within ten days, can formulate reliefs”). And if article 4 was contested above, what UEFA will do that used the same article to “disqualify” Juventus after the stumbled on capital gains? Nyon will decide, but it should be remembered that UEFA did nothing when Article 4 was contested for the affair of infiltrations in curves. Therefore, there is a precedent.
The conclusion is that the sporting history of a terrible investigation for some implications that emerged, led to a verdict not far from what could be awaited as long as they know the rules. The distance between the outcome of the plea bargain and expectations is the responsibility of those who fed the latter, not of how the code was managed. If anything, and on this the reflection of all time remains open, some objection should be raised on the media impact of the whole affair. Not to affirm – as he is mistakenly done – that for Juventus sports justice was quick while now for Inter and Milan he has moved slowly. On the contrary. The agreement with disqualifications and sanctions comes a few weeks after the closing of the investigation of the Milan prosecutor’s office while the first sentence on Agnelli and the Juventus club was at least eight months after the Deadline. The theme is that the mud poured on Juventus then vowed some of the basic principles of respect for the rights of those who are charged (sporty), a long wave with effects not yet finished. Better today’s prudence, as long as it is used for everyone. Always.
Last clarification: the investigation that led to the judgments against Juve and its president was born from the folders of Alto Piemonte, not from the subsequent study (Last Banner) born from the autonomous denunciation of the Turin company. To argue that Agnelli was tired at first instance, despite having denounced, does not correspond to the truth but confuses two different investigations.
Read also:
