What a beautiful “normal” summer. We are in mid-June and we can already hypothesize the groups for next season – Luca Bargellini did it, obviously taking us, in these columns a few years ago – as well as think about the date of presentation of the calendars, which we expect in great style like the wonderful night of Serie C organized at the beginning of the month in Milan. Last year, to understand this, we had to wait until August; in the past, those who have been reading us for a long time know, it even reached September. And that seemed normal to us: a summer of fire, appeals and counter-appeals, postponements and dangerous situations. We have no illusions that everything is sorted out, on the contrary we believe that the structural problems of our football remain intact, but while we wait for them to be resolved we can enjoy this unexpected tranquility and acknowledge that the Lega Pro is in splendid shape for the season market and then to the next championship.
Milan will also be there, the third second team in our Serie C. Welcome to the Rossoneri, who have had everything ready for this new challenge for some time. The curiosity concerns the group: I think it would make sense – if you wanted to find one – to include Juventus in C, given the very large following of the Bianconeri in the South. A hug to the southern clubs who will have to organize the away games in Piedmont. The fact that the three U23 teams are all from the North illustrates, if anything, the southern question of our football, all unbalanced like the economic power of the country. But we will not resolve the issue here and today. The arrival of Milan, with all due respect to those who don’t like B teams (there are many of you, I know), enriches the championship, the league and even all of football from a future perspective. Sooner or later, but it seems to me to be a premature question, the issue of a maximum number of U23s in the same championship will arise: the federal legislation on the subject is almost emergency, as it was approved, and after six seasons perhaps the time has already come to adjust it based on previous experience.
Milan’s counterpoint is the greatest injustice towards Recanatese, excluded because Ancona presented an application clearly destined to be rejected. The hairline difference that is often recorded between readmission (let’s simplify: in place of those who have not submitted an application for registration) and repechage (in place of those who have submitted it, but have had it rejected) is a topic which I’ve already written in the past, we don’t wake up today. I believe that, if we really don’t want to eliminate the difference between readmission and repechage by creating a single category, these rules at least need to be adjusted. The responsibility, for the avoidance of doubt, obviously lies with the Football Federation. One thing is a complete registration application rejected due to technical aspects, perhaps even controversial ones (I’m thinking of the first post-Covid year in which there were widespread difficulties in interpreting the tax regulations); another is a question clearly not suited to achieving its purpose. From this point of view, given that whoever highlights a problem must also propose solutions, two paths could be attempted for the future.
A first solution could be to expand the elements considered essential in the registration application, in the absence of which it could be considered null and therefore not submitted (for example, the payment of salaries or the presence of a guarantee). A second hypothesis could distinguish the reasons behind the rejection, whether pertaining to the previous season (for example, the non-payment of salaries for March-April) or to the following one (for example, the absence of a suitable stadium). Of the two proposals, the second convinces me more. In both cases, cases like those of Ancona would be avoided, which makes Milan happy but burns like salt on a wound in Leopardi’s city.
