Gabriele Gravina, president of the FIGC, spoke in the Culture Commission talking – among other things – about the sports decree law and the Commission for the control of the accounts of professional clubs. “The rule is not in line with the principles of the autonomy of sport and also violates the principles of the market economy – the words reported by gazzetta.it -. There is a gap in the decree. Covisoc has two tasks: the first is to check that the professional clubs have the right economic-financial requirements for the purposes of registering for the championships. While the second, of which we found no trace in the legislative decree, is the continuous control during the payment season of emoluments and contributions. Our checks, however, are bimonthly. This is a fundamental control and for this reason 494 penalty points were awarded to the companies. Our rules are more stringent than those of the sports decree.”
Gravina then reiterated how Covisoc has “worked brilliantly” during its lifetime and recalled how it was born in 1987. “Since that day there have been 193 exclusions, only two cases have been accepted by the TAR and the Council of State”. Finally, speaking of costs, he concluded: “Covisoc costs the FIGC 400 thousand euros in total, compared to 3.5 million euros for the Commission, of which 1.9 million goes to the FIGC and 1.6 million to the clubs. However, just yesterday the email arrived from UEFA and FIFA, very severe: it is an email that invites us to put pressure on the government authority to go back on this Chamber measure. Among other things, this commission should come into force in the 2025/26 season, therefore not we can understand where the urgency requirements are.”
There is also space in the Culture Commission for other topics, such as the capital gains case. “Juventus was convicted for one case and settled for another, as also required by ordinary justice. Plea bargaining is also provided for in the sporting justice code. For the first case she was sentenced to 15 penalty points, then the Board (of guarantee, ed.) requested a review. For the second he asked for a plea deal. It’s a normal thing. That (sports) justice has had a more incisive effect than ordinary justice is demonstrated by the fact that there are investigations still being carried out by the ordinary judiciary, while sports justice has already completed its journey. We are incisive, rapid and I believe objective in the application of our rules.”
