From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Calciopoli (Italian pronunciation: [kalˈtʃɔːpoli]) was a sports scandal in Italy's top professional association football league Serie A and to a lesser extent Serie B.[nb 1] Involving various clubs and numerous executives, both from the same clubs and from the main Italian football bodies (AIA [it], FIGC, and LNP), as well as some referees and referee assistants, the scandal was uncovered in May 2006, when a number of telephone tappings showed relations between clubs' executives and referee organizations during the football seasons of 2004–05 and 2005–06, being accused of selecting favourable referees. This implicated league champions Juventus and several other clubs, including Fiorentina, Lazio, Milan, and Reggina. In July 2006, Juventus was stripped of the 2004–05 Serie A title, which was left unassigned, and was downgraded to last place in the 2005–06 Serie A, as the title was subsequently awarded to Inter Milan, and relegated to Serie B. In July 2006, the Italy national football team won the 2006 FIFA World Cup, beating the France national football team 5–3 in a penalty shoot-out following a 1–1 draw at the conclusion of extra time; eight Juventus players were on the football pitch in the 2006 FIFA World Cup final, five for Italy and three for France. Many prison sentences were handed out to sporting directors and referees but all were acquitted in 2015, after almost a decade of investigation, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations (at the time, it was about 4 years for the sports trial and 7.5 years for the ordinary trial), except for a one-year sentence confirmed to referee Massimo De Santis.

A subsequent investigation, dubbed Calciopoli bis, implicated many other clubs, including Brescia, Cagliari, ChievoVerona, Empoli, Inter Milan, Palermo, Udinese, and Vicenza; they were not put on trial due the statute of limitations. Although popularly known as a match-fixing scandal and focused on Juventus, no match-fixing violations were found within the intercepted calls for Juventus, there were no requests for specific referees, no demands for favours, no conversations between Juventus directors and referees were found, and the season was deemed fair and legitimate.[nb 2] The club was absolved from any wrongdoings in the first verdict, while its sporting executives Luciano Moggi and Antonio Giraudo were found guilty and banned for life six months before their previous five-year ban expired; they were absolved on charges related to sporting fraud, and appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, once they exhausted their appeals in Italy's courts. Other club executives were found guilty but did not receive lifetime bans and returned to their previous or new positions, among them Milan vice-president Adriano Galliani and Lazio president Claudio Lotito, both of whom retained or gained important positions in Lega Serie A. Most refeeres and their assistants were either found not guilty or had their sentences annulled due to the statute of limitations; only Massimo De Santis and Salvatore Racalbuto were convicted.

Italy's Court of Appeal rejected damage claims from Atalanta, Bologna, Brescia, and Lecce due to the fact that no match in the 2004–05 championship was altered by non-football episodes. This led Juventus to request 444 million in damage claims, later updated to €551 million, to both Inter Milan and the FIGC, restoration of the 2005 scudetto, and the officialization of the 2006 scudetto; all its appeals were either rejected due to the courts declaring themselves not competent or due to technical issues rather than juridical issues. Attempts for peace talks between Juventus, the FIGC, and other clubs did not improve relations, and the case remains much debated and controversial. Juventus returned to Serie A after winning the Serie B 2006–07 championship and in the UEFA Champions League the following two years but then struggled with two consecutive seventh places, before starting a record nine-consecutive league titles run, two Champions League finals, and four consecutive domestic doubles. Milan won the 2006–07 UEFA Champions League but only won the Serie A 2010–11 championship and struggled throughout the 2010s until winning the 2021–22 Serie A. Inter Milan started a cycle of five-consecutive league titles, culminating in the treble with the 2009–10 UEFA Champions League win but then struggled throughout the 2010s, with Napoli and Roma as Juventus' main rivals, until winning the 2020–21 Serie A during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. In April 2021, all three clubs found themselves united in the European Super League project. As of 2022, the last league winner outside the three of them is Roma in 2001.

Etymology and origins[edit]

The name Calciopoli, which could be adapted in English as "Footballgate", by analogy with the Watergate scandal, and would be literally translated as "Footballville", was made up by the media by analogy with Tangentopoli (literally "Bribesville"), which is the name that was given to some corruption-based clientelism in Italy during the Mani pulite investigation in the early 1990s; in that case, the neologism was formed by combining the Italian word tangente ("bribe", from the Latin word tangens, which means "to touch" and in a wider sense "to be due to") and the Greek word polis ("city"), originally referring to Milan as "the city of bribes".[8]

The scandal first came to light as a consequence of investigations of prosecutors on the Italian football agency GEA World. The leak of news that triggered Calciopoli in May 2006 did not start from the major sports or investigative press but rather came from Il Romanista, a newspaper entirely dedicated to Roma supporters, and whose founder Riccardo Luna continued to boast of being "the first to reveal the intrigues of Calciopoli".[9] The first major sport newspaper to anticipate and report the scandal was Milan-based La Gazzetta dello Sport, which also anticipated the subsequent court rulings.[10] Transcripts of recorded telephone conversations soon thereafter published in major Italian newspapers suggested that Juventus general director Luciano Moggi and Juventus CEO Antonio Giraudo had conversations with several Italian football officials to influence referee designations during the 2004–05 Serie A season.[11] Notable referees, such as Pierluigi Collina and Roberto Rosetti, were among the few referees to emerge unscathed from the scandal.[12]

Investigation and sporting sentences[edit]

On 8 May 2006, Franco Carraro resigned from the presidency of the FIGC, the body responsible for selecting Italy's FIFA World Cup national team;[13] he remained a member of the UEFA's executive committee and as a FIFA official.[14] Juventus' entire board of directors resigned on 11 May, while Moggi resigned shortly after Juventus won the 2005–06 Serie A championship on 14 May,[15] saying: "They killed my soul."[16] Giraudo stated: "We take our leave, but you will see that bandits will come after us."[17] On the Borsa Italiana, Italy's stock market, Juventus shares had lost about half their 9 May value by the 19 May.[18] Massimo De Santis was due to be Italy's refereeing representative at the 2006 World Cup;[19] he was barred by the FIGC after coming under investigation.[20] Roberto Rosetti remained untainted by the scandal, and was chosen as one of the twenty-one 2006 FIFA World Cup officials.[21]

The scandal drew attention to many potential conflicts of interest within Italian football.[22][nb 3] Inter Milan provided sponsorship to the Serie A through Gruppo TIM, as Inter Milan vice-president Marco Tronchetti Provera was TIM director. Silvio Berlusconi, Milan's president and owner, was Prime Minister of Italy and owner of TV channel Mediaset through Fininvest, while Adriano Galliani, as the vice president and CEO of Milan, also served as the president of Serie A. Juventus has been historically owned by the Agnelli family since the 1930s, which controls, alongside the Elkann family, holding company Exor and automobile malnufacture FIAT but had no further involvement or conflict of interest in football other than the club.[nb 4] In addition to allegations of corruption and sporting fraud by owners, executives, players, referees, and league officials, Aldo Biscardi, the host of Italy's most popular football show, resigned amid allegations that he collaborated with Moggi to boost the club's image on television, compared to the Milanese side.[29] Then-FIGC president Carraro was a former president of Milan and politically close to Berlusconi,[30] while its successor Guido Rossi was a former member of Inter Milan's board of directors and minority Inter Milan shareholder.[31] Journalist Christian Rocca commented: "I wonder why the Italian media say every possible abomination on the potential conflict of interest of Adriano Galliani, president of Lega [Calcio] and executive of Milan, but don't use the same criterion towards Guido Rossi, extraordinary commissioner of the [Italian Football] Federation and former executive of Moratti's Inter Milan from 1995 to 1999, and of Gigi Agnolin, appointed commissioner of referees but still former executive of Roma from 1995 to 2000 (instead of Moggi, look what a combination)."[32] Federal prosecutor Carlo Porceddu, a critic of the trial, especially for its decision of revoking Juventus' title by assigning it to Inter Milan, stated in 2017 that Rossi appointed friends, one of whom was on Inter Milan's board of directors.[33]

In all, magistrates in Naples formally investigated 41 people, and looked into 19 Serie A matches from the 2004–05 season and 14 Serie A matches from the 2005–06 season. Prosecutors in Turin examined the Juventus chairman Antonio Giraudo over transfers, suspected falsified accounts, and tax evasion. Prosecutors in Parma investigated Gianluigi Buffon, the national team goalkeeper, as well as Antonio Chimenti, Enzo Maresca, and Mark Iuliano, for suspected gambling on Serie A matches;[34] all were cleared in the same year.[35] After the first penalties were handed out, more clubs were looked at for possible links to the scandal.[36] Lecce, Messina, and Siena were also investigated as prosecutors continued to analyze transcripts of telephone calls.[37]

Matches under investigation[edit]

The standings of the 2005–06 Serie A championship, which was won by Juventus, were remade to retroactively punish implicated clubs the year prior. This controversially resulted in third-classified Inter Milan being awarded the scudetto by then-FIGC commissioner Guido Rossi after a vote, on whether the title should be assigned by the tre saggi ("Three Sages") Gerhard Aigner, Massimo Coccia, and Roberto Pardolesi, as well as Juventus' relegation, and four other clubs (Fiorentina, Lazio, Milan, and Reggina) received penalty points. Only Aigner voted in favour of the assignation, with Rossi's ultimate decisive push for the assignation, even though UEFA only needed the final standings, and the cited precedent of the unassigned 1926–27 Divisione Nazionale title, which was revoked from Torino and not assigned to Bologna as the second-classified club. The 2005–06 championship was never investigated, and only the 2004–05 Serie A championship, also won by Juventus, was revoked.[38]

The nineteen matches of the 2004–05 championship under investigation by the Naples prosecutor were the following:[39][nb 5]

Walter Distato and Leo Leonida from the University of London and Dario Maimone and Pietro Navarra from the University of Messina conducted a study on the 2004–05 Serie A championship.[42] According to the study, Juventus averaged less points per game with investigated referees (De Santis, Rodomonti, Bertini, Dondarini, Rocchi, Messina, Gabriele, Racalbuto, and Tagliavento) than those who were not; Juventus averaged 2.63 points per game with the latter, and 1.89 points per game with the former. Fiorentina and Milan, two other clubs involved in the scandal, averaged 1.22 points per game with the latter, and 0.93 points per game with the former, and 2.19 points per game with the latter, and 2.0 points per game with the former, respectively. The only exception was Lazio, another club implicated in the scandal, which averaged 2.0 points per game with the former, and 0.81 points with the latter.[43][nb 6]

About their study, the authors wrote: "Ours is a purely statistical study. We are not interested, nor are we able to establish, if Moggi and the other executives under investigation could influence the matches, but from our point of view we can highlight three hypotheses more than valid: either there was no referee conditioning in the 2004–05 championship, or it existed but did not produce relevant results, or it's possible to think of a clash between executives for the acquisition of the football system that gave rise to winning and losing clubs in that which we can define as a 'parallel championship.'" Navarra, one of the authors, wrote: "In addition, in the study we also took into account the strength of the opponents faced by the teams involved. Juventus, for example, met stronger teams in matches directed by the referees under investigation. This could explain, at least in part, the considerable difference in the overall point average."[43]

Club punishments and Juventus' controversy[edit]

On 4 July 2006, the FIGC prosecutor Stefano Palazzi called for all four clubs at the centre of the scandal to be thrown out of Serie A. Palazzi called for Juventus "being excluded from the Serie A Championship and assigned to a lower category to Serie B with 6 points deducted",[45] while Fiorentina, Lazio, and Milan were to be also downgraded to last place in the 2005–06 Serie A and relegated to the 2006–07 Serie B. He also asked for point deductions to be imposed for the following season for the clubs (three for Milan and 15 for both Fiorentina and Lazio). The prosecutor also called for Juventus to be stripped of its 2005 title and downgraded to the last place in the 2006 league.[46]

In the case against Reggina on 13 August, the prosecutor called for Reggina to be demoted to Serie B with a 15-point penalty.[47] On 17 August, Reggina was handed down a 15-point penalty but no relegation from Serie A.[36] Furthermore, the club was fined the equivalent of €100,000, while the club president Pasquale Foti was fined €30,000 and banned from all football-related activities for two-and-a-half years.[48]

Italian Football Federation punishments[49]
Team Relegation Points deductions
(2006–07 season)
Other punishments
Original punishment[50] Appeal result Final punishment[51] Original punishment Appeal result Final punishment Original punishment Final punishment
Milan None −15 points −8 points • Deducted 44 points for the 2005–06 Serie A
• Deducted 15 points for the 2006–07 Serie A
• Out of the 2006–07 UEFA Champions League
• Deducted 30 points for the 2005–06 Serie A
• One home game behind closed doors
Fiorentina Relegated to Serie B Administrative relegation cancelled −12 points
(Serie B)
−19 points
(Serie A)
−15 points
(Serie A)
Out of the 2006–07 UEFA Champions League • Out of the 2006–07 UEFA Champions League
• Two home games behind closed doors
Juventus Relegated to Serie B[52] −30 points
(Serie B)
−17 points
(Serie B)
−9 points
(Serie B)
€75,000 fine[52] • Stripped of the 2004–05 Serie A title (left not assigned)
• Downgraded to last place in the 2005–06 Serie A (title given to Inter Milan) and relegated to the 2006–07 Serie B
Lazio Relegated to Serie B Administrative relegation cancelled −7 points (Serie B) −11 points (Serie A) −3 points (Serie A) Out of the 2006–07 UEFA Cup • Out of the 2006–07 UEFA Cup
• Two home games behind closed doors
Reggina None −15 points[48] No appeal result −11 points No original punishment • €100,000 fine
• Club president Pasquale Foti fined €30,000 and banned from football for 2½ years

In the ruling, the Federal Commission of Appeal (CAF), a FIGC judicial court,[nb 7] stated that Juventus was not responsible for Fiorentina avoiding relegation, and that Moggi and Giraudo operated independently of Juventus and its owners. In addition, the court ruled that there was no evidence of match fixing, and there was no cupola or "Moggi system", as was reported by La Gazzetta dello Sport. Finally, referee selections were done in accordance with the rules of the FIGC, phone calls made by Moggi to referee designator Paolo Bergamo did not constitute in itself a sporting illicit, and there was no organization of yellow cards to give. Nonetheless, the sentence stated that "though Moggi didn't exercise his ability to condition matches, he still possessed the ability", and even though there were no Article 6 violations against Juventus, it introduced the much-disputed illecito associativo ("associative illict") violation;[nb 8] the given motivation was that "Juventus' advantage was evidenced by their position in the standings at the end of the season."[54][nb 9]

On 28 July 2006, CAF judge Piero Sandulli said there were no illicits and the championship was regular. He commented: "The 2004/2005 championship wasn't falsified. The only doubt we could have was about that strange match between Lecce and Parma, a match that we have seen and reviewed. However, it can't be said that the championship has been falsified. There may have been an attempt to fix it, but it would have needed four or five combinations."[59] In an interview with la Repubblica the day prior, Mario Serio, the then-director of the private law department at the Palermo Faculty of Law and one of the five members of the CAF who signed the verdict, stated: "It wasn't a unanimous decision, it wasn't shared." Despite a lack of evidence regarding match fixing and no Article 6 violation, only Juventus was sentenced to be relegated to Serie B and stripped of their titles after taking into consideration the collective interests of the parties involved in the investigation. Serio added: "We tried to interpret a collective sentiment. We listened to ordinary people and tried to put ourselves on the wavelength."[60] According to Serio, while Juventus was relegated, the other clubs "were saved"; this happened "because people wanted it that way", referencing sentimento popolare ("people's feelings").[61] Serio said he wanted to convict then-FIGC president Franco Carraro and remove Milan from European competitions but Sandulli, Salvatore Catalano, and Mario Sanino put him into minority. Milan was saved because then-Milan vice-president Adriano Galliani stated that he was not aware of Milan referee clerk Leonardo Meani's behavior; this was proved to be false in later wiretaps and developments. Serio added: "We recognized everything about the CAF ruling, apart from two episodes: the falsified championship, the repeated offences of Juventus, [and] the existence of a system."[60] Corrado De Biase, 1980 Totonero chief investigator, commented on the sentence of Francesco Saverio Borrelli, who spoke of a "structured illicit" as a crime committed by Moggi and his associates. He said: "We're talking about a structured illicit. But what is it? It doesn't exist. They want to make it clear that there's something different, anomalous. But structured illicit, not at all. There's no sporting illicit. We can't talk about things that don't exist in the sports judicial system. I still haven't seen any proof of sporting illicit. Until now, what I see is the violation of Article 1 of the Sports Justice Code, which requires members to behave according to the principles of loyalty, correctness, and probity. But of what we have read to date, it doesn't prove to me that there was an attempt to alter a match."[32]

The CAF ruling was long disputed because of the severity of the punishment meted out to Juventus compared to the other clubs involved. The verdict remains controversial, as Juventus was charged with Article 1 violations, like the other involved clubs, and did not violate Article 6,[58] but it was the sole club to be relegated.[53][nb 10] Juventus was charged of Article 6 violations through structured illicit, which was not part of the Code of Sports Justice, and was added to the new Code of Sports Justice after the scandal;[64] accordingly, Juventus was charged with Article 6 violations through repeated Article 1 violations.[65][nb 11] As summarized by Carlo Garganese for Goal, "[the FIGC sentence] stated perfectly clearly [sic] that no Article 6 violations (match-fixing/attempted match-fixing breaks the sixth article of the sporting code) were found within the intercepted calls and the season was fair and legitimate, but that the ex-Juventus directors nonetheless demonstrated they could potentially benefit from their exclusive relationship with referee designators Gianluigi Pairetto and Paolo Bergamo. There were, however, no requests for specific referees, no demands for favours and no conversations between Juventus directors and referees themselves."[2] Calciopoli bis and the Naples trial showed that many other clubs were involved, which weakened the prosecutor's argument of Juventus' exclusivity, the main reason for the club's harsher punishment; according to Garganese, "their mere existence meant that the theory of Juventus' 'exclusivity' could no longer hold", and "for the first time credibility shifted in favour of those who had claimed that Moggi, Giraudo and Juventus had been the victims of a witch-hunt."[2]

Another controversy was that related to Juventus' defense lawyer Cesare Zaccone, who stated that "a punitive relegation to the second division would be acceptable."[66] In later years, Zaccone would clarify that he made the statement because Juventus was the only club risking more than one-division relegation (Serie C),[67] as at that time only a few clubs were implicated and Juventus appeared to be the main culprit, and he meant for Juventus to have equal treatment with the other clubs,[68] which were also risking to be relegated;[69] only Juventus would be relegated, resulting in the club's appeal for damage claims in the subsequent years against the FIGC due to unequal treatment.[70] Some critics and observers, including as judge De Biase,[71][nb 12] journalist and former Tuttosport director Giancarlo Padovan, Ju29ro,[nb 13] and journalists, such as Oliviero Beha and Angelo Furgione,[76] alleged that Calciopoli and its aftermath were also a dispute within Juventus and between the club's owners, who wanted to get rid of Moggi and Giraudo, and whatever their intentions, they condemned Juventus, firstly when Zaccone asked for relegation and point-deduction, and secondly when Montezemolo retired Juventus' appeal to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR), which amounted, as recounted by Corriere della Sera journalist Mario Sconcerti, to "a sort of public plea bargain" and guilty admission.[26] In a 2020 interview with la Repubblica, Zaccone said he is a supporter of Torino, Juventus' derby rival, and revealed to have defended Juventus for money.[77]

Effect on Serie A and club appeals[edit]

Initially, with Juventus, Fiorentina, and Lazio all relegated, Messina, Lecce, and Treviso would have remained in Serie A, despite finishing in the bottom three in the 2005–06 season. After the appeals, only Messina remained in Serie A. Clubs promoted from Serie B (Atalanta, Catania, and Torino) were unaffected and promoted to Serie A as normal. Based on the preliminary final league positions, Juventus and Milan would have earned a direct entry into the UEFA Champions League, Inter Milan and Fiorentina would have entered the third qualifying round of the Champions League, while Roma, Lazio, and ChievoVerona would have been eligible for the UEFA Cup. On 6 June 2006, the FIGC officially withdrew from the 2006 UEFA Intertoto Cup, costing Palermo a place in the third round of the competition, citing the fact that the 2005–06 Serie A standings could not be confirmed by the 5 June deadline. UEFA gave the FIGC a 25 July deadline to confirm the standings or face sanctions in the two larger European competitions, which was then extended to 26 July. After the appeals, Inter Milan, Roma, ChievoVerona, and Milan occupied Italy's four places for the 2006–07 UEFA Champions League. Inter Milan and Roma received a direct entry into the Champions League, while ChievoVerona and Milan started at the third qualifying round. Milan's entry was confirmed by UEFA shortly after the appeals process, and Milan went on to win the competition. Palermo, Livorno, and Parma took the 2006–07 UEFA Cup first-round slots originally given to Roma, Lazio, and ChievoVerona.[51]

The clubs sent down to Serie B were initially expected to have a difficult road back to the top flight, as they would have had to finish in the top two of Serie B to be assured of promotion, and also had to avoid finishing in the bottom four to avoid being relegated to Serie C1. Juventus was initially docked 30 points, the equivalent of having ten wins nullified; the point penalty was later reduced to nine points,[78] and went on to win Serie B in the 2006–07 season to make a swift return to Serie A.[79] Fiorentina was docked fifteen points, was expected to struggle in Serie A, and faced an outside chance of relegation the following season but finished the 2006–07 Serie A season in sixth place, earning a place in the 2007–08 UEFA Cup. The relegation of Juventus also prompted a mass exodus of important players, such as Fabio Cannavaro, Emerson, Zlatan Ibrahimović, Lilian Thuram, Patrick Viera, and Gianluca Zambrotta; some thirty other Serie A players who participated at the 2006 FIFA World Cup opted to move to other European leagues in the wake of the scandal.[79] Notably, Juventus captain Alessandro Del Piero and fellow stars Gianluigi Buffon, Mauro Camoranesi, Pavel Nedved, and David Trezeguet, including future defense's cornerstone Giorgio Chiellini and young stars like Claudio Marchisio,[80] stayed through "the purgatory of Serie B". Notably, Del Piero defended his decision to remain at Juventus, referencing the club's nickname, "The Old Lady", and said that "a true gentleman never leaves his lady." Juventus rebuilt from the ground up, restructured their management team, built a new stadium, and renegotiated a number of key sponsorship contracts for the future.[81] By the 2020s, the club had won a record-breaking nine-consecutive Serie A championships with three different coaches (former Juventus player Antonio Conte, Massimiliano Allegri, and Maurizio Sarri),[82] along with four Coppa Italia and consecutive domestic doubles,[83] four Supercoppa Italiana,[84] and reached two UEFA Champions League finals, in 2015 and 2017, respectively.[85] In a twist of fate, Calciopoli nemesis Inter Milan and former coach Conte ended Juventus' unprecedented Serie A run in 2021.[86]

On 26 October, the second appeal reduced Lazio's penalty to three points, Juventus' reduced to nine points, and Fiorentina's reduced to fifteen points,[87] while Milan was unsuccessful and still faced with an eight-point deduction.[88] Juventus previously announced that they planned to appeal the punishment in the Italian civil courts, an action that would have brought further punishment to the clubs and the FIGC by FIFA, as FIFA has historically taken a dim view to government involvement in football administration. FIFA announced that it had the option to suspend the FIGC, barring all Italian clubs from international play, if Juventus went to court; some analysts, such as ESPN, described them as "FIFA threats".[89] After the FIGC threatened to freeze all Italian competition, which could have resulted Italy's national team not taking part at the UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying,[90] Juventus dropped its appeal before the TAR on 31 August, the day before it was due to be heard;[91] FIFA president Sepp Blatter personally thanked Juventus, particularly Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, for dropping the appeal.[92] Juventus officials cited the "willingness shown by sportive institutions [the FIGC and the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI)] to review its case during [CONI's] arbitration."[93] In retrospect, this decision in particular is criticized because it could have cleared Juventus' name and avoided relegation.[94] In addition, some critics alleged that the decision could also be partially explained by Montezemolo's relations with then-Inter Milan vice-president Marco Tronchetti Provera, who was also owner of Inter Milan's sponsor Telecom Italia, which would go on in 2007 to sponsor Scuderia Ferrari, of which Montezemolo was president; Montezemolo was also Confindustria president, while Tronchetti Provera was Confindustria vice-president.[95] Both Montezemolo and Tronchetti Provera were implicated in the SISMI-Telecom scandal,[96] but they were not processually involved.[97] In a la Repubblica interview, Telecom's old security guided by Giuliano Tavaroli dismissed the theory that the Telecom management was unaware of those spying operations,[98] saying that they were worried about protecting Montezemolo, its favourite candidate for the Confindustria presidency.[99]

Inter Milan's controversial 2006 scudetto assignation[edit]

On 26 July, the FIGC declared Inter Milan as the Italian football champion for the 2005–06 season.[100][nb 14] Regarding this decision, Carlo Porceddu, federal prosecutor from 1998 to 2001 and vice-president of the Federal Court of Appeal, stated in an interview with Unione Sarda: "Revoking the 2005/2006 scudetto from Juventus and assigning to Inter Milan was a serious mistake. The Calciopoli investigation should have been more thorough, so much so that we, as the Federal Court, had limited the penalty to Juventus not withdrawing the championship title due to insufficient evidence. In fact, that aspect had been neglected. Then, the special commissioner of the [Italian Football] Federation of that period had appointed a group of his friends, one of whom was also on the board of directors of Inter Milan, and that title was revoked from Juventus and given to Inter Milan. That was a grave error in my view."[106] Purceddu also highlighted how several aspects of the investigation needed to be clarified.[107]

Franco Carraro, Rossi's predecessor, was another critic of Rossi's decision, especially because, as Carraro recalled years later, "a month later Rossi goes to be president of Telecom for the second time, whose largest shareholder is Marco Tronchetti Provera, vice-president of Inter Milan."[108][nb 15] Piero Sandulli, president of the FIGC National Court of Appeal, was against giving the scudetto to Inter Milan,[113] and stated to have been criticized at that time for it;[38] in later years, Sandulli reiterated that the title should not have been assigned to Inter Milan.[62] The decision was further condemned because of Inter Milan's involvement, among other clubs not originally implicated, which could not be put on trial due to the statute of limitations.[114] This caused a dispute between the FIGC, Inter Milan, and Juventus.[115] Although it was deemed likely, or almost certain,[116] that the FIGC would revoke Inter Milan's scudetto,[114] and despite Juventus' appeals to have it revoked even without giving it back to Juventus,[4] it did not happen; the FIGC's Federal Council voted to declare itself not competent.[117][nb 16]

Later developments and trials[edit]

SIM cards and wiretaps[edit]

By April 2007, some new details about the Calciopoli affair were disclosed,[118] as Naples prosecutors were able to find out a series of telephone calls through foreign SIM cards between Moggi, Bergamo, Pairetto, and several referees.[119] Since the conversations were through foreign SIM cards, the Italian police could not tap them, so they could only try to match together phone numbers, numbers called, and places. The SIM cards had been purchased in a store in Chiasso (Switzerland); some SIM cards were Swiss and registered to the store owner's family, while the others came from an anonymous person in Liechtenstein. The prosecutors also discovered the use of a Slovenian SIM card. In this investigation they involved Moggi, Pairetto, Bergamo, Fabiani (Messina sporting director), the referees De Santis, Racalbuto, Paparesta, Pieri, Cassarà, Dattilo, Bertini, and Gabriele, and the referee assistant Ambrosino. According to this investigation, Paparesta also used the Swiss SIM card for personal use and this helped the prosecutors to discover this secret communication channel. Apparently, Moggi had five foreign SIM cards, two of which had been used to communicate with Bergamo and Pairetto, whereas the others had supposed to have been used to communicate with the referees and Fabiani.[120] Moreover, another wiretap was unveiled by the Italian daily La Stampa. Although containing nothing truly compromising, it recorded Moggi and Marcello Lippi (former coach of Juventus and coach of Italy national football team at that time) insulting Inter Milan president Massimo Moratti and Inter Milan coach Roberto Mancini. Lippi stated that Mancini deserved a lesson, while Moggi answered that Mancini would have such a lesson.[121]

On 26 April 2007, about two hundred audio files of the wiretaps, some published one year before in the written form and some never published, were released; this allowed readers to perceive tones and forms of the conversations.[122] Milan, originally ejected from the 2006–07 Champions League due to the scandal, went on to win the competition on 23 May.[88] On 17 June, on the Italian show Qui studio a voi stadio, a popular football show broadcast by the local TV Telelombardia based in Milan, Bergamo said that Moggi gave two Swiss SIM cards to Pairetto, who then gave one of those SIM cards to him. Bergamo stated that, on suspicion of being tapped, he used that SIM card only to communicate with Pairetto and that, after the exhaustion of the credit, he did not use the SIM card anymore.[123] In June 2008, Juventus was fined a further €300,000 in three installments, while Messina were fined €60,000.[124] On 14 December 2009, Giraudo was sentenced to three years in prison.[125]

In October 2008, chief prosecutor Giuseppe Narducci was quoted in court as saying: "Like it or not, no other calls exist between the designators and other directors."[2] During the Calciopoli trial in Naples, the legal team of Moggi released a number of wiretaps showing that Inter Milan,[nb 17] as well as Milan,[133][nb 18] had been involved in the Serie A scandal during 2004 and 2005. Such wiretaps involved Milan vice-president Adriano Galliani,[nb 19] Milan employee Leonardo Meani,[nb 20] Inter Milan owner Massimo Moratti, then-Inter Milan president Giacinto Facchetti,[nb 21] and former referee designators Paolo Bergamo and Pierluigi Pairetto,[nb 22] as well as many other Italian clubs not previously mentioned in the scandal.[138]

During the October 2010 industrial espionage case against Telecom Italia (SISMI-Telecom scandal), Tronchetti Provera (Pirelli president and former CEO, Inter Milan shareholder and former vice-president, and former Telecom president), confirmed the statements delivered by Caterina Plateo (former Telecom employee) in her testimony that the company was spying on members of the football realm on behalf of Inter Milan; these revelations were brought to the Naples trial. When Calciopoli's chief investigator Colonnel Attilio Auricchio was cross-examined by Moggi's lawyer, it was revealed that he had tampered evidence prior to handing it over to the sporting tribunal in 2006. According to Carlo Garganese, Auricchio did this "by pulling out the thousands upon thousands of calls made by directors and coaches to referee designators that would have shown no one had an exclusive relationship."[2] Inter Milan's implicating calls, among other clubs', which were not ordered to be transcribed, were signed with three moustache-like red lines to indicate the grade of gravity.[147]

In September 2011, Salvatore Racalbuto's lawyer Giacomo Mungiello stated: "No probative value can be attributed to the Swiss SIM cards themselves. According to the prosecutor, the cell phone would have hooked up the cell near Racalbuto's house in Gallarate on the evening of the match. Today we produce a document which shows that on both occasions the referee slept in the hotel the same evening and didn't return home. Among the texts heard, there was Coppola, who told us that he had presented himself to the Carabinieri, invited by Borrelli's appeal, and that he had told them to tell them something about Inter Milan, but the Carabinieri didn't want to know and they were interested only in Juventus, which tells us all about the way the investigation went."[148]

Palazzi's 2011 report and Naples developments[edit]

On 15 June 2011, six months prior to their initial five-year ban's expiration, the FIGC announced that Moggi, Giraudo, and Mazzini would be banned for life from any football-related roles in Italy.[149] Despite popular perception of a match-fixing scandal and Calciopoli being referred to as match-fixing in association football, especially in the beginnings and its first phase,[150] the sentence stated that no Article 6 (about match fixing or attempted match-fixing) violations were found within the intercepted calls, and the season was fair and legitimate. Furthermore, no requests for specific referees, no demands for favours, and no conversations between Juventus directors and referees themselves were found; their lifetime ban was because they could potentially benefit from their exclusive relations with referee designators.[2]

In July 2011, the FIGC chief investigator Stefano Palazzi alleged in his report that, in addition to Moggi, other club officials violated the Code of Sporting Justice by contacting referee designators in illegal manners, which contradicted Moggi and Giraudo's exclusivity;[116] they included Article 1 violations by Nello Governato (Brescia), Massimo Cellino (Cagliari), Luca Campedelli (ChievoVerona), Fabrizio Corsi (Empoli), Massimo Moratti (Inter Milan), Leonardo Meani (Milan), Rino Foschi (Palermo), Pasquale Foti (Reggina), Luciano Spalletti (Udinese), and Sergio Gasparin (Vicenza), and Article 6 violations by Giacinto Facchetti (Inter Milan), Leonardo Meani (Milan), and Aldo Spinelli (Livorno).[151] According to Palazzi's findings, these clubs had to be punished during the Calciopoli trial, but no court could confirm these allegations since all facts are covered by the statute of limitation.[152] In regard to Inter Milan's 2006 scudetto, Palazzi wrote: "Inter Milan appears to be the only club against which, in hypothesis, concrete consequences can arise on the sporting level, even if indirectly with respect to the outcome of the disciplinary procedure."[153] In response to Palazzi's report, Giancarlo Abete, then-president of the FIGC, stated that there were no legal ground to revoke the title from Inter Milan; he hinted that Inter Milan should give away the title and leave it unassigned on the basis of ethics.[154]

During the Naples trial, Moggi's lawyer Maurilio Prioreschi asked the court to take in consideration that between 2006 (the year of the first sentences) and 2011 (the year of the sentence on Moggi's lifetime ban) numerous hearings were held during the criminal trial in Naples, from which wiretaps involving other club executives that, according to Moggi's legal defense, would drop the basic assumption of the 2006 sports conviction, namely that relating to the conditioning of the referees thanks to the preferential treatment by the referee designators towards Moggi and Juventus, which in turn led to the sporting offence. Many of those wiretaps formed the body of Palazzi's report, with which the FIGC chief prosecutor intended to refer many executives and clubs for violations of the Code of Sports Justice, a circumstance that was prevented only by the statute of limitation. The court's Disciplinary Commission purposely ignored this defensive argument, and arguing that it was a reassessment of the facts not permitted at that time, no importance was given to the conduct of those other executives and clubs which had just emerged during the criminal trial.[155] According to the FIGC's Federal Court of Justice, as explained in its judgment of appeal in regards to the term attualizzare ("actualize"), the court was there not to expand the evidence on which the first judgment was based but rather to ascertain whether at that time those established facts were still serious enough to justify a lifetime ban; it concluded that this ruling must be expressed exclusively "on the basis of the sentences rendered" against Moggi, and cannot take into consideration any comparative judgment with conducts possibly attributable to other subjects of the FIGC law. The court stated that to have a reassessment of the facts of Calciopoli, it would be necessary to request and open a revocation of judgment pursuant to Article 39 of the Code of Sports Justice.[155]

On 8 November 2011, the Naples court issued the first conclusion of the criminal case against Moggi and the other football personalities involved, sentencing him to jail for five years and four months for criminal association.[156] In December 2013, Moggi's sentence was reduced to two years and four months for being found guilty of conspiring to commit a crime; the earlier charge of sporting fraud passed the statute of limitations.[157] On 17 March 2014, the Naples court confirmed Moggi, Pairetto, and Mazzini's conviction for the same charge. In its ruling's motivation, the court wrote of "a proven system already operating in the years 1999/2000 between the subjects, who along the lines of weaving 'friendly relations' were carrying out conduct aimed at phasing the real scope and potential of some football teams", to which Paolo Ziliani, a journalist who is known for his anti-Juventus claims,[158] commented for Il Fatto Quotidiano that, even though three of them were won by clubs other than Juventus, they should be also revoked;[159] no evidence was provided for the claim,[nb 23] and none of the previous leagues were investigated.[nb 24] Of the indicated allegedly altered championships, Juventus won four of them (2001–02, 2002–03,[nb 25] 2004–05, and 2005–06), one of which (2001–02) was won in the last match and became known as "the scudetto of 5 May",[174][nb 26] and two of which (2004–05 and 2005–06) were the only ones to be revoked from Juventus,[nb 27] while Lazio (1999–2000),[nb 28] Roma (2000–01),[nb 29] and Milan (2003–04) each won one scudetto,[nb 30] respectively.[185] The first alleged altered championship was one year after the Inter Milan–Juventus' second leg match, and the first year with Pairetto and Bergamo as referee designators.[111][nb 31]

Supreme Court rulings and Juventus' appeals[edit]

On 23 March 2015, the Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy's highest court of appeal, ruled in its final resolution that Moggi was acquitted of "some individual charges for sporting fraud, but not from being the 'promoter' of the 'criminal conspiracy' that culminated in Calciopoli." The remaining charges of Moggi were cancelled without a new trial due to the statute of limitations.[199] Giraudo's sentence also expired in March 2015.[200] Appeals by Fiorentina owners Andrea and Diego Della Valle and Lazio president Claudio Lotito against their sentences were rejected on the same ground, as their cases passed the statute of limitations.[201] The court accepted the prosecutor's request to clear charges of former referees Paolo Bertini, Antonio Dattilo, and Gennaro Mazzei but rejected the appeals for Massimo De Santis and Savaltore Racabulto.[202] Shortly after the court's decision, the then-FIGC president Carlo Tavecchio remarked in an interview with ANSA that "while the motivations may be pending, the sentence confirms the thesis of the prosecution", and "the crimes were real and so was the criminal conspiracy."[203] In response to the final verdict, Moggi said that it merely let the courts off the hook, not him, and vowed to turn to the European courts in hopes to have his ban from football world lifted.[204]

On 9 September 2015, the Supreme Court released a 150-page document that explained its final ruling of the case. As reported by Milan-based La Gazzetta dello Sport, although Moggi's remaining charges being cancelled without a new trial due to statute of limitations, the court made clear that Moggi's unwarranted activities incurred significant damage to Italian football not only in sporting, but also in economic terms. In the document, the court confirmed that Moggi was actively involved in the sporting fraud which was intended to favour Juventus and increase his own personal benefits;[205] according to Gazzetta World, the document also stated that Moggi had "unjustified and excessive power within Italian football", which he used to exert influence over referees, other club officials, and the media, thereby creating "an illegal system to condition matches of the 2004/05 championship (and not just those)."[206] Turin-based Tuttosport reported: "Justice decided that Moggi and Giraudo actually 'polluted' the system, it decided so in 2006 and didn't want to know or understand other truths. Indeed, it had already decided it during the investigations, when all the phone calls that could exonerate or alleviate the position of Juventus' executives had not been taken into consideration, to the point of dismantling the very concept of the Cupola. Moggi and Giraudo, therefore, 'polluted' the system: a term that serves to dodge the fact that no judge has ever returned enough evidence to affirm that championship (the subject of investigation was only 2004–05) has actually been altered. Indeed, in the first instance sentence we basically read the opposite."[207] The Supreme Court commented that "the system of the arrangement of the [referee] grids was rather widespread", and the developments in the behavior of Inter Milan's Giacinto Facchetti and Milan's Leonardo Meani were not "deepened by the investigations".[207] On 15 March 2017, Moggi's lifetime ban was definitively confirmed on final appeal.[208]

Having been cleared of wrongdoings and not being liable by other clubs because the 2004–05 season was deemed regular, Juventus appealed to have the two league titles back and damage claims due to disparity of treatment in the sporting trial.[41] In September 2016, the District Court rejected the claim from Juventus because it had no jurisdiction over CONI arbitration chamber's decision made in October 2006.[209] In December 2018, the Supreme Court upheld this District Court's decision on tehnical grounds.[210] In January 2019, Juventus handed another appeal to sports tribunal under CONI to have the 2005–06 Serie A title removed from Inter Milan.[211] The appeal was rejected on 6 May 2019.[212] Further appeals were rejected in 2022 as not admissable.[213]


Initial verdicts (bans July 2006, sentences November 2011) handed out to the following individuals:[214]

Impact and reception[edit]

The scandal hit hard on Italian football, with its top league (Serie A) being considered the top European league, one of the best, and the golden age of football throughout the 1980s and the 1990s.[215] The case remains controversial and divisive,[4][nb 32] especially between the FIGC, Inter Milan, and Juventus, mainly due to Juventus' harsh punishment,[221] as well as the FIGC's decision to have the 2005–06 scudetto assigned to Inter Milan,[222] both of which are criticized,[33] and resulted in Italian football decline and supporters' exodus.[220] In September 2011, the polling company Demos & Pi published in la Repubblica found that of those in the population who defined themselves as tifosi dropped from 52% to 45%; in addition, the poll showed that 55% of tifosi were suspicious whenever a referee makes a mistake.[220] The poll found that 56.5% of the sample examined was sceptical of the regularity of the decisions taken by sports justice, while 24.9% judged the Calciopoli scandal "as a case of sports justice that led to the right decisions."[220] 43.5% of the same sample said that the 2005–06 title "[should] not be awarded to anyone", compared to 33.7% who believed that the title should remain at Inter Milan, or be given to other clubs. In addition, the poll revealed that Juventus remained the most supported club at 30%, followed by Inter Milan at 19%, and Milan at 16%, while Inter Milan became the most hated, surpassing Juventus; polarization increased, with 10% more supporters expressing hatred towards at least one club, for a total of 50%, and with militant, ultras groups holding a bigger share of tifo.[220] When Juventus returned to win in an unprecedented nine-year consecutive championship run,[nb 33] even as the club was absolved and no match involving Juventus was altered, discussions and accusations without evidence,[nb 34] as no other championship other than that of 2004–05 has been investigated, "a new Calciopoli" emerged.[228][nb 35] Two commonly cited events, with high-profile refereeing mistakes,[nb 36] are two Juventus matches — one against Milan in 2012,[nb 37] the other against Inter Milan in 2018.[nb 38]

Supporters of the trials, such as prosecutor Giuseppe Narducci, journalist Marco Travaglio,[253][nb 39] and coach Zdeněk Zeman,[nb 40] cite Moggi's guilty verdict, and the court's view that he was the promoter of the criminal conspiracy that culminated in Calciopoli as evidence that the scandal was real.[266] Critics respond that the first investigation was conducted too hastily, question why wiretaps implicated many other clubs were not revealed earlier,[nb 41] and state that it was not legal, as wiretaps were obtained through illegal means, or that too much weight was given to them, and many of Moggi's wiretaps were decontextualized.[267][nb 42] In addition, they argue that convictions, such as Moggi's, did not give weight to later developments, such as several points of the prosecution being contradicted,[2] other clubs' involvement which was not not considered due to the fact they came to light after the statute of limitation, that the season was deemed fair and legitimate,[2] as no match result was altered,[267][nb 43] and Juventus did not violate Article 6 ("sporting illicit", which warrants relegation),[2] and was only charged through a newly made-up rule in the Code of Sports Justice after the events,[62] while other clubs (Inter Milan, Livorno, and Milan) were found to have directly violated Article 6 according to the FIGC chief investigator Stefano Palazzi, whose earlier charges in the first phase were mostly confirmed.[273] Moggi's legal defence asked the Naples court to take this in consideration but the court denied it, arguing that it was a reassessment of the facts not permitted at that time.[155]

Juventus' harsh punishment was subjected to criticism,[nb 44] even more so due to later developments and investigations, and several critics argue that only Juventus was truly punished, while other clubs or executives were not punished as harshly,[nb 45] or got away from it,[nb 46] and Italian football is in no better shape than it was then.[110] Juventus' owners and legal defense, especially in the first phase when they renounced their appeal to the TAR and did not defend the club effectively, is also criticized;[307] some critics alleged that several Juventus' then-owners and board of directors took their personal interests and relations above that of the club, or that they wanted to get rid of Moggi and Giraudo, both of whom were becoming major Juventus shareholders.[26][nb 47] Il processo illecito and Juventus il processo farsa: inchiesta verità su Calciopoli took a critical look at the case, citing several inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and still unclear aspects;[75][nb 48] several observers, including some supporters of the trials,[317] said there were inconsistencies and there remains some unclear aspects,[318] for instance how the 2015 final ruling, as commented by Giovanni Capuano for Panorama, "further reduce[d] the perimeter of Moggi's cupola, the system that led to the sports verdict of the summer of 2006: could the [sports] directors (Moggi and Giraudo), [the referee designators] Pairetto, Mazzini, and only [the referees] De Santis with Racalbuto be enough?"[4] Moggi's legal defence commented: "This trial starts with about fifty suspects including referees and [referee] assistants plus the leaders of the [Italian Football] Federation, today this mega criminal association is reduced to two referees and three matches. Once all the skimmings have been made, [with] the referees and [their] assistants acquitted, Moggi would have done all sports fraud alone. He would sit down and say, 'I will change the match score in the morning.'"[4] Some of Italian media's reaction and behavior, including sensationalism, was also subjected to criticism.[319][nb 49]


During the sports trial in July 2006, some political forces, such as Forza Italia and Popolari UDEUR, tried to promote the idea of ​​an amnesty, as it was done after the 1980 Totonero scandal for the 1982 FIFA World Cup,[324] in the event of the victory of Italy national football team at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, which ended up occurring.[325] Giovanna Melandri, then-Minister of Youth Policies and Sport from the Democrats of the Left, firmly rejected the amnesty hypothesis, calling it "an idiocy".[326]

Francesco Cossiga, former President of Italy and Prime Minister of Italy, criticized the scandal's effect on individuals, such as then-Juventus player Gianluca Pessotto attempting suicide,[327] and compared it to the Mani pulite scandal's aftermath. Cossiga also expressed strong words and criticism for the FIGC's Federal Court of Appeal.[328] Silvio Berlusconi, former Prime Minister of Italy and then-Milan owner and president, rejected an amnesty but added: "Any sanctions must not hit the players, many of whom, among other things, have just shown on the pitch that they are the best in the world, and don't deserve to go to [Serie] B or [Serie] C. And then the fans, who have no responsibility." About the trial, Berlusconi stated: "This is a trial without the indispensable characteristics of certainty, which any trial should have, for at least three reasons. First: not all the telephone calls from the judges were heard. Second: not all the witnesses were heard. Third: the reality of the pitch has highlighted situations different from those that should have occurred. They all seem to me sufficient reasons to affirm that there is no guarantee of reaching conclusions based on the facts, by the judges." About relegations, of which all involved clubs at that time were sanctioned for, Berlusconi said: "I'm against every club's relegations and I don't speak as the president of Milan. I'm against it because relegating a club like Juventus would also damage the interests of third parties. In fact, how many clubs without any fault of their own would be forced to give up the proceeds of a match against Juventus? And then we must also think about the damage that is created to sponsors and television companies that had already signed onerous contracts."[329] With only Juventus relegated, the 2006–07 Serie B championship had better TV ratings than the 2006–07 Serie A championship.[330] Juventus' matches were the most watched, the stadiums had better revenues, and were sold-out whenever Juventus played;[331] Serie A returned to be competitive only when Juventus came back to Serie A for the 2007–08 Serie A championship.[332]

In December 2007, before its own club was found in the 2011 Palazzi report to have violated both Article 1 and Article 6, Berlusconi stated: "Calciopoli was all a hoax, did you understand it or not? Some clubs had influence and claimed it, and we have lost a few scudetti."[333] In response, Gavino Angius, then-senator from the Democratic Left and a Roma supporter, commented: "A hoax? I doubt that Siena and Empoli had the strength to plot against Milan. Berlusconi should speak out and call into question the Nerazzurri cousins [Inter Milan] because they are those who he should be referring to."[333] Maurizio Paniz, then-deputy from Forza Italia and president of the Juventus Club of Montecitorio, rejoiced: "I agree. Calciopoli was a frame with which Italy got hurt in front of the world. And Juve as a club, players, fans, and shareholders had unduly paid."[333]

Sporting trial[edit]

Writing for Il Foglio, Christian Rocca stated: "For a week, Italians have had media proof that Juventus is buying referees. But this 'proof' comes from a request for dismissal which, on the contrary and without any doubt, proves how Juventus didn't buy the referees."[334] Italian magistrate Marcello Maddalena justified the dismissal because it is "an investigation undoubtedly destined to last for years and to fill the pages of newspapers and radio and television broadcasts forever, but for the start of which, it is repeated, it hasn't remained at the state (after all the investigations that have been carried out), not even a shred of 'news' that allows it."[335] About Juventus' punishment, Rocca wrote: "In a normal country there would have been a public apology to Juventus and only, I repeat only, a severe ethical and disciplinary judgment against the designator of the referees and the director of a sports club caught having too close relations. Rome and Naples [trials] concern something else, as far as we know: the management of players, not referees."[335][nb 50]

Writing for Il Tirreno, Enzo Biagi stated: "[This was a] crazy ruling, and not because football is a clean environment. A crazy ruling because it's built on nothing, on wiretaps that are difficult to interpret and can't be proposed in a [trial] procedure worthy of the name, a crazy sentence because it punishes those who were guilty only of living in a certain environment, all seasoned with a process that was a re-edition of the Holy Inquisition in a modern key." Biagi wondered whether Moggi has been identified as "the villain to be fed to the populace" amid numerous other scandals in the country at that time, including the SISMI-Telecom scandal.[336] Biagi's words would be later revoked due to the Calciopoli bis developments.[337] Among others, former Milan and Italy national football team coach Arrigo Sacchi opined that Moggi was a scapegoat for "an environment with connivance and collusion", and of a sporting culture that "did not allow us to know how to lose."[317] About the court's rulings, Sacchi stated: "We had three judicial bodies and all three expressed themselves in a different way from the other: either the first sentence was wrong, or the second or the third."[336]

Corrado De Biase, the head of the investigation office at the time of the 1980 Totonero betting scandal, stated: "First of all, we must have the courage to affirm a reality: this summer's procedure gave birth to an authentic legal abort. When I speak of 'legal abort' I take full responsibility for what I say. When you want to complete a procedure in two weeks that would take at least 6 months just for a correct investigative process, it can only result in a legal abort. When, for reasons of time, a degree of judgment is received, when the defendants are prevented from bringing witnesses, dossiers and films in their defense, but only 15 minutes are allowed for a defense, one can only speak of legal abort. When the defense lawyers of the accused are not granted the full texts of the wiretaps, alleging that they are not pertinent, we can only speak of legal abort. Finally, when a title is disassigned to a club, Juventus, to assign it to another, Inter Milan, before the verdict of the first preliminary iter is pronounced, then we are well beyond legal abort. It's not a problem of ordinary or sporting justice: in any country that defines itself as civil, any penalties and sanctions must be imposed after a guilty verdict has been recorded, never before. And don't talk to me about UEFA regulations or lists to be given to the same for the European cups: the rights of the accused, including that of being able to defend themselves with the means that the law makes available to them, come before a football match." About punishments, De Biase stated: "I, on my own, can only reiterate the concept already expressed: a penalty of 8/10 points, a fine, and a ban of Moggi and Giraudo for 10/12 months, this was the appropriate penalty in my opinion. Any parallel with the story of 1980 is unthinkable: here there're no traces of offence, nor of money or checks. The environmental offence isn't a crime covered by any code, unless we're talking about air pollution."[71]

Citing numerous quotes, Emanuele Boffi for Tempi wondered whether the real scandal was the way it was told, and how through "[p]ages and pages of poison reports" the defendants "Moggi & co were already convicted before the sentences." Boffi wrote that "the Turin Public Prosecutor's Office, which had first viewed all the wiretaps, had dismissed the case as 'the accusatory hypotheses are without confirmation' and for 'the absence of any useful information on any corruption.' Marcello Maddalena, prosecutor of the Turin Republic, also reiterates this in a letter to the newspaper La Repubblica, which the day before had accused him of 'investigative shyness.' Maddalena writes that no evidence emerged from the interceptions that would confirm the original investigative hypothesis (corruption of a public official) for which they had been authorized.' And on the other hand, as Borrelli declares, on the day of the interrogations of the referees, 'there're no pentiti' (June 8). But the culprits were already there."[32]

As recounted by Boffi, magistrates Antonio Di Pietro and Nello Rossi had "some professional qualms about reading verbal or wiretapping all the holy days, maybe even the right and left justicialists should ask some questions." Il Corriere della Sera reported: "We're facing a demonization. Ours is a country of civil guarantees. For now we only know the press reports, however, emphasized with this system of advertising wiretapping, a barbaric system. The laws on the violation of the secret of investigation never find condemnation for those who have violated them. We thought that wiretapping was a prerogative of the fascist regime and instead, obviously, this isn't the case." Article 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that "the publication, even partial or summarized, by means of the press or other means of dissemination, of the documents covered by secrecy or even their content alone is prohibited." Former Italy national football team coach Giovanni Trapattoni stated: "Anyone who is indignant is a hypocrite, speaking of a dome is an exaggeration." In writing about the press' comparisons to Mafia and criminal association, Boffi stated that it was "[a] system ... meticulously tried in the press and somewhat hastily in the courtroom", quoting the defendant Massimo De Santis as saying: "In seven thousand pages there's no trace of a phone call from me with Moggi. I was judged in the newspapers and on TV. I got to know the developments of the investigations by going to newsstands."[32]

La Repubblica, which took a colpevolisti stance, expressed some doubts. The paper reported: "No witnesses were admitted to the trial. Even the worst of criminals has the right to a testimony in favour. The sprint start of the public prosecutor Palazzi was a rash step. The approach of the trial is singular. Strange that no one asks questions ... , we go into little on the merits. The speed is understandable, but in the 1980s [Italian football betting scandal] and in many other cases the judging committees went late at night." De Biase stated: "I have only read detached sentences in the newspapers, I don't think I have read about a sporting offence to alter the result. I don't seem to have seen matches bought or sold. When I hear from Commissioner Rossi that he will do everything himself and that can come to judgment even without questioning, there is something that does not add up." Lawyer Gaetano Scalise commented: "The special commissioner of the FIGC has given us only three days to study thousands and thousands of papers and present briefs. Do you understand what I'm talking about?" About one wiretap in which Giraudo stated of a referee that "if he's smart, he halves Udinese", De Santis commented: "'I enjoyed downloading the call times from the internet. And if you check them too, you will understand everything.' Was the phone call after the offending match? 'That's right.'" About Francesco Saverio Borrelli, journalist Giorgio Bocca stated: "The appointment of Borrelli to direct the investigation into the great football scandal is the litmus test, the chemical reagent, the proof of truth, the fall of lies, the naked king of the Berlusconi people who 'don't give up', who don't tolerate returns to justice, who conceive democracy only as an alliance of the strongest and richest clans."[32]

Naples trial and Supreme Court[edit]

Upon hearing one new wiretap and other wiretaps implicating Inter Milan, journalist Elio Corno stated: "Only for this phone call [referring to a 26 November 2004 wiretap between Carraro, former president of the FIGC, and Bergamo, former referee designator, who was asked to not favour Juventus against Inter Milan],[338][nb 51] the Calciopoli trial had to be annulled, it had to be immediately annulled." In another TV broadcast, Corno stated: "May we say, with great honesty, that this Calciopoli sporting trial was a farce?"[341] Journalist Giuseppe Cruciani stated: "I'm not a Juventus fan. I sympathize with the Bianconeri from 2006 onwards because I believe that what happened to Juventus with Calciopoli was a great injustice and I'm on the side of those who are against injustices."[342] Journalist Oliviero Beha saw Moggi as a scapegoat;[343] in 2011, he wrote that "Moggi, branded as the Al Capone of football, served perfectly as a stopper for a bottle of bad liqueur for public drunkenness, ending up in a trap."[344][nb 52] In November 2021, Italy's Supreme Court confirmed the sentence against RAI to compensate the relatives of Beha, who had died in 2017, with €180,000 for having subjected him to demotion between 2008 and 2010 due to his critical positions on the Calciopoli trials.[346]

During the Naples trial in 2010, lawyer Flavia Tortorella of the Italian Footballers' Association, said: "Rather than asking myself why it happened, I would ask myself questions about what will happen in the future, when the investigation of the fact in criminal proceedings arrives. Calciopoli, at least legally speaking, was this: the sporting trial had to be managed in a different way, in the sense that the proceedings had to necessarily wait for the investigation of the fact in a criminal case, first of all because the sporting legislation at that historical moment was not ripe for contain a case of this kind. The legislation, the Sports Justice Code, which is the current one with some changes that have occurred from 2006 to today, was by no means a code that could contain a sporting proceeding of that magnitude and provide for sanctions regulations for that type of offence, and in fact they invented, so to speak, the structured offence because for the types of offence codified and typified within the code of sporting justice absolutely could neither be initiated nor terminated in that way a procedure of that type."[64] In an interview with Tuttosport, lawyer Paolo Rodella stated: "Compared to the summer of 2006, new facts are emerging. Wanting to be flexible, we can even think of a revision on the basis of the interceptions presented in Naples. They clearly constitute elements that, if they were already known by the sports justice bodies, they would have influenced the sentence, which would have been of a different nature, at least on the plurality of the subjects sanctioned."[347]

After the Naples trial, Carlo Rossini reported that "Juventus has been acquitted, the offending championships (2004/2005 and 2005/2006) have been declared regular, and the reasons for the conviction of Luciano Moggi are vague; mostly, they condemn his position, that he was in a position to commit a crime. In short, be careful to enter a shop without surveillance because even if you don't steal, you would have had the opportunity. And go on to explain to your friends that you're honest people after the morbid and pro-sales campaign of the newspapers." Rossini criticized some in the media, writing that "a club has been acquitted, and no one has heard of it, and whoever has heard of it, they don't accept it. The verdict of 2006, made in a hurry, was acceptable, that of Naples was not. The problem then lies not so much in vulgar journalism as in readers who accept the truths that are convenient. Juventus was, rightly or wrongly, the best justification for the failures of others, and it was in popular sentiment, as evidenced by the new controversies concerning 'The System.' But how? Wasn't the rotten erased?" About the latter, Rossini said that, according to Moratti, referees have been wrong in good faith since 2006, and stated that "it isn't a question of tifo, but of a critical spirit, of the desire to deepen and not be satisfied with the headlines (as did Oliviero Beha, a well-known Viola [Fiorentina] fan, who, however, drew conclusions outside the chorus because, despite enjoying it as a tifoso, he suffered as a journalist. He wasn't satisfied and went into depth. He was one of the few)."[348]

In 2015, journalist Giuliano Vaciago wrote: "The first instance ruling of Casoria and the famous Palazzi report (the one in which the public prosecutor of the FIGC considers Inter Milan liable to sporting offences in light of the new interceptions) would be enough to appear in front of the FIGC and reopen the 2006 folders. There's no need to repoen the sentences of the Supreme Court to rewrite history, just read well the first instance one and listen to the trial that produced it. And nothing remains of the sporting trial."[349] In response to former Juventus' player Alessandro Del Piero, who dubbed Calciopoli as "[a] bit crazy and unusual, strange from many points of view", journalist Marcello Chirico stated that "Del Piero is right to be amazed again, even 14 years later. Something anomalous happened that summer, and the anomaly was also perpetrated in the years to come with the ordinary process and subsequent appeals. The most compromising phone calls with the [referee] designators (authorized by the system of the time, it's always good to remember) were made by other clubs, and not by Juve. It's all documented. However, Juventus was sent to Serie B all the same and someone else, who explicitly asked to be able to win a match and pilot the referee draw, received a scudetto as a gift. All this is also documented through very explicit phone call records."[226] Journalist Roberto Renga, who was also active as a journalist during the Totonero scandal in the 1980s, sees Calciopoli as an injustice, in regards to Juventus' treatment. In 2018, he commented: "As you know, I'm not a Juventus fan, but I'm a football fan, of teams that work and do well. And I get attached to those who have suffered abuse."[218]

Defendants and referees[edit]

Moggi always declared himself innocent, and in his appeals to the European courts stated that "if they give me a pardon, I renounce it. Pardon is for those who are guilty, I'm not guilty [of the 'criminal association' charge], I didn't do anything [criminal]. They weren't angry at me, they were angry at Juventus because it won too much."[311] About his actions, Moggi stated that they were criticizable, and he was wrong from an ethical standpoint but did not commit any illicit;[nb 53] Moggi said that "[t]he sports court, at the end of the trial, ruled as follows: 'Regular championship, no match altered.' Therefore Juventus [is] exempt from crimes referred to in Art. 6. The final ruling of the ordinary justice instead spoke of 'early consummation' crimes, which are nothing more than the fruit of hypotheses and inferences of that prosecutor who in the courtroom had asserted 'there were no other phone calls, if not those of the suspects in the trial', while the [Italian Football] Federation Prosecutor asserted that 'Inter Milan was the club that risked most of all for the illegal behavior of its President Facchetti."[357] About the Swiss sim cards, Moggi stated that he used them to circumvent "those [such as Inter Milan and Inter Milan's Telecom] who intercepted us", with reference to transfer operations. He commented: "We had bought Stanković and we also had the contract ready to be presented to the [Italian Football] Federation. After two months the player and his agent disappeared, we found them at Inter Milan."[358] About the wiretaps, Moggi said that he never intruded on the designation of referees, and spoke of incomplete wiretaps for the prosecution.[358] Moggi also reiterated that "[t]hey accused me of going to the referees' locker room but that's not true; others did. Paparesta's kidnapping never happened, it was just a joke."[358] In 2014, Agnelli stated: "Moggi represents a beautiful and important part of our history. We are the country of Catholicism and forgiveness. We can also forgive people, can't we?" Moggi responded: "Nice words. I thank Andrea Agnelli, but I don't need forgiveness. If anything, I deserve praise for [the 16 trophies won on the pitch for the club].[359] ... There were twenty clubs and they behaved in the same way but only Juve paid because it bothered."[360]

The defendants implicated with Moggi were stunned by the charges and conviction of criminal association.[361] Of the alleged seven-consecutive falsified championship, they mentioned that Juventus controversially lost out two, both of which were consecutively won for the first time in Italian football history by two Southern clubs (the first by Lazio in 2000 during the Jubilee in the Catholic Church, and the second by Roma during the Passaportopoli scandal,[362] which did not involve Juventus, upset that rules were changed and not respected), and only won another championship (that of 5 May 2002) due to what was called "Inter Milan's [football] suicide".[185] Bergamo, one of the referee designators implicated, stated: "But I talked to everyone, that's what [then-FIGC president] Carraro wanted. And I dined with everyone: with the late Franco Sensi, with Tanzi and Sacchi, with Spalletti, Spinelli, [and] Aliberti. Then I invite home Facchetti, Galliani, and those of Juve, when the championship is now over but only with the Bianconeri do I find myself at home surrounded by the Carabinieri, the photo stalking, [and] the wiretapping. Yet the invitation to Facchetti and Galliani I did by phone! Nothing, nothing comes back to me in this investigation and its shortcomings; my wife used the Swiss [phone] card. With Nucini's fabrication of history: he meets Moggi, he becomes a partner, and we no longer put him in Serie A. There was no [criminal] affiliation: he was [simply] mediocre!"[185] Like fellow referees Pierluigi Collina and Roberto Rosetti, Paolo Tagliavento stated to have never received any pressure,[363] and testified: "I was never pressured by the [referee] designator or De Santis. For a referee it's easier to reff a derby than being in a courtroom, I'm not at ease here."[364]

Former referee and defendant De Santis, convicted of criminal association as a simple associate with Moggi, was also upset by the rulings,[361] and feel that Italian football is no better today than it was at that time.[17] De Santis recalled that he was called a juventino for disallowing Fabio Cannavaro's regular goal in a Juventus–Parma match of the 1999–00 Serie A that was won by the former 1–0,[365][nb 54] for which he made mea culpa and stated it was one of many honest, good-faith mistakes in his career,[370] which he realized upon re-watching the events, but that he was never a Juventus supporter,[17] and he was not favoured by Moggi.[371][nb 55] De Santis felt that he was the sole referee to pay, as he was the only convicted referee,[382] and stated: "The 2004–2005 championship was regular. The sentences are clear: no match [was] altered. All the referees were acquitted. The only three matches that ended up as 'fixed' have never been tried but only theorized. There were flaws that neither the Court of Appeal nor that of Cassation wanted to discover, [only] following the initial theory [of Moggi's criminal association] instead of seeking the truth. I have never had any [Swiss SIM], I have proved it in the documentation presented to the trials. Am I the only referee who has not freed myself from the shoals of the prosecution? At first, I was seen as a promoter of the association, then only as a simple associate. It was necessary to ascertain the truth, not to frame people in a theorem that is the child of the Pirelli files."[17]

About Berlusconi, Moggi said: "I thanked him and I thank him for his esteem for me, maybe I reserve him a criticism for what he didn't do to the Calciopoli explosion: he knew that innocent people would be penalized, obviously for him too it was a priority to demolish Juventus' domain." Moggi also said that Berlusconi wanted him at Milan, and during a private meeting to discuss the matter revealed to him that "the FIGC possessed some of [Moggi's] wiretaps without any criminal value, of which Galliani (then-vice-president of Milan and president of Lega Calcio), Carraro (then-president of the FIGC), [and] General Pappa, head of the investigations office of the FIGC, were also aware." Moggi stated that those same wiretaps were made public just a few days after.[383] Moggi had earlier said that Galliani made Calciopoli come out because Berlusconi wanted him at Milan. In regard to the dispute between the FIGC and Juventus, Moggi responded to then-FIGC president Carlo Tavecchio: "From the trials, it turns out that there has been no alteration of the championship, there has been no alteration of the referee grids, even 30 referees were acquitted of the charges. I've helped some of these acquitted referees, I've helped many financially. Poor boys, I felt sorry for them, they didn't know how to pay the lawyer. They were ruined by Calciopoli." About the Supreme Court's sentence, Moggi reiterated his innocence of the criminal association charge, and added: "The Supreme Court speaks of power. But power isn't a crime. I had power because I worked well, it was power because of the quality of the work [as general director] I did."[167] Apart from Milan, Moggi stated that he was also sought by Inter Milan.[384] Citing Gianni Agnelli's quote that "the king's groom must have known all the horse thieves", Moggi discussed how "Agnelli said that because during my time it was full of sons of bitches. And he wanted an expert, one who could stand up to these here. For me it's a compliment."[167]

In 2017, Moggi said that "VAR was supposed to be the end of the controversy, [but] nothing has changed. Calciopoli would have broken out anyway. Five referees were acquitted, Racalbuto had the statute of limitation, and only De Santis was convicted; as the rulings say, the matches and the leagues have not been altered. What happened on the pitch was just a pretext used to take out those who at that moment had the most skills and obtained the most successes."[385] When Agnelli, among others, was investigated by the public prosecutor's office of Turin on the management of tickets at the Juventus Stadium about the alleged infiltration of the 'Ndrangheta in the commercial management of the club's tickets,[386] Moggi stated: "For those who know Andrea, it's an accusation that would make people laugh rather than cry, [which was] bounced on all the newspapers despite the denials of the Federal Prosecutor, Giuseppe Pecoraro. Juve is again under attack from those who can't beat them on the pitch. What happened in 2006 wasn't enough."[387] By March 2020, both Moggi and Giraudo appealed to the European Court of Human Rights for the conduct of the trials and the few time given to legal defences; Giraudo's appeal was accepted in September 2021, and he is being represented by Amedeo Rosboch, the same lawyer who defended Jean-Marc Bosman in the revolutionary Bosman ruling in association football.[388]

FIGC–Inter Milan–Juventus controversy[edit]

Inter Milan and Juventus[edit]

Before later developments and investigation implicated Inter Milan, among other clubs, Inter Milan felt vindicated by the trial's first phase,[389] as in their view that was the reason why the club did not win in Italy,[390] having at that time most recently won the 1988–89 Serie A championship.[391] Upon being assigned the 2006 scudetto,[392] Inter Milan and their supporters called it scudetto degli onesti ("scudetto of the honests").[393] With Juventus' relegation, Inter Milan boasted of becoming the only Serie A club to have never been relegated.[394][nb 56] Then-Inter Milan owner Massimo Moratti would later state that he did not disdain the 2006 scudetto,[397] as he thought it was just;[398] of the five consecutive championship won by Inter Milan between 2006 and 2010, Moratti stated that the 2006 title was "the most beautiful",[399] and he was proud of it.[400] In response to Moratti's statements, Juventus president Andrea Agnelli stated: "It must be recognized he has a great love for Inter Milan, a great love that led him to accept some follies such as accepting a scudetto that he didn't win."[398] In spite of the diatribe,[401] when expressing satisfaction at the 2015 Supreme Court ruling, Moratti also stated that he was always friend with Agnelli.[402] Despite more cordiality outside football between the Agnelli family and the Moratti family,[403] relations remain damaged by Calciopoli,[404] and the football rivalry increased.[405] Dating back to the 1960s, it represented the battle of oil manufacturer Pirelli and automobile manufacturer FIAT, Milan versus Turin as the battle of the Italian triangle industrial north, and an intra-capitalist conflict.[406] Calciopoli only strengthened the rivalry, and the Derby d'Italia became even bigger than Milan's Derby della Madonnina, or the Juventus–Milan rivalry in the 1990s and early 2000s.[407] In 2013, Moratti was succeeded as president by Indonesian businessman Erick Thohir, to whom he sold all his stakes.[408] Relations did not improve,[409] as Juventus continued to appeal and ask for the revision of the proceedings,[410] all the while former Inter Milan board of director and then-FIGC president Carlo Tavecchio's declared sympathy for Inter Milan surfaced, amid photos with Inter Milan's executives and future Chinese ownership.[411] Relations between the two clubs only improved in 2018, as Zhang Kangyang, the son of new Chinese owner Zhang Jindong through the Suning Holdings Group, became Inter Milan president.[412] In 2021, Juventus and Inter Milan were two of three Italian clubs (the other was Milan) to take part to the European Super League project.[413]

Some Inter Milan players, such as Julio Cruz, Ronaldo, and long-time captain Javier Zanetti, felt vindicated by the rulings but said that Juventus was among the best teams. Alvaro Recoba and Christian Vieri were one of the few Inter Milan players who did not feel the 2006 scudetto as theirs,[392] stating that Juventus was the better team,[414] and the 2006 scudetto belonged to Juventus.[415] In a 2012 interview,[416] Recoba stated: "For my part, I think that Juventus won that scudetto because they had great players and ... [w]hen it turned out that the scudetto was awarded to Inter Milan, I thought the players didn't feel it was theirs."[417] Then-Juventus captain Alessandro Del Piero, who testified that "referee De Santis didn't penalize Ibra[himovic] but was later disqualified with the TV proof for a foul on Cordoba and missed the championship match with Milan", and there was general agreement to play the contested Lecce–Juventus match, stated to have won 17 titles, not 15. He commented: "All the scudetti won since I have played football have been deserved, be it those of our club or others. At the time, Juve was a very strong team built to win."[364] In 2019, Fabio Capello, Juventus coach from 2004 to 2006, stated: "It seems right to me [that Juventus appealed to the 2006 decision], it's funny that it was assigned to Inter Milan, which finished third and was also under investigation. Guido Rossi decided very hastily because we needed a team that would play in the Champions League. It was unfair, the rules weren't respected, and sports justice couldn't investigate thoroughly."[418]

About the scandal and subsequent trials, Agnelli said: "In 2006, the problem was equal treatment. In a circle of twenty clubs there was a way of behaving that emerged from the proceedings, but now the Juventus fan thinks he was the only one to pay because the others did the same things. And those [like Inter Milan] who have behaved in the same way can't go out with a scudetto in their pocket. We can't forget about all this. In Naples there're two criminal proceedings that are coming to an end, then there will be other degrees of judgment, but the court papers give an idea of what happened. When the whole process is completed, we will make a decision. Certainly, however, it makes no sense to speak of a statute of limitation if new facts emerge in the meantime."[419] In 2018, Giovanni Cobolli Gigli, who became Juventus president after the scandal, stated that Inter Milan "deserved to be punished" for Calciopoli, and expressed regrets for the sporting trials, about which he said: "We were demoted to play the 2006–07 season in Serie B and accepted the ruling. The regret remains for a sporting trial that was, in my view, not conducted in the best way. Certain pieces of evidence were ignored, actually it's more accurate to say hidden, and the existence of other telephone wiretaps regarding different clubs wasn't made known at the time. Inter [Milan] too deserved to be punished for what emerged in the various conversations. The FIGC Prosecutor Palazzi said so. It all emerged when the matter missed the statute of limitations and it ended like that."[420]

The diatribe between Moratti and Moggi never ended, and continues to this day. In 2020, Moratti said: "Everything served to create the conditions to triumph, even the misadventures due to having to face a Juve who behaved as they did and fight against a wall that seemed unshakable. Then we managed to break through it, and thus find those satisfactions in which I had always believed but which at a certain point seemed impossible." Moggi recalled a sentence of the Court of Appeal stating that Inter Milan's Facchetti lobbied with the referees, and Palazzi, the federal prosecutor of the time, wrote that Inter Milan was the club that risked most of all, adding: "Moratti has lost another opportunity to shut up. He could celebrate in another way, and maybe those who asked him could ask him if one ruling counts more than another or if the law is really the same for everyone." Appealing to the code, Moggi stated: "Inter Milan was liable for Article 6, which is a sporting offence, Juventus was never liable for Article 6. It's good to remind the gentleman because nobody ever speaks for Juventus, so I do it. There're wiretaps in which Facchetti and Moratti ask a referee to let them win the match, I have never done these things."[421]

Juventus' appeals and damage claims[edit]

After Calciopoli bis implicated almost every Serie A club and the Court of Appeal confirmed the extraneousness of Juventus, the club asked the two championships back in 2011 and sued the FIGC €443.725.200 in damage claims,[nb 57] updated to €581 by 2016,[423] due to being unable to participate UEFA competitions, major money loss from TV rights, as the club was relegated to Serie B, and had to sell major players at cheap prizes. Observers, such as Fulvio Bianchi, said that at that time "Juventus was ... stronger than all those that came after, and had €250 million in revenue, being at the top of Europe, and 100 sponsors. It took ten years to recover and return to the top Italians, not yet Europeans: now the club makes over €300 million, but in the meantime Real, Bayern, and the others have taken off."[424]

In 2015, Carlo Tavecchio, a former Inter Milan's board of director member for four years and former FIGC president from 2014 to 2017, admitted, "as a good, old interista",[425] that "Juventus was clearly the strongest team on the pitch, they won 32 championships: the team didn't steal anything." He expressed frustration at the club's repeated appeals and damage claims to the FIGC, which he described as absurd, and added that "Juve's cause is reckless and, you will see, the FIGC will ask for damages."[426] Tavecchio, who in later years stated to be in good relations with Agnelli and Juventus despite the multimillion-dollar lawsuit,[427] offered to discuss reinstatement of the lost scudetti,[428] as well as reforms in Italian football,[429] in exchange for Juventus dropping the lawsuit.[430] The diatribe between the FIGC and Juventus intensified when Juventus won the club's first championship since the scandal, and continued to add, on both its website and stadium, the two championships from 2005 and 2006 during the club's record streak of nine-consecutive league titles;[431][nb 58] this caused some skirmishes between the FIGC and Juventus when Italy football team had to play at the Juventus Stadium, and the club's number of scudetti had to be covered. About the incident, Tavecchio stated that "the Calciopoli ruling, which sanctioned the club's behavior off the pitch, is law and we are here to enforce it."[426]

In popular culture[edit]

The vicissitudes of Calciopoli have found ample space in the national and international mass media, influencing the popular imagination and acting as the subject for various types of audiovisual productions. In summer 2006, comedian Checco Zalone released the song "Siamo una squadra fortissimi" ("We are a very strong team"), a tribute to the Italian national team in the FIFA World Cup in Germany.[440] In the same year, Zalone recorded the song "I juventini" about Juventus' relegation to Serie B.[441] In 2009, the documentary film Operation Off Side was released about the investigations by the Carabinieri between 2004 and 2005, while the documentary Nel paese di Giralaruota: il grande inganno di Calciopoli and the comic series Forza Italia recount the various part of the scandal.[442] In 2013, the Rai 3 criminological program Un giorno in pretura showed the depositions provided by prosecution witnesses in the Naples criminal trial and explored the various strands of the investigations that then led to the proceedings.[443] In 2021, a chapter of the Netflix series Il lato oscuro dello sport is focused on the Calciopoli investigation from the prosecutor's side.[444] The following year, the documentary Calciopoli – Anatomia di un processo, where the stages of the investigations and the criminal trial in Naples are recalled, was available through Italy's History channel from the prosecutor's side and focused in the sporting trials.[445]

The scandal was instrumental in coining and popularize several neologisms, such as Farsopoli (by critics of the trials),[446] scudetto degli onesti (by Inter Milan supporters upon being assigned the 2006 scudetto),[447][nb 59] scudetto di cartone (by critics of the title assignment's to Inter Milan),[449][nb 60] Rubentus,[nb 61] and prescritti. The former was coined by supporters of the trials in reference to Juventus' involvement in the scandal,[455] while the latter is used by critics of the trials in reference to Inter Milan's involvement in the scandal, and the club's other scandals resulting, like Calciopoli and accounting fraud investigations,[456] in the statute of limitation.[457] Antijuventino and antijuventinità, terms used to describe Juventus' hatred, which intensified during those years, were also popularized.[nb 62] Both of those terms are included in Treccani's website as neologisms; in addition, the period after Calciopoli is termed post-Calciopoli.[461]

Explanatory notes, quotes, and wiretaps[edit]

  1. ^ The "match-scandal case",[1] as it was called by ESPN at the trial's end in 2015, had no match fixing according to the verdicts in sporting and ordinary courts. Moreover, Italian sporting justice specifies what match fixing is and its modalities, and this case does not apply to match-fixing scandal. The Calciopoli scandal was about lobbying in favour of various rival clubs influencing referee designators, more similar to the 2015 FIFA corruption case rather than match-fixing scandals, such as the 1980 Totonero case. Allegations of match fixing, including referee-grids fixing, among others, were charged by the prosecutors but were found to unproved or false in later trials; the 2005–06 Serie A was never under investigation, unlike the 2004–05 Serie A, both of which were deemed regular, although in the latter most of Serie A clubs' executives and directors engaged in unsportsmanship conducts.[2] The courts ruled in favour of the prosecution, albeit they much reduced the prosecution's theories and scope, and in 2012 the Naples court criticized the prosecution for focusing too much on Moggi.[3] Moggi's charge, as written in the Naples sentence, was not that he fixed matches or leagues but that his behavior was close enough to "the limit of the existence of the crime of attempt", hence the conviction.[3] This caused several analysts to question the case and the trials; many points of the investigation remain unclear and controversial.[4]
  2. ^ Despite widespread unsportsmanship conduct, no match was proven to have been altered or fixed, with the possible exception of Lecce–Parma according to Calciopoli judge Piero Sandulli.[5] As recalled by Sandulli, the sentence was about bad habits rather than illicits, and was an ethical condemnation.[6] In May 2009, the justice of the peace of Lecce acquitted Luciano Moggi and referee Massimo De Santis of the charge of sports fraud and match fixing of the LecceJuventus and Lecce–Fiorentina matches of the 2004–05 Serie A, as sanctioned by the sporting judgements. In particular, the judge established that "the fact described has not been proven in any way" and that "the Judge also does not consider the sentences rendered by the sports justice bodies fully usable since the latter judgment is structurally different from the ordinary judgement. Nor is it believed that the telephone interceptions referred to in the course of the proceedings can have probative value, since they cannot be used in a proceeding other than the one in which they are ordered."[7]
  3. ^ Among them were:[23]
    • Prime Minister of Italy: Silvio Berlusconi, Milan owner and president, and owner of several TV stations, magazines, and newspapers, as well as the leader of Forza Italia political party. Through his TV-station ownership, Berlusconi controlled soccer TV rights for all teams competing in Serie A and Serie B.
    • FIGC president: Franco Carraro, former Milan president and co-owner of Lazio and Roma through his control of Capitalia
    • FIGC vice-president: Massimo Moratti, Inter Milan owner
    • Lega Calcio president: Adriano Galliani, Milan vice-president
    • Italian football sponsor: Marco Tronchetti Provera, major Inter Milan shareholder, and owner of Telecom Italia and its sister company Gruppo TIM, which sponsored all major Italian football competitions (Serie A, Coppa Italia, and Supercoppa Italiana), as well as owner of Pirelli (Inter Milan primary sponsor) and TV channel La7
    • FIGC investigation chief: Francesco Saverio Borrelli, a political associate of Berlusconi, who had meetings behind closed doors with Galliani throughout the trial
    • FIGC commissioner: Guido Rossi, minority Inter Milan shareholder, former Inter Milan director, and member of Telecom's board of directors
    • FIGC investigation commissioner regarding Inter Milan accounting fraud resulting in capital gains (plusvalenze): Marco Stefanini, acting lawyer for La Spezia soccer team, which was owned by Moratti, who was also still the club's minority shareholder with 40% shares
    • AIA commissioner: Luigi Agnolin, former executive of Roma
    • La Gazzetta dello Sport president: Carlo Bore, who was also acting as Inter Milan vice-president
    • La Gazzetta dello Sport chief-editor: Carlo Verdelli, minority Inter Milan shareholder
    • Il Corriere dello Sport chief-editor: Bruno Bertolozzi, Inter Milan employee as communications and organizational director
  4. ^ Through GEDI Gruppo Editoriale, the Agnelli family owns several newspapers, such as La Stampa and la Repubblica, none of which are sports focused like Inter Milan/Milan-leaning La Gazzetta dello Sport or Lazio/Rome-leaning Corriere dello Sport. Turin-based Tuttosport, which is not owned by the Agnelli family, is the only Juventus-leaning major sport newspaper;[24] in 2011, Juventus attacked Tuttosport from its harsh criticism of the club during the 2010–11 Serie A season.[25] In addition, at the time of the events, while the Agnelli family retained majority ownership, both Gianni Agnelli and Vittorio Caissotti di Chiusano had died in 2003, and Umberto Agnelli also died in 2004, and was succeeded by Franzo Grande Stevens, while John Elkann (rather than Andrea Agnelli), Gianluigi Gabetti, and Luca Cordero di Montezemolo became more involved with the club.[26] At least one of Agnelli-owned newspaper has been described as the Italian New York Times or a newspaper of record, and newspapers, such as la Repubblica and La Stampa, published wiretaps implicating both Moggi and Juventus.[27] La Repubblica took a colpevolisti stance.[28]
  5. ^ In preparing the list, there were several mistakes, leading critics to wonder whether the matches under investigation had been watched. For example, the Juventus–Sampdoria match of 2 February 2005 was originally under investigation on the grounds that Juventus won the match with an offside goal; the match ended 0–1 in favour of Sampdoria with an offside goal by Aimo Diana. Another mistake was that related to targeted yellow cards, in which Udinese players Giampiero Pinzi and David Di Michele received a yellow card the week before against Bologna so they would have to miss the match against Juventus, which did not happen; the implicated match was in fact Fiorentina–Bologna, in which Bologna's targeted yellow carded players were Valentin Năstase and Fabio Petruzzi.[40] One of the few matches that was found to have violated Article 6 was Lecce–Parma, which allowed Fiorentina to avoid relegation; the prosecution's thesis was that Moggi wanted Fiorentina to avoid relegation, although of all the wiretaps regarding this match showed Fiorentina's Della Valle brothers contacting Franco Carraro (FIGC president), Innocenzo Mazzini (FIGC vice-president), and Paolo Bergamo (referee designator), with no mention of Moggi; the courts ruled that Moggi acted in his self-interest to help Lazio and Fiorentina, which is why Juventus was absolved of wrongdoings and was not liable by other clubs.[41] Critics questioned how Juventus was demoted to Serie B with three Article 1 violentions, while Fiorentina was not despite at least an Article 6 violation. On 27 July 2006, Mario Serio, a member of the FIGC's Federal Court, told La Repubblica that "a sporting illicit for Fiorentina remained. The offence of the Viola management group in Lecce–Parma is proven. There were solid, reasoned elements for those wiretaps. We reviewed the last 15 minutes of the match in the council chamber and [then-coach of Lecce] Zeman with his back to the field was an image that spoke for itself. ... Serie A with 19 [penalty] points seemed to us a sufficiently heavy punishment."[5]
  6. ^ According to the Laws of the Game and the three points for a win rule, one win is worth three points, a draw is worth one point, and a loss is worth zero points.[44]
  7. ^ In 2006, there were two separate bodies within the FIGC judiciary, namely the investigating body, constituted by the investigation office and chaired by Borrelli, and the prosecuting body, represented by FIGC prosecutor Stefano Palazzi. Additionally, the 2006 sports proceedings were held in the first-instance trial court before the CAF, chaired by Cesare Ruperto (president of the Constitutional Court in 2001 and 2002), and not before the FIGC Disciplinary Commissions due to the involvement of FIGC executives (Franco Carraro, Cosimo Maria Ferri, and Innocenzo Mazzini). Consequently, the appeal judge was Piero Sandulli of the CAF.[53]
  8. ^ The violation charged to Juventus and its two top sports executives, Giraudo and Moggi, is often defined with the term illecito strutturato ("structurred illicit"). The alleged offence was not a case identified by the Sports Justice Code and was introduced in the new code following the Calciopoli events; in sports judgments, there is no mention of illecito strutturato, which was popularized through some media. The latter term was given by Francesco Saverio Borrelli, who became head of the FIGC investigation office upon the appointment of the FIGC extraordinary commissioner Guido Rossi to replace Italo Pappa, the resigning general of the finance police. With this term, Borrelli wanted to describe the alleged existence of a stable and irregular network of relations between the Juventus management, the federal top management, and the refereeing world.[53]
  9. ^ In a January 2009 interview by La Stampa, judge Piero Sandulli was asked what would change and what should be draw on the scandal if the scope was reduced. Sandulli responed that Calciopoli, as it came out of the degrees of sports justice, is not going to change, saying that there are behaviors that may be punishable by sports justice and may not be punishable by ordinary justice, adding: "I will give you a concrete example. When the [football] betting cases of the 1980s broke out there were clubs, I think Milan, that ended up in Serie B. Ordinary justice subsequently took a different path because nothing emerged, but the Rossoneri ["the Red and Blacks", Milan's primary colours] were relegated and went to Serie B because for those who live in the world of football they had done things that can't be done."[55] Ordinary justice acquitted all those convicted of sports justice in the betting scandals in the 1980s only because there was no state law that prohibited such behavior; that sports fraud law now exists, having been introduced in 1989 as Law No. 401. Later Calciopoli rulings would state that there was no sport fraud, contradicting Sandulli, who was also scrutinized for being a supporter of Lazio, the club which received only a 3-point penalty.[56] In addition, Sandulli stated that the GEA World ruling dismantled the prosecution, and commented: "We punished the violation of internal rules in 2006. Basically, our sentence highlighted above all bad habits, not classic illicit acts. It had to be made clear that what was in the wiretapping is not to be done. It was an ethical condemnation. The criminal trial evaluates other things." Due to these facts, Juventus' punishment and relegation as a sporting illicit are criticized as not only excessive but also wrong and unwarranted.[6] About the Naples trial, on whether there would be no conviction, Sandulli stated: "I don't know if that type of frequentation of Moggi is criminally relevant, but it's a violation of Article 1. And the associative offence didn't exist, it was a flaw in the legal system introduced by us. I repeat to the fans that criminal justice and sports justice are different things for me."[57] Article 1 violations never warrant relegation.[58]
  10. ^ Article 1 violations concerns unsportsmanlike conduct, such as badmouthing a referee, while Article 6 concerns illicit activity, such as match fixing; the former's penalty is generally either a fine or a few point deductions, while the latter's penalty is relegation.[62] In the charges against Juventus made by the FIGC prosecutor Stefano Palazzi, the disputed facts and alleged violations referred to the following 2004–05 matches:
    • 1a: Juventus–Lazio for Article 6 (sporting illict)
    • 1b: Bologna–Juventus for Article 6 (sporting illict)
    • 1c: Juventus–Udinese for Article 1 (misconduct)
    • 1d: Altered standings
    The first-instance judgment by Cesare Ruperto ruled on those points as follows:
    • 1a: there are no Article 6 violations, it only contemplates an Article 1 violation
    • 1b: there are no Article 6 violations, it only contemplates an Article 1 violation
    • 1c: it is an Article 1 violation
    The court also ruled that the sum of Article 1 violations in points 1a, 1b, and 1c was functional to the achievement of Article 6 violation in point 1d.[63]
  11. ^ In response to objections, including those raised by legal defenses to the ruling, the CAF justified itself by stating that the multiple behaviors pursuant to Article 1, disputed and ascertained at the first instance trial, were not to be considered in the context of an algebraic sum by adding the various contributions leads to Article 6 violation, which would be inadmissible, but rather as unavoidable functional blocks for the perpetration of the offence. Nonetheless, the court's motivation for the sporting ruling remains controversial, as is the CAF's ruling of standings alteration regardless of the alteration of individual matches, which is proved, according to the court, by the fact that Juventus finished first.[53]

    The FIGC prosecutor challenged the last part of the first paragraph of Article 6, namely the performance of acts aimed at ensuring Juventus an advantage in the standings. In the opinion of the CAF, this approach is correct because there are three distinct cases of unlawfulness that are independent of each other, and the rule establishes that the offence can be supplemented by direct acts, such as to alter the course of a match, to alter the result of a match, and to ensure everyone an advantage in the standings. At page 76 of the motivation, the CAF wrote: "These hypotheses are distinct both because they're envisaged in the standard, and because it's conceptually admissible to insure an advantage in the standings regardless of the alteration of the performance or result of a single match. In fact, if certainly the position in the standings of each team is the resulting arithmetic of the sum of the points achieved on the field, it's also true that the standings as a whole can be influenced by conditioning, which, regardless of the result of the individual matches, however, they end up determining the prevalence of one team over the others."[53]

    This is because the nature of the law that configures the sporting illicit is that of illecito a consumazione anticipata ("illicit with anticipated consumption"), which is configured as in the state system, therefore the CAF wrote "the punishment threshold is set back at the time of carrying out any conduct-aimed realization of one of the typically indicated results." The positions of Moggi and Giraudo were examined jointly by the CAF, even though they would be separated in the criminal trials; according to the CAF, "it must be ascertained here whether the plurality of conduct put in place by Messrs. Moggi and Giraudo, even if individually constituting only a violation of the principles set out in art. 1, c. 1, C.G.S., have determined that conditioning situation of the arbitration sector which constitutes the direct act to achieve the advantage in the standings." Sentimento popolare ("people's feelings") is also cited in the CAF ruling, which stated that "just from the analysis of certain incontrovertible facts it clearly emerges what was in the opinion of all those who gravitated in the world of football, namely the conditioning of the refereeing sector by the management of Juventus."[53]
  12. ^ De Biase stated: "I can't know why the Juventus owners has moved in a certain way, but I would say, 99%, that the affair was skilfully managed by the leaders of the Turin club, starting with the request from Zaccone, who left everyone stunned. Zaccone isn't incompetent, as many believe, but he was only an actor in this story." De Biase further said: "The point that makes me think that Zaccone acted on input from the owners is another, namely the way in which the top management of Juventus moved, with that fake appeal to the TAR. How, I wonder, you dismiss the executives, practically pleading guilty, then you watch inert and impassive a media and judicial destruction against your club and then you're threatening to resort to the TAR? It's the concept of closing the barn when the oxen have fled, if you think about it." About Juventus' renounce to the TAR appeal, De Biase said: "First you let yourself be massacred without lifting a finger, you have the title disassigned, you have the calendars drawn up for the European championships and cups and then you threaten to go to the TAR, trumpeting everything in the newspapers? It looks much like a political move to appease the wrath of the fans, I think. If Zaccone, who is a man of value and experience, would have had the mandate to avoid the disaster he would have moved in a different way, in the sense that he would have pointed out these 'anomalies' in the time between the trial and the announcement of the verdicts. That, in fact, was the right moment to threaten to appeal to the TAR, when the sentences had not yet been written, but had to be done in camera caritatis, asking for a meeting with forty-nine Ruperto, Sandulli and Palazzi, and not in front of the journalists of La Gazzetta dello Sport." De Biase concluded: "Please note that I'm not discussing the high strategy of the forensic art, but the basic principles, the ABC of the profession, the things that are taught to the boys who come to the studio to do a traineeship: if you, the defense attorney, think you have weapons to play, you ask for a meeting with the judge and the public prosecution, in the period between the trial and the verdict, and point out that, if the response is judged too severe, you will use them. And here there were weapons in industrial quantities. Then, in the face of a fait accompli, who takes the responsibility of stopping a machine that grinds billions of euros, so as to be the sixth industry in the country?"[71]
  13. ^ Ju29ro was a website with documents containing the transcription of wiretaps and analyses on the scandal; it also retained court documents and verdicts, among others, and was widely cited and relied on by major newspapers, including La Gazzetta dello Sport,[72] of which the website was critical.[73] News outlets, such as Il Sussidario, relied on Ju29ro for new wiretaps and their transcripts.[74] According to Tuttosport, "Ju29ro ... is interesting regardless of how you think about Calciopoli and its surroundings. For the first time in the history of [football] supporters in Italy, a group of fans made their professionalism (as lawyers, accountants, communication experts) available to defend their team, to learn more about what the vast majority of the media ... didn't want to deepen due to laziness, sloppiness, or prejudgice." Journalist Guido Vaciago described it as "[s]ided, of course, but with great professional clarity, never with fanatic coarseness, often with a touch of irony."[75]
  14. ^ Some observers said that even though Rossi justified the decision due to UEFA needing which clubs would take part to its European competitions, UEFA only needed a final standing to known the seven clubs that would take part to its competition,[101] and there was no need to crown a champion.[102] The decision itself was even more controversial because the 2005–06 title was assigned ad personam by Rossi, and not by the FIGC or Lega Calcio, on the basis of a joint decision of the Three Sages; one of them abstained and the other against the re-assignation to another team, while only former UEFA general secretary Gerhard Aigner voted in favour.[103] In 2010, Aigner said that Juventus and Milan were the main culprits, while the referees and Inter Milan and the other clubs were the victims.[104] Roberto Pardolesi, one of the three members of the commission chaired by Aigner, who with a legal opinion gave the green light to the reassignment of the 2006 championship after the revocation of Juventus due to the Calciopoli events, stated: "If there are new elements, obviously the procedure would have to be re-instructed."[105]
  15. ^ Carraro said that Juventus was the best team and had legitimately won on the pitch, and opined that only the 1997–98 Serie A season was altered due to an alleged missed penalty kick in the Juventus–Inter Milan second leg match, in which contact between Mark Iuliano and Ronaldo was not called as foul by referee Piero Ceccarini, and which was won by Juventus 1–0;[109] Alessandro Del Piero, who had already scored the decisive goal, also missed a penalty kick,[109] and his club would have remained first had the match ended in a draw, as Juventus was first with 66 points and Inter Milan second with 65, and the championship ended with Juventus first with 76 points and Inter Milan second with 69 points. In addition, while the episode fueled vehement skirmishes between the opposing factions, which monopolized the Italian media in the following days, even landing in the Italian Parliament and coming close to a crisis within the FIGC, the claim is unproven, as the season in question has never been investigated,[110] and Carraro himself was the-then president of Lega Nazionale Professionisti.[111] The controversy costed Fabio Baldas his job as referee designator, and resulted in the referees to be assigned by draw and the appointment of Bergamo–Pairetto to protect everyone's interests. Some observers cited the irony of this due to the latter duo implication in the scandal.[111] Ceccarini declared himself unable to judge the action, having only witnessed its final part; over the years, he provided conflicting versions on his a posteriori evaluation of the foul, oscillating between the assignment of a penalty or an indirect free kick for Inter Milan, and granting a direct free kick in favour of Juventus;[109] he ultimately found his decision to be correct, and said that his only mistake was not giving Juventus the offensive foul.[112]
  16. ^ At the time of the vote, on whether the FIGC was competent to make a decision regarding Inter Milan's assigned scudetto, both Lega Serie B president Andrea Abodi and Lazio president Claudio Lotito showed their disagreement with the decision taken by leaving the room. As Cagliari president Massimo Cellino and Lega Serie A president Maurizio Beretta did not take part to the vote (the former left due to personal reasons, while the latter was absent due to out-of-work reasons), no other Serie A's club president and executive voted; the only vote in favour of the FIGC being competent to take a decision was expressed by councilor Dante Cudicio of the AIC, an association of coaches.[117]
  17. ^ In one notable wiretap, known as "the 5–4–4 phone call", referee designator Paolo Bergamo, who was charged to be part of Moggi's criminal association, called then-Inter Milan president Giacinto Facchetti on 11 May 2005, the eve of a Cagliari–Inter match, the semifinal of 2004–05 Coppa Italia, which ended 1–1. As published by Tuttosport, the wiretap was not part of the 74 phone calls brought to the court. The incriminated part, referring to the 4–4–4 score to be changed in 5–4–4, was transcribed as such:[126]

    Facchetti: "Look, I saw Bertini's score with us, [and he] has 4 wins, 4 draws, and 4 defeats..."

    Bergamo: "Porca miseria, then we make it 5–4–4. But [5] victories."

    Facchetti: "But tell him that tomorrow is crucial. He refereed 12 matches, 4–4–4."

    Bergamo: "The score will change but will begin with W. Yes, I have to hear him. Don't worry, he understands how to walk: he's an intelligent boy, he understands. Better late than never."

    La Repubblica described the match as being refereed in favour of Inter Milan, commenting that "[Inter Milan goalkeeper] Carini makes a mess on a harmless ball that comes from the middle of the field, touching it with his hands a meter outside the area with practically no opponents in front: Bertini should eject him but only gives him a yellow-card (yet the rule would speak clearly), thus distorting the continuation of the match." Then-Cagliari president Massimo Cellino said: "You can see that they have to make Inter Milan win something [Inter Milan went on to win the 2005 Coppa Italia final against Roma]. At this point, I don't know if we need to go to [Inter Milan's stadium] San Siro next week."[127] After the Cagliari–Inter Milan match, the referee Paolo Bertini called Bergamo to complain of Facchetti's behavior; Facchetti came to the locker room before the match to press him, and recalled him of Inter Milan's magre score with him. This wiretap, among others, which was already available at that time,[128] and some critics, such as journalist Roberto Beccantini, stated they were "curiously hidden" in the first phase of the trials,[129] contradicted the prosecution's allegations that only Moggi went in the locker room with referees before or after matches.[130] Then-Inter Milan owner Massimo Moratti stated: "Going to the referees before and after the match was normal."[131] In addition, in the same 5–4–4 phone call, Bergamo asked to Facchetti whether Mario Mazzoleni and Paolo Mazzoleni were a good referee designation for Inter Milan's match against Juventus, and if he could be given four tickets to the match for a client.[132]

  18. ^ In one notable wiretap, Milan's Leonardo Meani complained of referee Duccio Baglioni to referee designator Gennaro Mazzei for Milan's loss against Siena. Meani continued in his complaints, not accepting the justifications of Mazzei, to whom he says: "I really don't want him! No, I don't want him! I never asked or wanted him! Besides, now he tells me to be very careful! To not make another mistake because Galliani is furious! ... Then on Wednesday try to send two clever ones." Minutes later, Meani would again complain to the referee designator, and asked for Claudio Puglisi, to which the designator said it was fine. The next day, just one hour before the referee designations, Meani again called Mazzei to recommend him the designations of the next Milan matches because the Milan management was upset about it. About 40 minutes later, Meani called the referee assistant Fabrizio Babini, and told him in a triumphant tone that his complaints had the desired effect. Five minutes later, Meani called Puglisi, telling him: "If we have to make war for good, we also make war against Juve." Meani then called on Puglisi to not call offside, if in doubt, when Milan is attacking. A few hours later, Meani again called Puglisi to inform him that he also suggested to Babini the attitude, favourable to Milan, he would have to assume during the match. About one hour later, Meani once again called Babini, this time to recall the attitude he would have to keep. The next day, Meani informed Adriano Galliani (Lega Calcio president and Milan vice-president), and kept him informed after Galliani asked him if he had spoken with the referee designators. Before the public revelation of wiretaps implicating many other clubs, some observers described this call as "the only real sporting illicit of this whole squalid business."[134]
  19. ^ In a notable wiretap, which emerged on 6 April 2010, Bergamo called Galliani on 17 May 2005, and said he was still upset that Milan lost against Juventus 0–1;[135] it was refereed by Pierluigi Collina, who would be found to be close to Milan, and with whom Galliani had to secretly talk for a future as referee designator, as at that time the choice of the referee designator needed the approval of Lega Calcio president, a position held by Galliani himself.[136] In the call, Galliani stated that had Milan at least drew against Juventus, they would have likely won against Lecce in the next match, alleging that Milan's player gave up after losing to Juventus. One analyst for said: "Regarding Lecce–Milan 2–2, there's a text message sent on 13 May, at 11:20, by Martino Manfredi, then secretary of Can [the National Referees Commission], to Meani, the Rossoneri executive. The text reads, in relation to [Matteo Trefoloni] who will referee the Lecce–Milan match: 'Trefo... please don't give up, we're all with you.'"[137]

    In another wiretap, which emerged only on 9 April 2010, Meani discussed with Bergamo referee grids for Fiorentina–Milan, and also for Milan–Juventus. In one of the many wiretaps that emerged in April 2010,[138] Meani stated: "Paolo [Bergamo], two things, I know you're very angry, [but] don't kill him out of courtesy, [because] we care. Do it for us."[139] Meani also asked Bergamo "to not send us neither Ivaldi nor Pisacreta".[138] In a wiretap about the Milan–ChievoVerona match of 20 April 2005, Collina complimented Meani after Milan's favourites Puglisi and Babini were designated for the match.[140] As for the Fiorentina–Milan grids, Bergamo stated: "I've in mind to put three [referees] because I don't want foreclosures and the referees are Messina, Farina, and Rodomonti for me, then let's hear Gigi [Pairetto] because you can imagine which are the three I want to put on the following Sunday [for Milan–Juventus]." Meani then correctly guessed that the grid for Milan–Juventus was Paparesta–Collina–Trefoloni.[141] In addition, Meani asked Bergamo to give Trefoloni "a nice little speech", or else "[w]e we will cut off his head."[142]

    In a further wiretap, which emerged on 16 November 2010, Galliani called Meani to boast of having postponed the championship round because of the death of Pope John Paul II, so as to get back for the match Milan's stars Kaká and Andriy Shevchenko. Moggi used these wiretaps to make it clear that Galliani was much more influential on the championship round shift, as Galliani took credit for it, to discredit the prosecution's theory of Juventus' exclusive relations with referee designators. One observer said that Galliani was the one to know referee designators' fate, as he referred to Pairetto and Bergamo on 19 April 2005, still in full race for the title and two months ahead of time, as "former referee designators", making Galliani a powerful man in Italian football. In addition, it was noted that "[t]he word ex in the reports of the Carabinieri is neglected: a shame, [because] it would have been useful to know who knew. And also discovering that [referee] assistants were served a la cartè and not to Juve will be able to provide ideas to Judge Casoria."[136]
  20. ^ One wiretap involving Meani, dated 20 March 2005, was used in the sporting trial as evidence that "this phenomenon [that of targeted yellow cards] doesn't escape even the Milan executive Leonardo Meani." A few minutes after the end of the Inter Milan–Fiorentina match, referee assistant Cristiano Copelli called Meani to mention that two Fiorentina players were yellow carded, and as a result of the total number of yellow cards received up to that moment they were disqualified for the next match against Juventus; Meani complained about what he believed to be a widespread practice. Some critics questioned why a linesman for the Inter Milan–Fiorentina match felt the need to call a Milan executive at the end of the match, and what is the value of guilt for Juventus as stated in a private conversation by an executive of an opposing team of Juventus itself. In the second instance trial, Juventus CEO Antonio Giraudo's legal defence brought a statistic in which it was shown that the degree of Juventus opponents' yellow cards were absolutely average; the court ignored it. One analyst commented: "So, the summary [of the wiretap] is this: a linesman telephones an executive of a club (Milan) at the end of a match worried about players who are suspicious that they will not be able to face off a second team (Juventus), their competitor for the title, and the content of this phone call, in which the two interlocutors rant on a convoluted theory they invented, is considered a pivotal point to prove an offence of the second team. ... [Rather than asking] [h]ow come a linesman at the end of a match calls an executive of a club (which, moreover, has nothing to do with that match) ... [the] [i]nterpretation of the CC [is of] further proof that the phenomenon of 'targeted yellow cards' exists."[143]

    In another notable wiretap, which emerged on 16 December 2013, dated a few days before the Roma–Juventus match won by the latter 1–2 on 5 March 2005, Meani called Salvatore Racalbuto to tell him to not favour Juventus when in doubt. Some critics said that Racalbuto, who was the only other referee, alongside Massimo De Santis, to be convicted by the Supreme Court in 2015 as an associate of Moggi, was one of the most experienced referees in Serie A. According to the prosecution, Racalbuto was one of the referees of Moggi's criminal association and was chosen to favour Juventus in the match against Roma; according to the prosecution, the referees of Moggi's alleged criminal association obtained promotions and favours after refereeing in favour of Moggi's Juventus, but Racalbuto was banned for nine weeks after that match.[144]
  21. ^ While the 5–4–4 phone call was the most notable, Facchetti had several other calls with Bergamo, who also had calls with Moratti,[72] and at least one with Pairetto, who asked for tickets.[145] In a wiretap dated 24 March 2005, Facchetti called Massimo De Santis. The two discussed about the De Santis' upcoming international match and Milan's derby. At the beginning of the phone call, they talk about Walter Gagg, at that time head of the FIFA stadiums commission and a friend of Facchetti and FIFA president Joseph Blatter. Facchetti told De Santis that Gagg would also go to Paris for the match, and he would greet him. In a televised intervention after the Calciopoli scandal broke out, De Santis said that there was a FIFA executive who called him "by name and on behalf of an Inter Milan executive. One day I will name him."[72]
  22. ^ In one wiretap between Facchetti and Bergamo, the latter stated: "You will see that it will be a good match. [Bertini] is prepared to reff a good match. It's a challenge that, you will see, we will win together. You will see that things will go the right way."[138] Facchetti and Bergamo spoke to each other after the match ended 3–2, with Inter Milan's comeback by scoring the three goals in the final minutes, and Moratti praised Bertini as referee.[141] They also discussed referees for the next match against Bologna, to which Facchetti was happy. Bergamo also called Moratti, who stated that the proposed referees were fine. After Inter Milan–ChievoVerona, which ended 1–1, Moratti complained of the referee, and stated that his club was damaged; after this, Facchetti called Bergamo, who stated he was sorry about it, and reassured Facchetti about Luca Palanca. He told him: "You will see that he will reff a good match, you will see, you will see that he reffs a good match. You will see."[146]

    In another wiretap with Bergamo, Facchetti, who was aware Moratti was also making the calls, suggested Collina, although it is not fully clear who first mentioned Collina.[12] In the same call, Facchetti stated that his club had problems with Bertini, to whom Bergamo promised to talk to about it. In another wiretap with Facchetti, who stated that there was a gift in Milan for him, Bergamo commented: "It's a situation that I would also like to help you straighten out because the club doesn't deserve the position it [currently] has [in the standings]." In another wiretap, Facchetti told Bergamo that Salvatore Racalbuto was the designed referee, and Bergamo responded to tell Inter Milan coach they have nothing to worry about, and reassured Facchetti, who had argued with Racalbuto. In a further wiretap, Bergamo asked Facchetti whether he wanted to have dinner with him. In a wiretap with referee designator Gennao Mazzei, which some critics described as "the true mother of all wiretaps", Facchetti hoped that Inter Milan would get designed Collina, Ivaldi, and Pisacreta. As Fachetti kept expressing his hope for his favourite grids, Mazzei replied: "I'll tell you the truth, here a journalist does a draw, they have to study a grid, and the chances are higher."[138]
  23. ^ As the most successful domestic club and one of the most titled clubs at the continental level, Juventus won its first scudetto in 1905, eight years after its founding, and dominated domestic competition by winning most championships and league cups since the 1930s; in addition, between the late 1970s and early 2000s, Juventus had a peak and groundbreaking success at the continental level, having won all UEFA competitions, and was awarded the UEFA Plaque. While some Juventus' critics alleged that the club only won throughout those years, especially between the mid-1990s and early 2000s, due to cheating and Moggi,[160] observers, FIGC higher-ups, and rivals stated that Juventus was one of the best, if not the best, teams in these years and did not need any help,[161] and its players deserved the two championships revoked but won on the pitch.[162]

    Unlike other sports, association football refeering is complicated and results in more mistakes and controversies; it remains controversial even after the introduction of the video assistant referee (VAR). In addition, it is not unusual for top teams, which play an all-attack game to score against weaker teams, which play catenaccio to defend, to receive more penalty kicks or offsides calls, by virtue of their more offensive playing style simply allow more chances to have a penalty kick or offside, which results in controversy whenever there was a penalty kick or offside but it was not called, or there was not a penalty kick or offside but it was given by the referee. Accordingly, it is unusual for a team to receive only favourable calls, and vice versa, during the league. Some commentators and Juventus supporters said that only for Juventus there is such a hatred, and for Juventus only favourable calls are remembered, while their many unfavourable calls are not remembered as much.[163] A few years earlier before the alleged first altered league, Juventus had three straight UEFA Champions League finals, with one win after penalty shoot-out, and two controversial losses,[164] one of which, against Real Madrid, came after Predrag Mijatović scored an offside goal.[165] Juventus reached another Champions League final (the club's fifth, with only seven-time and then-nine-time winners Milan and Real Madrid, respectively, having more final appearances) in 2003, and was never investigated by UEFA or courts for its European successes, as no evidence was provided.[111] A study about the Serie A 2006–07 season, the first championship after Calciopoli, found that 41% of Serie A matches were altered, for a total of 240 points involved, and that 95% of referees made mistakes; the most common mistakes regarded the assigment or not of penalties at 55%, while just 2% were related to ghost goals.[166]
  24. ^ About the allegations, Moggi responded: "There's only one reality. When I was at Juve, we won two consecutive league titles at most. From 2000 to 2004, they were won by Lazio, Milan, and Roma. Lazio won because of the flood at the stadium with a 74-minute suspension of the [Perugia–Juventus] match. This was something that never happened before. Roma also won thanks to the Nakata case. They made us lose championships for irregular things, at that moment Juve was the weak side."[167] In regards to the controversial 2000 Perugia–Juventus match, to which he regretted not having the team retire and go home,[168] Moggi criticized the match's referee Pierluigi Collina. Collina was particularly liked before and during Calciopoli by Milan's and Rome's clubs, had the same Milan's sponsor, and secretly met with then-Milan's vice-president Adriano Galliani, who selected him as referee designator due to also being Lega Calcio president, at Milan's Leonardo Meani's restaurant. While he would be unaffected by Calciopoli, he was found to be close to Milan, of which he shared the same sponsor (Opel) without the consent of then-AIA president Tullio Lanese, leading to his resignement and retirement.[169] Moggi stated: "I was accused of being the great manipulator in football, so explain to me how I managed to lose a championship by playing the decisive match in a pool. The truth is that Juve should have left, instead we remained there at the mercy of those who decided and when we took the field we were no longer there. [Collina] certainly spoke to someone on the phone: who it was, we will never know. I'm just saying that by regulation the suspension can't last more than 45 minutes: instead Collina waited almost double."[170] In later years, Moggi further commented: "As it happens, it then comes out of the wiretaps that Collina goes to talk to Galliani and says: 'I will come at midnight, I enter the back door so they don't see me.' If Milan couldn't win, they didn't want Juventus to win either."[171] After retiring, Collina said he was a Lazio supporter.[172]
  25. ^ Even though the club ultimately won the 2002–03 championship, Juventus was disadvantaged in the first leg match against Inter Milan, which was refereed by Collina.[173] Collina gave Juventus a penalty in the final minutes, resulting in Inter Milan's protests and two players, one from each side, being ejected. The match ended 1–1 after Inter Milan goalkeeper Francesco Toldo scored from a corner; some observers said that Juventus' goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon suffered an offensive foul (goalkeeper charge), which was not called, and the goal was assigned to Inter Milan striker Christian Vieri, who went on to win the Serie A Capocannoniere title as the highest goalscorer of the season with 24 goals.[164]
  26. ^ The 2001–02 championship won by Juventus was unexpected, as Inter Milan, who was first (69 points), followed by Juventus (68 points), and Roma (67 points), collapsed in the last match, in one of the most emotional season-ending days.[175] While Juventus defeated Udinese 2–0, Inter Milan was defeated by Lazio 4–2 in a surreal atmosphere, in which Lazio supporters cheered Inter Milan's players and jeered their own players, as they did not won Juventus nor derby's rival Roma to win the championship. As Roma defeated Torino 1–0, Inter Milan fell to third place.[176]
  27. ^ The 2005–06 was regular and never under investigation, while the 2004–05 was also deemed regular, as no match was altered.[53]
  28. ^ Of the three championships not won by Juventus, two of them (Lazio and Roma's) were controversial to Juventus' disadvantage.[164] The 1999–00 championship was decided at the last match against Perugia, as Juventus was first and only needed a draw to win the championship. Instead, bad weather resulted in Perugia upsetting Juventus 1–0 thanks to Alessandro Calori's goal after the match's suspension ended,[177] with Juventus player Gianluca Zambrotta also being ejected for a second yellow card due to slipping and committing a foul, and the match became known as the diluvio di Perugia ("Perugia's flood [match]").[178] The match was suspended for 74 minutes, violating the rules of no more than 45 minutes,[179] and should have been postponed according to some observers.[180] At the same time, Lazio was playing against Reggina, which had avoided relegation and lacked motivation, and won 3–0, with two penalty kicks given in five minutes after thirty minutes. With its team losing, Juventus' Gianluca Pessotto was given an offensive throw-in; in a sportive action, Pessotto nodded to the referee that he was the last one to touch the ball, and the throw-in was given to Perugia. Then-Juventus player Antonio Conte recalled: "We immediately understood that the match would never be postponed for fear that Lazio players would arrive from Rome and riots would break out. During the week we had received very hard attacks, they were all against us."[179] Calori recalled: "The mess that occurred on the penultimate [championship] day after the Juve–Parma episodes weighed heavily [in regard to the decision to not postpone the match]: Lazio tifosi shouted scandal and came to blows with the police."[181] Of the 1999–00 championship, Carlo Ancelotti, Juventus coach from 1999 to 2001 and Milan coach at the time of Calciopoli, stated in his 2010 deposition that he found only the Perugia match to be "an odd fact".[182]
  29. ^ The 2000–01 championship was affected by Passaportopoli (a scandal about illegal transfers of foreign players without continental passports, which were falsified), of which Juventus was one of the few clubs not involved. Hidetoshi Nakata, Roma's midfielder implicated in the scandal, scored a goal in Juventus–Roma (2–2), which proved decisive to the championship's fate.[171]
  30. ^ The 2002–03 championship was won by Milan, which had defeated Juventus to penalty shoot-out in the Champions League final the year prior. Juventus was disadvantaged in the two league matches against Milan, with both Milan's Jon Dahl Tomasson (1–1) and Andriy Shevchenko scoring offside goals; the former in the first leg match, which ended 1–1, and the latter in opening the second leg match, which ended 1–3. For the latter, the referee designators maintained their position of regularity.[183] Although he would resign on 22 June 2006 due to Calciopoli, many clubs were already opposed to then-Milan vice-president Adriano Galliani's reelection to Lega Calcio presidency.[184] Several of those arguments were used by defendants charged of forming a criminal association with Moggi to favour Juventus;[185] some critics also found those to be inconsistencies to the alleged claim of many championships being altered, and of Moggi's criminal association with only a few referee designators and one referee found guilty and convicted.[186]
  31. ^ Another controversial episode involving Bergamo, who was a referee at that time,[187] was Maurizio Turone's disallowed goal, an event known as il gol di Turone ("Turone's goal"), during the Juventus–Roma second leg match of the 1980–81 Serie A championship. The linesman signaled to the referee that Turone was offside and the goal was disallowed, and the match ended 0–0; Juventus won its 19th scudetto by two points after two tough one-goal matches against rivals Napoli and Fiorentina, while Roma beat Pistoiese but could only manage a draw with Avellino.[188] Years later, Bergamo recalled: "We received compliments from both [Juventus president] Boniperti and [Roma president] Dino Viola." The linesman Giuliano Sancini never changed his mind, stating: "I made the right decision. I was on the line and I have a clear flash in mind: Turone over the line of the ball at the moment of [Roma player Roberto] Pruzzo's head assist."[189]

    Controversial episodes, such as the Ronaldo–Iuliano contact and Turone's disallowed goal, were seen by Juventus' critics as evidence of cheating, and they felt vindicated by Calciopoli.[190] Some observers criticized the media for giving them a platform to spread this view, which culminated in Calciopoli and Juventus' harsh punishment due to sentimento popolare ("people's feelings"); according to them, only for Juventus' critics are these episodes mistakes in bad faith, while they are a more grey picture, describing them as honest, good-faith mistakes, and as being either correct decisions or too controversial and unclear to have a definitive verdict. Those controversial episodes remained a hot topic in Italian football for decades to come,[109] and are still discussed to this day,[191] especially before or after Juventus play a match against either Inter Milan or Roma,[192] or for its anniversary.[193]

    Some observers, such as Massimo Reina, wondered why, if the referee wanted to favour Juventus, Juventus' Giuseppe Furino was ejected, and said that Turone's goal was offside and appeared regular only due to alterated slow-motion; that Ronaldo's alleged penalty was not worthy of a penalty, and VAR would not have changed the events, as the referee saw the contact as a fortuitous confrontation, and it could have resulted only in either Ronaldo's offensive foul, or in an indirect free-kick in favour of Inter Milan, as recalled by the referee; that even if Inter Milan was given a penalty, it had to be scored, and a draw would have still left Juventus first in the standings;[194] and mentioned that in the first leg, which was won by Inter Milan 1–0, Juventus' Filippo Inzaghi scored a regular goal, which was not allowed due to a non-existent offside, and Inter Milan's Taribo West, who was alleged to be older than he said,[195] committed a penalty kick foul (not given) on Inzaghi, and should have been ejected in the second leg after his penalty kick foul (given) on Del Piero, who had already led Juventus 1–0 before the episode and missed the penalty for 2–0.[196] As recently as 2018, Ceccarini maintained that the Ronaldo–Iuliano contact was not a penalty, and VAR would not have assigned it either,[197] and his only mistake was not giving Juventus the offensive foul, comparing it to charging in basketball.[112] As admitted by Carlo Sassi, Turone's goal's moviola ("slow-motion"), which at the time required a real-video editing, since the images were on film, was altered in Rome's studies in order to show that Turone's goal was regular.[198]
  32. ^ The main camps are colpevolisti (those in favour of convictions) and innocentisti (those in favour of acquittals).[4] While the former are generally more supportive of the trials due to the rulings convicting Moggi and others, they are divided on the role of Moggi and Juventus, whether they truly were the main cuplrits or scapegoats while others got away with it, and are not free from criticism, such as not going far enough and many defendants not being incarcerated or convicted due to the statute of limitation. Innocentisti do not condone the unsportsmanlike conduct, and do not say that everyone was innocent but feel that the sentences, especially those related to Juventus, were harsher than warranted due to the late developments, and that they were not guilty of the stronger charges, such as the championship being altered or illegitimate, or that the matches were fixed, as the rulings stated that the season was legitimate, and no match result was altered. There are also those, such as Roberto Beccantini,[216] Oliviero Beha,[217] Roberto Renga,[218] and Mario Sconcerti,[219] who may not fit either camp but were nonetheless critics of the trials and their loopholes. Some argued that Italian football improved since then, while others disagreed and felt that bad apples were simply replaced by new ones, and Italian football is in no better shape than it was then;[110] there remains a widespread belief, including among a majority of Italian football supporters,[220] that there are still dark shadows in Italian football.[4]
  33. ^ In 2012, Juventus won its first scudetto since Calciopoli, starting a record nine-consecutive championship wins;[223] very few, if any, clubs congratulated Juventus for this unprecedented result, and only for Inter Milan's win in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic there were calls for a pasillo (a walkaway of honour).[224] Juventus refused doing it for Inter Milan, as no club did it during its nine-years winning streak; Juventus congratulated Inter Milan through Twitter.[225]
  34. ^ Some observers, such as journalist Marcello Chirico, stated: "Although the first Calciopoli is full of shadows and black holes, in recent weeks there are those who have been pushing for another one to open, continually stirring up public opinion with heavy and direct accusations against a referee system — in their view — not very transparent and authoritarian. And the 'popular sentiment' with a vague Jacobean flavour is mounting more and more, just as it did in those early 2000s, in the hope that it will lead to a similar ending. It's a tactic. However, it would be equally interesting to investigate whether there is someone who in turn provokes such persistent troublemakers. In the age of suspicion, it wouldn't be so 'crazy and unusual.'"[226]

    Roberto Romagnoli, the referee assistant involved in one of the two most cited episode, was reportedly "terrorized" before the match, as any mistake in a big match, especially if in favour of Juventus, is discussed for months and even years, and may ruin someone's career, as it happened in his case; according to some commentators, such as Marco Beltrami, this fear could possibly be the cause of his mistake. His father recalled: "I saw and reviewed the episode of Muntari's goal and first of all it must be said that Roberto was in an optimal position. He was probably focused precisely on Muntari's position to see if he was offside. Among other things, it was a difficult evaluation because in that moment there was Vidal on the other side of the baseline. The action was very fast, a kind of ping pong in the area and Buffon made an incredible save, rejecting Muntari's header. It must be considered that the view couldn't be optimal, also because it's partly limited by the post. In short, in that situation and especially in that confusion, it isn't easy to see if the ball has crossed the goal line or not."[227]

    Former referee Gianluca Paparesta gave a simple explanation for the good-faith mistake, rather than conspiracy theories about Juventus. He said: "Reviewing the images, an episode from 2007 came across my mind. I was [the referee for] Fiorentina–Roma and Romagnoli was the [referee] assistant of that match. Mancini scored for Roma, but the goal was not allowed due to offside following a signal from him. [It was a] mistake because Romagnoli considered irrelevant the position of Pazienza, a Fiorentina player, who had ended up behind the bottom line. The rules says that the player outside the field is to be considered on the bottom line. Pazienza, therefore, would have kept Mancini in regular position and that goal would have been validated. In my opinion Romagnoli, who has always been very attentive to similar situations since that time, was distracted for a fatal moment in verifying the position of Vidal, very similar to that of Pazienza, and lost the half a second in which the ball was over the line. The oversight is too glaring to think of a misjudgment."[227]
  35. ^ Inter Milan and Milan were the top clubs most favoured by Calciopoli and Juventus' relegation.[229] After its revealed implication in later years, Inter Milan was not put on trial due to the statute of limitation, and Milan received only a point-penalty, enough for the club to take the last available place in the standings for that year's Champions League, which the club went on to win; some observers and UEFA, which changed the rules after the scandal, said that it should not have been admitted.[88] Inter Milan and Milan won the next five championships (four by Inter Milan, and one by Milan).[230] Some analysts, such as Mario Sconcerti, stated in later years that while Inter Milan and Milan were favoured the most by the power vacum left by Juventus, this was also their own long-term downfall. Sconcerti commented: "The real hub was Calciopoli. The current great Juve was born in the nine years in the transition between l'Avvocato Umberto Agnelli, from Trapattoni's last championship in 1986 to that of Lippi in 1995. A time that is an eternity for Juve. All this forced Juve to accelerate strongly. And there was born the push that then leads to Calciopoli, that is to say a forcing before returning to win. Calciopoli — and what follows at Juve — forces Inter Milan and Milan to invest a lot to take advantage of the power vacuum. And yet it makes them explode. Investment becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back. Neither Moratti nor Berlusconi can take it anymore, and he himself has said so in these hours."[231]
  36. ^ Controversy did not end, and resulted in a report by Le Iene, amid a missing audio. Former Serie A referee Luca Marelli, who does not deny that Orsato may have made a mistake, disputes any accusation of bad faith. The controversy rested on the assumption that, as recalled by one analysis, "VAR's Valeri and AVAR's Giallatini explicitly told each other in the VAR room that Pjanic was worth a second yellow card, and Valeri communicated something to Orsato, who deliberately didn't listen to him; and when the now ex-federal prosecutor Pecoraro then asked the football and refereeing bodies for the audio and video files of the VAR room, they arrived late and only the video, without the precious audio. This would therefore suggest a system aimed at favouring Juve, where the referee doesn't care about the Var in order not to eject Pjanic in a decisive match, and FIGC and AIA conceal valuable evidence by hiding the incriminating audio." While it is true that Valeri and Gialladini said it was worth a yellow card, they did not report it to Orsato because it was not a direct red card episode, and the VAR does not intervene in such cases. In addition, Valeri said that "there was a contrast", a sentence that by itself has no implication, as VAR does not intervene in such cases, and it is false to say that the FIGC and AIA purposely hid the audio, which is recorded by an external company called Hawk Eye. According to the analysis, when "any institutional body needs a VAR registration, it turns to them for it. It is, therefore, their sole responsibility to send and to state the video. Not the FIGC, not AIA. In addition to this, it should be remembered that Hawk Eye is required to archive video and audio only of the episodes from VAR. ... For some reason, even without being forced to do so, Hawk Eye retains a video file of the Pjanic episode but without audio. Whatever this reason, it should be asked only to Hawk Eye. And Le Iene didn't even do that in their report."[232]
  37. ^ Some critics of Juventus, such as Maurizio Pistocchi and Paolo Ziliani,[233] alleged without evidence, as the championships were regular and have never been investigated, that Juventus' run is stained by Sulley Muntari's ghost goal, which occurred in the Milan–Juventus second leg match of the 2011–12 Serie A,[234] and was refereed by Paolo Tagliavento and referee assistant Roberto Romagnoli,[235] the latter seeing his career finished;[227] however, the corner kick from which came Muntari's goal was not regular, as Robinho passed to Urby Emanuelson, who had his feet outside the pitch and would have resulted in a yellow card and a free kick in Juventus' favour.[236] Juventus' Alessandro Matri was also denied a regular goal for a non-existent offside when Milan was still leading the match, which is not remembered.[237] Some commentators go further and note that by the same standard the match was already altered, as Milan's Philippe Mexès should have been ejected for giving a punch, away from the action, to Fabio Quagliarella;[238] Mexès would give another punch in the first minutes of the match's second half, this time to Marco Borriello, again not seen by the referee,[239] and Muntari himself should have been ejected for a nudge to Stephan Lichtsteiner when the match was still 0–0.[240]

    Journalist Massimo Reina wrote that "if we talk about that match and referee mistakes, we need to do it at 360 degrees, and not just on an episode that is convenient. And then, also thanks to the VAR, the Rossoneri should have remained in ten men [out of eleven] after just a few minutes at 0–0, due to a far-reaching punch from Mexes to Matri. A foul by Muntari himself was also a direct red [card]: with the Rossoneri in nine men and without the author of the offending ghost goal, wouldn't it have been another match?" Reina added: "Not to mention Matri's regular goal not allowed in the 78th minute, before he then scored the final 1–1. If the referee [really] wanted to be biased [in favour of Juventus], why not eject at least one Rossoneri [the only ejection would be that of Juventus' Arturo Vidal in the final minutes],[239] or also assign the first of the two goals of the Juventus bomber [an Italian term to describe a prolific striker]?"[163] In addition, while Milan was leading 1–0 (Milan's Antonio Nocerino scored after a mistake by Juventus' Leonardo Bonucci, who would also deviate the ball) before Muntari's ghost goal, there was still plenty of time to draw (Juventus came back at Naples from 2–0 to 2–1, and finally from 3–1 to 3–3). Milan was one point ahead of Juventus before the match, and would even extend the lead to four points. Reina stated: "In reality, Milan failed that season and practically got everything wrong after that match ... . But Allegri's team was on their feet by now, so much so that in the following rounds they will lose several points, for example by drawing with Catania or losing at home in the 90th minute with a soft Fiorentina."[163]
  38. ^ The cited event is the Inter Milan–Juventus second leg match of the 2017–18 Serie A due to an alleged missed ejection, per yellow cards sum, of Juventus' player Miralem Pjanic. With Juventus leading 0–1 and Inter Milan's player Matías Vecino ejection after 18 minutes, Reina said that went 0–2 in the final minutes of the first half final but "the goal was rightly canceled for offside by the Frenchman. The replay, however, shows why Higuain doesn't reach the ball: Skriniar puts him down with a sensational penalty foul! Had the VAR intervened, it would have been penalty. At the beginning of the second half, still 0–1 for Juventus, there is another penalty denied to Juve: double foul on Matuidi, who is first tripped and unbalanced by ... Skriniar, then put down with an arm-kick combo by Cancelo, at that time Inter Milan's full-back. These are two episodes that could have brought Juve to at least 0–2 and be over. If the referee wanted to help Juventus, why not concede at least one of the two clear penalties?"[163] The missed ejection happened at the 58th minute, when the match was 1–1.[241] Reina stated that Inter Milan, which had ten players out of eleven, then scored the 2–1 due to the own goal of Juventus' defender Andrea Barzagli, and had several chances to make it 3–1; had Pjanic been ejected, Inter Milan may not have gone 2–1 due to Juventus' defence being more careful, and as shown by Inter Milan's comeback it cannot be assumed that Juventus would have lost, as the latter could still win, or at least draw, the match.[163] Juventus eventually won the match 2–3, and closest rivals Napoli, which had just beaten Juventus 1–0 in the previous match and was one point behind, lost the next day against Fiorentina;[163] this became known by Napoli as lo scudetto perso in albergo ("the scudetto lost at the hotel").[242]

    Daniele Orsato, the referee of the contested match, had a very positive score with Inter Milan,[243] and was yet to referee an Inter Milan match after more than three years, only returning for an Inter Milan–Udinese match in May 2021, right after Inter Milan had already won the championship, at the VAR.[244] Orsato, who is known as the best Italian referee, a title Collina was also known for during his career, and was voted the best referee in the world,[245] said he made a mistake; it was noted that VAR could not intervene, as Pjanic's foul was not worth a direct red card.[246] Orsato was invited to RAI's 90º minuto, and interviewed by journalist Enrico Varriale, who mentioned the contested match and Pjanic.[247] This was described as a revolutionary experiment, which could be repeated;[248] instead, it ended immediately thereafter. This led some critics, such as Francesco Moria for Mondo Sportivo, to question what was the point if "it all boils down to the posthumous crucifixion for a mistake made years earlier, with related considerations on the regularity of that season", with some in the media only highlighting "the failure to eject Pjanic in 2018 and the admission of the error by Orsato", rather than "teaching on VAR regulations and protocol",[249] and media's behavior,[250] other than to attack Juventus.[251] Amedeo Polichetti wrote for Libero Pensiero that the experiment with Orsato was "the umpteenth all-Italian gimmick aimed at satisfying the average fan, the polemical, grumpy, and conspiratorial fan. By today, a third and impartial figure, appointed to ensure the proper conduct of a football match, will be forced to undergo a confrontation with journalists and fans. As if this weren't enough, at the first available opportunity the journalists took advantage of the presence of the referee on TV to bring to light old controversies and to dwell on completely useless episodes, rather than delving into important technical aspects. All this is the result of a football population less and less interested in the debate and more and more focused on creating controversy."[252]
  39. ^ Travaglio collaborated in a supportive book for the prosecution. He wrote the preface to prosecutor Narducci's book Calciopoli, la vera storia, a work supportive of the prosection's investigation, and also collaborated with la Repubblica to publish the first wiretaps' transcripts.[254] According to Travaglio, who believe that those implicated in the scandal should renounce to the statute of limitation and Inter Milan's 2006 scudetto should be given back, ordinary justice said that the championships were not legitimate; critics state the rulings said otherwise,[4] and have questioned the court's explanation in its sentence's motivations for how an investigated championship could have no altered matches, and how Moggi had managed to alter the standings without actually altering the result of individual matches, justifying the punishments and Juventus relegation through illecito a consumazione anticipata ("illicit with early consumption").[53] Regarding Inter Milan's Facchetti's wiretaps, Travaglio stated that Inter Milan did not commit any illicit,[255] and said there was "a huge difference" between Moggi and Facchetti;[256] other observers, including FIGC chief investigator Stefano Palazzi who charged that Facchetti had violated Article 6,[151] stated that Facchetti's behavior was no better than Moggi, and some critics stated that it was worse, as it was a direct Article 6 violation.[257]

    While noting him as an eminent journalist, some observers stated that Travaglio wrote several inaccuracies about Calciopoli, especially about Juventus but also about Moggi. They cited his lack of expertise about sports and sports as possible reasons behind his inaccuracies; unlike other journalists with expertise in sports, such as Oliviero Beha, who wrote numerous books about Italian football scandals since the 1970s, including Calciopoli, Travaglio is not a sports journalist or sports law expert. Travaglio, who has been described as "a [former] Juventus supporter wounded, faded by time and torn by the scandal that hit Moggi and transformed, this is the feeling, almost in hatred for his favourite club",[258] stated that "it's likely that, even if Inter Milan renounced to the statute of limitation, they would be acquitted or [only] deprived of some points." Inter Milan was charged with both Article 1 and Article 6, which would result in relegation. Travaglio also stated: "It isn't enough to call the [referee] designators to commit an illicit act: pressure must reach the referees and condition them. Palazzi has not been able to prove it for any club, except [for] Juve." It was noted that no ruling at that time stated this, as the only one that can prove arbitration conditions is the Ordinary Court ("well-founded suspicion", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", is enough for sports justice), and no sentence was issued at that time.[258] Travaglio stated that Moggi "dictated the refereeing grids to the [referee] designators", although referee grids were found to be legitimate and not fixed, among other championship falsification charges that were either not proved or found to be false allegations.[2]
  40. ^ Zeman is a Juventus critic, which as has been described by Panorama as hate and as "the Zeman anti-Juventus thought."[259] Zeman said that he had always been a Juventus supporter,[260] and he is against some people who were at Juventus,[261] stating: "The truth is that I was born juventino, I traveled 23 hours to see Juve coached by my uncle Vycpalek, I didn't mind Juve. I was bothered by who was at Juve. And a certain management of the power."[262] On 8 September 2006, Zeman stated: "In my opinion, the sports justice rulings weren't adequate to what happened, to a scandal that had been described as the most serious in world football." Earlier on 15 June 2006, Zeman testified to Naples magistrates that "Corrado Ferlaino, the former president of Napoli, stated that my engagement, with a predetermined decision of exemption, had actually been concocted by Luciano Moggi himself to destroy me even on a purely technical level."[259] In his 2009 deposition, Zeman alleged that Moggi and Giraudo hindered his coaching career as revenge for doping complaints,[263] and he was never really fired, only considering he was fired once. During the counterinterrogatory, which mentioned his firings and contradictions, Zeman conceded that his statement about Ferlaino claiming that Moggi was behind his firing from Napoli was read on a newspaper; lawyer Giacomo Mungiello explained to Zeman that Giorgio Corbelli, not Ferlaino, was Napoli president, and Zeman had received two and a half billion of lire.[264] Moggi responded that Zeman was fired from Napoli, Lazio, Salernitana, Lecce, Fenerbahce, and Stella Rossa not because of him but "because he doesn't know how to coach, he's slow and clumsy in speaking and the players don't understand him." Zeman sued Moggi for defamation but the judge ruled in favour of Moggi because Moggi's words were spoken "in retaliation" to Zeman's unproven allegations, and not "in defamation".[265]
  41. ^ OObservers said that there was no evidence the investigated leagues were altered. While the Supreme Court wrote of alleged seven-consecutive altered championship from 1999 to 2006, they were not investigated. Only the 2004–05 season was investigated, and the 2005–06 season, which was won by Juventus, was deemed to be regular; Juventus was relegated in the regular 2005–06 championship for allegedly altering the 2004–05 championship. The 2015 Supreme Court ruling was based on the 2006 sentence, when the investigation and wiretaps could have already revealed the implication of almost all Serie A clubs, something that came to light only in 2010–2011, when the statute of limitation did not allow a new trial; Inter Milan, Livorno, and Milan were charged with both Article 1 and Article 6 violations, while Juventus was only charged on Article 1 violations and relegated because it was thought the club had exclusive relations with referee and it was structural, something that was contradicted by later developments. As recounted by journalist Guido Vaciago, "there's the prosecution's castle, built with wisely selected wiretapping from 170 thousand. That is, there are the famous '[referee] grids', that is the telephone calls between Moggi and the referee designator Bergamo, during which the two established the referees to be included in the drawing of the grids. Phone calls that have particularly affected the Supreme Court, which cites them as an example of pollution. In short, it isn't to be taken into consideration that other executives (Meani of Milan, Facchetti of Inter Milan, just to give an example, but the list could be long) called Bergamo to plead their cause and explicitly ask for this or that referee. (Collina, for example...). So how many cupole [cupola was the term used to describe Moggi's alleged criminal association] were there? The Supreme Court doesn't tell us, even if it admits between the lines that 'the system of the arrangement of the grids was rather widespread' and admits that the developments in the behavior of Meani and Facchetti (explicitly cited) 'were not deepened by the investigations.'"[207]

    Vaciago stated that the ruling "doesn't tell us how to 'pollute' the system so deeply if, once the grids have been arranged, there is no effective power over the referees, who have all come out clean (except De Santis who was convicted [after renouncing the statute of limitation] and Racalbuto [who was involved in the Roma–Juventus match, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the referee grid for the match was not fixed] was no longer prosecutable due to the statute of limitation). The Calciopoli trial ends, therefore, without knowing why Moggi and his associates set up the whole structure, complete with super-secret Swiss SIM cards for the Supreme Court (but which could be intercepted and it isn't yet clear why the Naples Public Prosecutor's Office didn't do it, since he would have been holding the smoking gun of a conversation between Moggi and the referees), if in the end there were no referees available to 'fix' the matches. All but two have been acquitted, and one of the two (De Santis) is sentenced for a match in which Juventus had nothing to do with it. In short, the Supreme Court ratifies what we already knew and what we learned later, but not everyone wanted to know."[207]
  42. ^ An example is Moggi's personality, which was described by Franco Carraro as "arrogant" and too pleased to appear "ultra-powerful".[110] In one of the first released wiretaps, Moggi boasted of having closed in the locker room referee Gianluca Paparesta, and to have taken the keys to the airport;[268] the court acquitted Moggi of the related charges because the alleged events did not happen. Moggi would clarify in another wiretap, which had not come to light earlier, he only would have wanted to do that after the controversial Reggina win over Juventus 2–1, as a regular goal of Juventus' Marcelo Zalayeta for the 2–2 was not assigned in the final minutes of the match, but he ultimately did not do what he was accused of;[269] Paparesta himself denied that the alleged events ever happened.[270]

    Another example is a call between Moggi and Bergamo, which has been called the "[grand]mother of all wiretaps" to imply a smoking gun.[271] Dated 9 February 2005, Moggi and Bergamo made a mock draft for the upcoming referee designation through draw. According to the prosecution, the effectiveness of Moggi's system was "made possible only thanks to the connivance of the designators who prepare the referee appointments for this purpose." Some critics, such as Ju29ro, stated: "First of all, it's necessary to clarify that the discussion of the referee grids comes at the end of a very long conversation of which it isn't the main topic. Bergamo and Moggi, in fact, limit themselves to comparing their own grids (it isn't Moggi who imposes his) at the end of the usual discussion on the pre-electoral skirmishes. There's also a fundamental consideration: the distribution of the referees in the groupings appears in general to be predictable on the basis of objective reasons. In fact, it's taken for granted that the best referees are assigned to grid A and that the less experienced ones are assigned to minor matches: in this sense, it's reasonable to expect [renowned referees such as] Collina, Paparesta, or Bertini in the group in which the Inter Milan–Milan derby and Juventus–Roma. ... It should also be noted that Moggi doesn't absolutely ask for any particular referee for the Juventus match, or even for the matches of the other teams." In addition, they say "the results of the draw don't provide objective confirmation, since Inter Milan–Roma goes to Trefoloni and Reggina–Milan to Racalbuto. Bertini, who is repeatedly referred to as a 'friend' referee of the criminal association, goes to direct Siena–Messina and not Inter Milan or Milan where he would, in theory, have been more comfortable. It's also curious that Moggi includes Paparesta in his grid hypothesis, a referee historically disliked by him. This further demonstrates the harmless nature of the conversation."[272]
  43. ^ As recounted by Carlo Garganese, the trials discredited claims "still bandied about by those who have done no research into Calciopoli", among others, such as:
    • Locking referees in dressing rooms
    • Controlling the referee-selection processes
    • Influencing referees
    • Bribery
    • Lavish gift-offerings
    • Player agency control
    • Accounting fraud
    • Undetectable web of communication
    • Direct referee contact
    • Match-fixing
    • Attempted match-fixing
    According to Garganese, "[i]t is important to stress at this point that so ignorant are many sections of the world media that 'Moggiopoli' is still referred to by so-called journalists as a 'match-fixing scandal' when even the original sentence ruled that Moggi neither fixed nor attempted to fix matches."[2]

    As referees were assigned by draw, it was widely questioned how draws could have been fixed. Carabinieri were present at 2 out of 38 draws, which were open to the public, filmed by cameras, and carried out in the presence of a notary, and as recounted by Ju29ro, "their correspondents would have detected an anomaly: the notary would not have checked that the balls actually contained the names of the referees and the matches to match. However, it isn't explained why a check in this regard was not carried out immediately after the draw (it was enough to check the cards extracted from the balls), nor it is clarified the regulatory procedures with which the notary would have had to operate (if and when they actually had to be checked the names), nor if there is a record of the same operations, nor if a Public Official was warned about it, nor how many and who were the subjects involved in the alleged deception. Furthermore, if you think you see irregularities, it would seem logical to deepen the investigation and continue to attend the extractions, rather than leave after only twice. Important issues, therefore, that should have been clarified immediately." In spite of this, the Carabinieri insisted that the grids were fixed "by citing some phone calls where it would clearly emerge that the results of the draw were known in advance by Moggi. In the interceptions in question (3487 of 26 November 2004, 8771 of 3 December 2004, [and] 21756 of 10 January 2005), someone named Alessia of the sports secretariat calls to communicate the matches which, however, the Bianconero ["the Black and Whites", Juventus' primary colours] general director 'sly' replies that he already knows. For the Carabinieri, the conversations unmasked without fear of denial 'the direct line between Moggi and the two designators, such that the aforementioned knows well in advance the arbitration' draws 'and this certainly exploiting those aforementioned confidential communications that the various associates use to communicate between their.' The certainty of the investigators, however, turns into a huge contradiction when it turns out that the time of those phone calls (11.56, 11.53, 15.13) is much later than 11.00, the starting time of the draw operations. And it's the same information that specifies that the entire procedure was always carried out with punctuality and speed (Paolo Bergamo himself, within the Matrix broadcast, declared: 'the draw was live, so in a few minutes the referees and the matches were known to everyone. At 11.15, it was all official')." In addition, "the draws of the 2004/05 sports season were carried out with the active contribution of a journalist, each time different, who had the task of extracting the balls with the names of the referees. A detail completely omitted by the Carabinieri, which is instead remarked by a joint FIGC–USSI (Italian Sports Press Union) communiqué of 15 May 2006 ... ."[272]

    The designators themselves complained of the draws, which critics saw as evidence that the grids were not fixed. In a report dated 2 November 2005, the Carabinieri complained that Juventus received the same referees, to which it was responded that "12 referees and 33 linesmen would be too few and would lead to suspicion of Moggi's interference in their choice. A very vague thesis, especially if you compare these data with those relating to other teams: to referee Milan during the season under investigation, there was an alternation of 12 referees (exactly like Juventus) and 30 referee assistants (three fewer than the Bianconeri)." Turin prosecutor Marcello Maddalena had already expressed himself as sceptic regarding the concrete possibility of tampering with the draws: "Given the presence of a notary and a journalist (never the same for each draw), it seems highly unlikely, if not completely unlikely, to believe that the draws were 'rigged': this, it is repeated, for the same ways in which these draws take place, and also regardless of the absence of any reference in this sense emerging from the wiretaps and from what was declared by the texts Fazi and Martino regarding the regularity of the draws. Neither are there any conversations between Pairetto and Bergamo during which the former involves the latter in the common plan to designate compliant referees linesmen for Juventus."[272]
  44. ^ It is argued in particular that Juventus' relegation and harsher punishment was based on sentimento popolare ("people's feelings"), which the court saw as proof that Juventus was favoured, even though no match was altered or fixed; sudditanza psicologica ("psychological subjection") to which referee were subjected, which is something that cannot be proven, and is subjective; and the ad hoc rule to relegate Juventus by summing Article 1 violations and treat them as an Article 6 violation, even though the club did not commit any Article 6 violations. According to the CAF, its verdict of standings alteration regardless of the alteration of individual matches is proved by the mere fact that Juventus finished first, even though it is the most successful Italian club, and just finished first in the next championship, which was never investigated, as it was already declared regular. According to critics, this was as if Juventus driving a car meant the club was guilty of car theft, or as put by the legal defence, that too many defamations do not lead to murder charges, in reference to the structured illict. According to some critics, "arguing that the standing has actually been altered is absurd if taken as a fact, since if it happened it would be appropriate and necessary to specify in which match this would have happened." According to those critics, this newly-made-up rule and interpretation was inadmissible. After mentioning that the Calciopoli rulings stated there were no altered matches, that the 2004–05 championship under investigation is to be considered regular but that the Juventus management achieved real advantages in the standings for Juventus even without altering the individual matches, some critics said: "In practice, Juventus was convicted of murder, with no one dead, without evidence, or accomplices, or a murder weapon. Only for the presence of a hypothetical motive."[274]

    The justification of the harsh punishment being based on sentimento popolare is deemed as absurd; it is argued that is only what Juventus' rival clubs and antijuventini claimed, namely that Juventus (the most successful, supported, and at the same time hated Italian club) was favoured, even though there was no evidence the matches were alterated or that Juventus had a disproportionate ratio of advantages, relative to disadvantages, as the latter were simply forgotten, and for which several critics blamed sectors of anti-Juventus media, which at the same time antijuventini accused it was in Juventus' pocket. In response, Juventus supporters and some observers stated that Agnelli-owned newspapers, such as La Stampa, did nothing (la Repubblica took a colpevolisti stance, even when new developments contradicted the theory of Juventus' exclusivity, among other discredited allegations and charges by the prosecution),[28] and still do not do enough, to defend their own club from routinely allegations of favourable referees and refereeing, without evidence; only major sport newspaper Tuttosport was Juventus-leaning when the scandal blew up, and Milan's and Rome's clubs, and even Naples, where Juventus' hatred is strong, had more control of the media, or more favourable, leaning newspapers to the home club or Juventus' rivals than Juventus. In addition, the latter are owned by the RCS MediaGroup, a major international multimedia publishing group owned by Urbano Cairo, Torino's owner and president, and of which former Fiorentina owner Diego Della Valle also owned minority shares.[275] Moggi always maintained that political, economic, and sporting power is in Milan and Rome, not in Turin, a cupola really existed but it was not his, and was in Milan and Rome, headed by Carraro, the then-FIGC president,[276] and that Adriano Galliani held the most power and was in conflict of interest, as he was both Milan vice-president and Lega Calcio president.[277]
  45. ^ Up until Calciopoli, Juventus was one of the few Italian clubs not involved in major scandals, including those who won at least one championship, and the only top team not implicated in any scandal. Fascists snatched Genoa of the 1924–25 Prima Divisione title to give it to Bologna (The Guardian described it as "the biggest injustice in wordwide football"),[278] Fiorentina was involved in the Savoia–Fiorentina scandal,[279] Inter Milan and Roma were implicated in Passaportopoli (other involved clubs included Lazio, Milan, Sampdoria, Udinese, and Vicenza),[280] Lazio and Milan were involved in the 1980 Totonero scandal (Juventus, Napoli, and Pescara were absolved; other implicated Serie A clubs were Avellino, Bologna, and Perugia, while Serie B clubs Genoa, Lecce, and Pistoiese were absolved, and Palermo and Taranto received a five-point deduction), and relegated to Serie B,[281] Napoli was implicated in the Naples scandal,[282] Parma was involved in Parmalat bankruptcy,[283] and Torino was implicated in the Allemandi scandal, which resulted in the revocation of the 1926–27 Prima Divisione title.[284] Lazio was also implicated in the 1986 Totonero, alongside Serie A's Udinese, Serie B's Cagliari, Palermo, Perugia, Triestina, and Vicenza, Serie C1's Cavese and Foggia, and Serie C2's Pro Vercelli.[285] In 1998, Zdeněk Zeman, the then-Roma coach and a critic of Juventus,[259] was alarmed about alleged abuse use of drugs by football clubs.[286] Based on Zeman's statements, the Attorney General of Turin Raffaele Guariniello opened an investigation involving Juventus, Parma, Roma, and Torino; for reasons of territorial jurisdiction, a judicial measure was opened only for Juventus and Torino.[287] There was no evidence confirming Juventus' direct responsibility in the affair,[288] and both the club's doctor Riccardo Agricola and CEO Antonio Giraudo were acquitted,[289] and there was no sport fraud.[290]
  46. ^ One widely-cited case was Inter Milan's Helenio Herrera, which won three league titles, two European Champion Clubs' Cups, and two Intercontinental Cups in the 1960s but was also alleged of doping; there was no trial due to the statute of limitation.[291] In 2004, former Inter Milan player Ferruccio Mazzola, author of Il terzo incomodo. Le pesanti verità di Ferruccio Mazzola, accused Herrera of subjecting starters and reserves to doping practices using amphetamines dissolved in coffee;[292] in 2005, Inter Milan sued Mazzola for defamation, asking for €3 million in moral and pecuniary damages to be donated to charity;[293] the judge rejected the club's request, which did not appeal, motivating: "The book consists mainly of a series of stories that have seen Mazzola as the protagonist during his career, as well as a series of testimonies from many former footballers. Through a clear and complete story, free from malicious or offensive expressions, the authors outline a general and historical picture of the football of the time."[294] While the few still living Grande Inter players interviewed denied the accusations, the exceptions were those of Franco Zaglio,[295] who said the club told him to keep quiet and defined Herrera's doping practices as a common fact in football at the time, and Sandro Mazzola,[296] who later retracted his position, saying that the real doping was psychological and that his brother's denunciation was motivated by a desire for retaliation against Inter Milan.[297] Many Grande Inter players, such as Mauro Bicicli, Giacinto Facchetti, Marcello Giusti, Giuseppe Longoni, Enea Masiero, Ferdinando Miniussi, Armando Picchi, and Carlo Tagnin, died prematurely, which Ferruccio Mazzola saw as evidence that would be attributable to those practices. He also denounced Fiorentina, Lazio, and Roma, all clubs in which Herrera continued to use his alleged methods, and which in his view resulted in further premature deaths, citing Bruno Beatrice, Nello Saltutti, Ugo Ferrante (Fiorentina), and Giuliano Taccola (Roma); doping for Domenico Caso (Fiorentina), Giancarlo De Sisti (Fiorentina and Roma), and Massimo Mattolini (Lazio) was the result of very serious diseases. Mazzola himself said that he had taken substances of that type,[298] and he would die prematurely in 2013.[299]

    With Juventus relegated to Serie B after Calciopoli, Inter Milan became the only remaining Serie A club to have never been relegated. Some observers said that Inter Milan should have been relegated due to the Passaportopoli scandal, and the 1997–98 UEFA Cup won by Inter Milan was altered.[300] Lawyer Eduardo Chiacchio said: "In 2001 there was the scandal of false passports, above all that of Recoba. By the rules, Inter Milan had to have a point-deduction for each match played with the Uruguayan player on the pitch. [Napoli president] Ferlaino asked me to take action because Moratti's Inter Milan could be given 23 penalty points and so it was Inter Milan and not Napoli which would be relegated." As the championship was over, the decision was on FIGC president Carraro, who did not want to put Inter Milan on trial.[301] Chiacchio added: "Inter Milan was saved because no one had the courage to appeal to justice. Calciopoli was just the tip of the iceberg."[302] Moggi quoted Carraro as saying: "I can't relegate Inter Milan because Moratti spent a lot to buy [the club]."[303] In his 2011 report, Palazzi stated: "Inter Milan is the club that risks more than any other due to the illegal behavior of its president [Facchetti]." Moggi stated that "[t]alking to [referee] designators was allowed at that time, it was obviously not allowed to ask for their help to win a match", and Inter Milan, not Juventus, was guilty of the latter.[304] Moggi was particularly critical of Carraro, the then-FIGC president involved in the scandal but was only fined €80,000, and some critics including journalist Roberto Beccantini questioned why Carraro was not part of the Naples trials;[305] Carraro had told referee designator Paolo Bergamo that Lazio and Fiorentina needed to be helped in order to avoid their relegation.[306]
  47. ^ Both Moggi and Giraudo had good relations with the Agnelli family, especially Gianni and Umberto Agnelli, while they would have rocky relations with Agnelli's successors,[185] with Luca Cordero di Montezemolo in particular,[307] whom Moggi accused of being the culprit for Juventus' relegation.[308] Moggi also stated that Calciopoli only happened because "l'Avvocato Agnelli and il Dottor Umberto died",[110] and had the two Agnelli not died, "nothing [of this farce] would have happened."[309] Moggi stated that Juventus was weak,[310] saying: "The death of l'Avvocato Agnelli made us orphans and weak, it was easy to attack Juve and destroy them by making things up."[311] According to Moggi, "Juventus bothered because they won too much", noting that then-CONI president Gianni Petrucci declared that "a team that wins too much is harmful to their sport."[312] In an interview with La Repubblica, Giuliano Tavaroli stated to have "saved Montezemolo" and stalked Moggi on Tronchetti Provera's orders,[313] implicating Inter Milan,[314] to which Moggi said was the reason why he had used Swiss SIM cards.[315]
  48. ^ According to Mario Pasta and Mario Sironi, the authors of the latter book, the trial would have served to remove Moggi and Giraudo but also to punish Juventus for having won too much. As recounted by Italia Oggi, the accusations against Moggi and Giraudo, according to the reconstruction of Pasta and Sironi, "would be totally unfounded on the basis of the court papers and the 7,500 pages of interceptions transcribed and then never heard during the two levels of sporting trial brought against the supposed dome of football", describing the conclusion of Pasta and Sironi as being "at the same time disheartening and disconsolate", as they wrote: "What emerged in this rereading [of papers and sentences], and in the most striking way, is the significant difference between the dimension of law and that of the trial. Modified procedures, evidence and contradictory convictions, protection of the accused compromised by the haste to conclude. In short, a provision flawed in its formal and substantial elements. All of this was set in an atmosphere heavily conditioned by media pressure that is not always serene in one's utterances." Giampiero Di Santo for Italia Oggi summarized: "The suspicion, in short, is that the path of summary justice was chosen, to eliminate from the scene characters like Moggi, ultimately expelled from Juve and then condemned by sports justice based on wiretapping which, are the words of the sentences, didn't prove none of the allegations. Based on the first interceptions ordered by the Turin's public prosecutor and prosecutor Raffaele Guariniello, who had ordered the dismissal of the investigation opened for alleged sports fraud already in July 2005 on the grounds that, for the crime in question, 'aren't allowed.' The prosecutor had underlined the 'weakness of the accusatory hypothesis.' Yet, according to the authors, the investigation that led to the commissioner of the FIGC, the landing in via Allegri of Guido Rossi, and the new head of the investigation office, Francesco Saverio Borrelli, started from that weak accusatory hypothesis, to the involvement of referees and designators, of six first and second row clubs (in addition to Juve, Milan, Fiorentina, Lazio, Reggina and Arezzo) and, finally, to the real sentence for a few. Indeed, only for Moggi and Juve, kicked out and relegated to B."[316]
  49. ^ Milan-based La Gazzetta dello Sport in particular was subjected to criticism, and some critics questioned how, and its legality, the newspaper, among others, anticipated the investigation by the Naples public prosecutor's office, which led to Calciopoli,[10] and the court's rulings,[320] and how some newspapers, such as La Gazzetta dello Sport and la Repubblica,[28] did not report some events that in their view either contradicted the prosecution's theories or were, whether explicitly or not, in the anti-Juventus and colpevolisti camps.[321] An example is that the referee grids were not fixed as the prosecution alleged.[322] The Court of Appeal upheld the request, which was accepted by the first-instance judgment, by referee designators Bergamo and Pairetto of defamation against the newspapers Il Rigore and La Stampa, claiming that the referee grid of Roma–Juventus was fixed; the court ruled that the referee grids were not fixed.[323]
  50. ^ About the wiretaps, Maddalena stated: "In all the imposing mass of intercepted conversations there emerges an integral attitude, a sort of 'presumption' or 'superiority complex' that could sound like this: 'We're the best, the strongest, the most beautiful, the most everything, therefore we don't need complacent referees or favours but only good, honest, and fair referees, who referees according to the rules... And so we will win.' And in fact all the observations, the comments, the indications (for friendly matches), the suggestions regarding the referees always seem to be placed in the perspective of the search for the best referee for Juve matches, the referee who best guarantees the regular progress and the regular outcome of the sporting competition." Maddalena also stated that Juventus was unfairly penalized, observing that "with regard to any appointments of referees aimed at favouring Juventus, the objective analysis of the documentation not only doesn't confirm the initial investigative hypothesis, but on the contrary, evidence of the opposite sign is obtained, indicative of the absence of irregularities and of more or not disguised of referee designations piloted by Pairetto." According to Rocca, "they didn't even enter the trial because the same public prosecutor who first hypothesized against them the crime of conspiracy, then corruption, and finally sports fraud – and for this reason entered them in the register of suspects – decided that the elements collected, that is to say the phone calls we read in the newspapers, were not only not sufficient to support the accusatory hypothesis in a trial, but they weren't even enough to continue the investigation neither for the crime of association, nor for the crime of corruption or for the crime of sports fraud."[335]
  51. ^ The call between Bergamo and Rodomonti, the match's referee, was transcribed as follows:[338]

    Bergamo: "Don't forget Pasquale because you struggled to get there, to go back and therefore, I expect, believe me, that you won't miss anything, nothing, for anyone."

    Rodomonti: "I'm immensely pleased with what you said because it's the truth."

    Bergamo: "Above all, there's a difference between the teams of 15 points, understood, so also prepare well psychologically. You mustn't question the efforts you've endured, so reff your match, there's none for anyone, so if I tell you mine right now if you have a doubt think more about who is behind rather than who is in front."

    Rodomonti: "All right, all right."

    Bergamo: "Listen to me, it's something that remains between you and me."

    Rodomonti: "On my word. Thank you, don't worry."

    Bergamo: "Because getting up there you know how tiring it is, going back down—it would be really stupid for you."

    Rodomont: "All right."

    Bergamo: "Be an intelligent person. It stays between you and me, I hope."

    Rodomonti: "Don't worry."

    This call led observers to wonder whether Carraro made these recommendations to Bergamo because he knew that Juventus was being helped and was aware of the criminal association to would steer the championship as argued by the prosecution, or it was because he was aware of the different media reactions that occurred following a mistake in favour of Juventus. In his deposition, Carraro argued that it was the latter, saying: "Because for the media, in general, of the time, written press, radio, television ... in general public opinion, Juventus was a 'very powerful' club, [while] Inter [Milan] was considered, at that time, less authoritative in terms of sports politics, for which an error in favour of Inter [Milan] was considered an error, an error in favor of Juventus would have led to a reaction of public opinion." He was concerned about the imminent elections to determine the Lega Calcio president; Milan's Galliani, who was the favorite and who received opposition in the past, was eventually elected. The match ended 2–2 but it was not without controversy; in two wiretaps after the match, referees Collina and Rosetti agreed that Inter Milan was favoured when its goalkeeper Francesco Toldo received a yellow rather than red card.[339] In 2020, Carraro stated that the only thing he blamed himself for Calciopoli was not having substituted Bergamo and Pairetto earlier with Collina, and reiterated that Juventus would still have won had the scandal not happened because it was the best team.[340]

  52. ^ The 2011 ruling stated: "Neither can we overlook the data of the resizing of the scope of the accusation which derives from the partiality with which the events of the 2004/2005 championship were examined, to run after only Moggi's misdeeds, of which modalities have been ascertained, as regards the sports fraud, to the limit of the existence of the crime of attempt, with the consequent further difficulty of hooking up to the responsibility of the employer, supplier of the occasion for the criminal action." About this and the 2011 ruling in general, Beha wrote that "the motivations in 558 pages are summarized as follows. 1) Championships not altered (therefore championships unjustly taken away from Juve...), matches not fixed, referees not corrupted, investigations conducted incorrectly by the investigators of the Public Prosecutor's Office (interceptions of the Carabinieri which were even manipulated in the confrontation in the Chamber). 2) The SIM cards, the foreign telephone cards that Moggi has distributed to some referees and designators, would be proof of the attempt to alter and condition the system, even without the effective demonstration of the rigged result. 3) Moggi's attitude, like a real 'telephone' boss, is invasive even when he tries to influence the [Italian Football Federation] and the national team, see the phone calls with Carraro and Lippi. 4) That these phone calls and this 'mafia' or 'sub-mafia' promiscuity aimed at 'creating criminal associations' turned out to be common practice in the environment as is evident, doesn't acquit Moggi and C.: and therefore here is the sentence. ... Finally point 1), the so-called positive part of the motivations, that is, in fact everything is regular. And then the scandal of 'Scommettopoli' [the Italian football scandal of 2011] in which it's coming out that the 2010–2011 championship [won by Milan] as a whole with tricks is to be considered really and decidedly irregular? The Chief Prosecutor of Cremona, Di Martino, says so for now, while sports justice takes its time as always, but I fear that many will soon repeat it, unless everything is silenced. With all due respect to those who want the truth and think that Moggi has objectively become the 'scapegoat'. Does the framework of information that doesn't investigate, analyze, compare, and take sides out of ignorance or bias seem slightly clearer to you?"[345]
  53. ^ As was widely acknowledged at the time, having relations with referee designators was not only not prohibited but was actively encouraged by FIGC higher-ups, such as then-FIGC president Carraro, to keep good relations among all, and avoid controversies and disputes, and everyone felt it was not perceived as illegal;[53] notable was the Christmas dinner between the FIGC, club executives, and referees.[185] The rules were made harsher only after the scandal, including the addition of the much-disputed associative illicit for which Juventus would be relegated even without any Article 6 (relegation) violation, and make it illegal to have such relations again.[64] In addition, even giving gifts to referees was not explicitly prohibited; notably, Roma gave golden Rolexes as gifts to referees.[350] Moggi was alleged to give referees Maseratis through Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which is owned by the Agnelli family through Exor; this claim was later proved to be untrue and dismissed by Turin magistrate Marcello Maddalena;[351] Inter Milan and Milan's gifts, such as Rolexes,[352] tickets,[138] and merchandising, were found to be true and damaging.[353] Other implicated clubs included Bari, Genoa, Empoli, Lazio, Perugia, Siena, and Torino.[354] It became a scandal when it was known about the gifts of Roma, which at that time had won the 2001 championship to Juventus' disadvantage, and referees were offered gifts, such as gastronomic specialities, by Lazio president at a time when the club was first and eventually won the 2000 championship, again to Juventus' disadvantage in the final match.[355] Moggi did not directly spoke to referees, only Inter Milan's Facchetti and Milan's Mean did so, such as with De Santis and Puglisi.[356]
  54. ^ Some observers said that the championship was lost to Juventus' disadvantage, as the subsequent clamour for alleged decisions in favour of Juventus resulted in the club being disadvantaged in the next match, which suspended for over an hour and not postponed, losing the championship.[366] In addition, some analysts stated that Cannavaro's disallowed goal was the result of a non-existent corner kick,[367] and some critics, such as Ju29ro, described the Juventus–Parma aftermath as "the first stone of [what would become] Calciopoli" for its clamour against Juventus.[368] De Santis himself stated that he had doubts about assigning the corner kick to Parma, and commented that "I, as a referee in Rome, should not have been designated in that match, as someone from Turin should not have done for Lazio."[369] Cannavaro recalled: "So many controversies surrounding that match. The referee [just] made a mistake and it can happen. They remain really exciting challenges."[365]
  55. ^ De Santis stated that he was an Inter Milan supporter.[372] About the wiretaps, De Santis said that he never heard from Moggi,[373] but he had many from Inter Milan's Giacinto Facchetti,[374] as well as Milan's Leonardo Meani, stating: "I often spoke with Facchetti and Meani. I had a very good relationship with Giacinto Facchetti, and I must say that in many circumstances he was very obsessive. His requests sometimes went even beyond the lawful. But I never took them into consideration because when I went out on the pitch I only thought about managing the matches correctly. Moratti knows these things very well. I'm sorry to talk about a person who unfortunately is no longer here, but I'm very willing to make my phone records public, so that everyone knows these reports were real. I felt very often with [Meani] too and I have to smile when he is treated like a delivery boy or a caregiver."[375] About former Inter Milan owner Moratti, who ordered from Telecom a dossier on him,[376] De Santis said: "Just one thing: why didn't he tell me what he thought of me to my face? He came to the locker room many times, before or after the matches, he could have calmly told me that he thought I was in Juve's pockets. But no, on the contrary, it seemed he respected me."[377] De Santis also stated that there was a prejudice towards him, and he did not help Juventus but, on the contrary, disadvantaged them by making them lose points;[378] De Santis was the referee of the 2005 Supercoppa Italiana between Juventus and Inter Milan, which was won by the latter 1–0 in extratime, after Juventus' David Trezeguet scored a regular goal not allowed due to a non-existent offside.[379] On the origins of Calciopoli, De Santis stated: "I think it originated in an area that sees Inter Milan, Pirelli, and Telecom connected."[372]

    Like then-Inter Milan player Christian Vieri, De Santis accused Inter Milan of harassment and spying on him, and sued Inter Milan asking €21 million in damage,[380] which was rejected in 2013. De Santis commented: "It's a sentence that took me by surprise. We brought so many statements as sources of evidence and it was clear to everyone that there had been an illegal activity of espionage. I'm curious to understand what this decision is due to, I wait [for] the motivations. If stalking a person and his family and checking the telephone records is lawful, then I wonder what is lawful or not in Italy."[378] In 2015, the Supreme Court confirmed what was established by the court of first instance in civil proceedings because the documents stated that they were in the name of Pirelli.[381]
  56. ^ Prior to Calciopoli, Inter Milan and Juventus were the only two Serie A clubs to have never been relegated. Juventus won its first championship in 1905, beating then-six time winner Genoa, while Inter Milan won its first championship in 1910 after a controversial playoff match against the then-two time winner Pro Vercelli; the controversy came in deciding the date for the playoff match, and despite pleas from then-FIGC president Luigi Bozino to have Inter Milan play on 1 May in Milan, Bozino announced on 23 April that he had decided in protest to deploy the youth team made up of children aged eleven to fifteen. Inter Milan played with the first team and easily won 10–3 to jeers.[395] The FIGC Foot-Ball magazine released an indignant statement.[396] The 1912–13 Prima Categoria was the first Italian championship to include promotion and relegation, as Southern clubs were admitted for the first time; Juventus finished last in the Piedmont group but the FIGC decided for the 1913–14 Prima Categoria that "two places in Lombardy are [to be] occupied by two teams from the Ligurian–Piedmontese nation, and precisely by Novara and Juventus." The 1921–22 Prima Categoria, which was organized by the Italian Football Confederation in diatribe with the FIGC, Inter Milan finished last in the Lega Nord group but was saved by winning one playout match; Inter Milan won the first playout match against Nazionale Lombardia due to forfait but won the second one against Fiorentina Libertas after winning the first leg 3–0, and drawing the second leg 1–1.[394]
  57. ^ As reported by Il Fatto Quotidiano in March 2015, €130 million are for the drop on the stock market, €110 million are for the devaluation of the brand, €80 million are for the non-participation to the Champions League, €40 million are for decrease in TV rights, and the remaining €84 million are for more. According to the report, "[i]t's clear that such a figure would completely blow not only the FIGC but the entire system of Italian football."[422]
  58. ^ When Juventus won the club's first championship since Calciopoli, it recognized it as its 30th scudetto. As the FIGC recognized it as the 28th scudetto, Juventus adopted for the following season a pink away jersey with a star, given every ten championships won,[432] to signify its third star;[433] Juventus unofficially won their 30th league title in 2011–12 Serie A season. A dispute with the FIGC, which stripped Juventus of their 2004–05 title and did not assign them the 2005–06 title due to Calciopoli, left their official total at 28; the club elected to wear no stars at all for the 2012–13 Serie A season.[434] Juventus officially won their 30th title in the 2013–14 Serie A season, and earned the right to wear their third star, but Juventus president Andrea Agnelli stated that the club suspended the use of the stars until another team wins their 20th championship, having the right to wear two stars "to emphasise Juventus' superiority."[435] For the 2015–16 Serie A season, Juventus reintroduced the stars and added the third star to their jersey,[436] as well with new kit manufacturers Adidas, in addition to the Coppa Italia badge for winning the 2014–15 Coppa Italia, their record-breaking tenth.[437]

    Although Juventus' unofficial 30th scudetto was that of 2011–12, and the club added the third-star badge after winning that of 2015–16, the club's unofficial 34th and official 32th scudetto,[436] the revoked 2004–05 (28th) and 2005–06 (29th) championships were unofficially the 30th and 31st, as Juventus won the 1908 Italian Federal Football Championship (2nd) and 1909 Italian Championship of Football (3rd) but are not recognized by the FIGC. In 1908, when Juventus won the Federal Championship, the FIGC recognizes the Italian Championship winner (Pro Vercelli), and in 1909, when Juventus won the Italian Championship, the FIGC recognizes the Federal Championship winner (Pro Vercelli). A similar episode happened in 1922 with Pro Vercelli (1921–22 Prima Divisione) and Novese (1921–22 Prima Categoria) but in that case both championships are recognized. This led some analysts to question why those other two Juventus' titles were not, and still are not, recognized as Juventus' scudetti totals.[438] In addition, Milan won the 1906 Prima Categoria title only after then-Juventus president Alfred Dick, who would later found derby rival Torino, retired the team after refusing the designation of Milan for a second match after the first ended 0–0, considering it as not neutral.[439]
  59. ^ Also known as scudetto della correttezza ("scudetto of correctness"), it was coined by Inter Milan owner Massimo Moratti in July 2006.[448]
  60. ^ Other popularized neoligisms, in reference to scudetto di cartone ("paper title") and scudetto dell'onestà ("scudetto of honesty") or scudetto degli onesti ("the honests' scudetto"), are cartonati and the ironic onestoni ("[the] big honests").[450] Some of these terms became stronger after then-Inter Milan coach José Mourinho's alleged statement during the halftime of a 2008–09 Serie A match. Mourinho was quoted as saying: "The first scudetto was given to you in the secretariat, the second you won it because there was no one there [to compete against], the third [you won it] at the last minute. You are a shitty team."[451] Although Mourinho justified himself by stating that "[s]ometimes you need to tell lies to stimulate the players, to piss them off", he admitted having said the statement.[452] For metonymy, Inter Milan's 2020–21 Serie A title was dubbed as scudetto di tampone ("tampon title") because of the same Calciopoli's unequal treatment cited by Juventus in inconsistent protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. The club's awarded 3–0 win over Napoli for the absence of the latter, which violated the protocols according to the Disciplinary Commission, and some observers, including Calciopoli judge Piero Sandulli, saw their absence as exploiting a loophole for not having to play the match without tested-positive starters, was reversed by the CONI Sports Guarantee Board;[56] in addition, unlike Napoli, Juventus played against Inter Milan without three tested-positive starters, and Parma played against Udinese with seven tested-positive players, while Inter Milan did not play against Sassuolo after three Inter Milan starters were tested positive.[453]
  61. ^ Rubentus, a pun of rubare (literally "stealing", as in "theft", referring to "cheating" in this context), is a term dating back to as early as 1985;[454] although no match was fixed, it was further popularized during and after the scandal.[215]
  62. ^ While both terms date back as early as 1975,[458] they have been widely used during and after the scandal to criticize the trials, described as one-sided against Juventus,[459] which was punished through sentimento popolare ("i gobbi ["the Hunchbacks, Juventus' nickname most accredited dating back to the 1950s] cheat, everyone knows it") what some observers described as "to transform a series of unproven allegations of unsportsmanlike offences into an elusive structural sporting offence".[460]


  1. ^ Gladwell 2015.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k, 17 June 2011.
  3. ^ a b Capasso 2012; Beha 2012.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h Panorama, 24 March 2015.
  5. ^ a b Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, p. 14.
  6. ^ a b Pavan 2012.
  7. ^ Tuttosport, 10 June 2009.
  8. ^ Foot 1999; Treccani, 12 March 2013; Onorato 2016.
  9. ^ Calcio e Finanza, 17 May 2016; Toscano 2017.
  10. ^ a b Palombo 2016.
  11. ^ La Repubblica, 12 May 2006a; The Observer, 30 July 2006a; The Observer, 30 July 2006b.
  12. ^ a b Galdi & Piccioni 2010.
  13. ^ La Repubblica, 8 May 2006a; La Repubblica, 8 May 2006b; World Soccer, 9 May 2006.
  14. ^ Sparre 2006; The Observer, 30 July 2006b.
  15. ^ La Repubblica, 14 May 2006.
  16. ^ Tuttosport, 12 May 2015.
  17. ^ a b c d Nicolino 2016.
  18. ^ CNN, 19 May 2006.
  19. ^ La Repubblica, 1 April 2006; BBC, 13 May 2006.
  20. ^ Eve 2006.
  21. ^ Meloni 2006.
  22. ^ Arduini 2003; Perotto 2006; Tigani 2010.
  23. ^ Tigani 2010; Fiorito 2010; Ingram 2021.
  24. ^ Ju29ro, 14 March 2011.
  25. ^ Blitz Quotidiano, 14 March 2011.
  26. ^ a b c La Repubblica, 31 October 2008; Ju29ro, 7 April 2010.
  27. ^ La Repubblica, 12 May 2006a.
  28. ^ a b c Cicconfri 2012.
  29. ^ Kock & Sparre 2006.
  30. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 29 March 2020.
  31. ^ Cingolani 2017; Toscano 2017.
  32. ^ a b c d e Boffi 2006.
  33. ^ a b, 18 February 2017.
  34. ^ BBC, 23 June 2006.
  35. ^ ABC, 30 December 2006.
  36. ^ a b Reuters, 18 August 2006.
  37. ^ Channel 4, 20 July 2006.
  38. ^ a b Toscano 2017.
  39. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 May 2006.
  40. ^ Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, p. 21; Abruzzese 2013.
  41. ^ a b Il Sussidario, 10 November 2011;, 16 November 2011; Il calcio è uguale per tutti, 22 March 2019.
  42. ^ Biasin 2006.
  43. ^ a b Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, p. 52.
  44. ^ Leapman 2005.
  45. ^ FIGC, 14 July 2006, p. 58.
  46. ^ FIGC, 14 July 2006, pp. 59–60.
  47. ^ Reuters, 13 August 2006.
  48. ^ a b c BBC, 17 August 2006.
  49. ^ FIGC, 14 July 2006, pp. 152–154; BBC, 25 July 2006; BBC, 17 August 2006.
  50. ^ FIGC, 14 July 2006, pp. 152–154.
  51. ^ a b BBC, 25 July 2006.
  52. ^ a b FIGC, 14 July 2006, p. 152.
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i Il calcio è uguale per tutti, 29 May 2018.
  54. ^ FIGC, 14 July 2006, pp. 61, 65–66, 74–77, 83, 101.
  55. ^ Buccheri 2009.
  56. ^ a b L'Arena del Calcio, 31 March 2021.
  57. ^ Moretti 2009.
  58. ^ a b Ingram 2021.
  59. ^ Corriere della Sera, 27 July 2006.
  60. ^ a b La Repubblica, 27 July 2006.
  61. ^ Ju29ro, 15 September 2010.
  62. ^ a b c L'Arena del Calcio, 1 May 2021.
  63. ^ Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, p. 9.
  64. ^ a b c Ju29ro, 27 August 2010.
  65. ^ Calcio Goal, 1 May 2021; Ingram 2021.
  66. ^ Kuper 2006; La Gazzetta dello Sport, 26 October 2006.
  67. ^ Lawton 2007.
  68. ^, 6 April 2010a.
  69. ^ BBC, 14 July 2006.
  70. ^ Corriere dello Sport, 18 July 2016.
  71. ^ a b c Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 48–49.
  72. ^ a b c La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 April 2010; La Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 April 2010.
  73. ^ TuttoMercatoWeb, 7 July 2010.
  74. ^ Il Sussidario, 29 May 2010.
  75. ^ a b Tuttosport, 21 September 2015.
  76. ^ Cirillo 2021; Stile Juve, 11 November 2021.
  77. ^ La Repubblica, 19 September 2020.
  78. ^ D'Ottavi 2020.
  79. ^ a b Hafez 2019.
  80. ^ Voakes 2012; Squawka, 7 January 2021.
  81. ^ West 2016.
  82. ^ Erözden 2020; Donato 2021.
  83. ^ The 42, 13 May 2018.
  84. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 21 January 2021.
  85. ^ Surano 2018.
  86. ^ Gastelium 2021; Jabbar 2021.
  87. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 10 October 2006a.
  88. ^ a b c Fiorito 2010.
  89. ^ ESPN, 24 August 2006.
  90. ^ Casula 2007.
  91. ^ Mauro 2006; Bocci 2006.
  92. ^ La Stampa, 4 August 2007; Corriere della Sera, 5 August 2007; La Repubblica, 22 December 2007.
  93. ^ ANSA, 1 September 2006; Ju29ro, 3 January 2011.
  94. ^ Ju29ro, 22 December 2007; Gregorace 2014.
  95. ^ Il Giornale, 18 May 2006; Ju29ro, 14 November 2008.
  96. ^ Il Giornale, 6 June 2010; La Stampa, 22 September 2006.
  97. ^ Il Sole 24 Ore, 18 April 2015.
  98. ^ La Repubblica, 21 July 2007; Bogo 2007.
  99. ^ Il Sole 24 Ore, 9 February 2007; ANSA, 8 November 2007.
  100. ^ FIGC, 26 July 2006.
  101. ^ Sky Sport, 8 July 2011.
  102. ^ TuttoMercatoWeb, 13 April 2010; Toscano 2017.
  103. ^ JMania, 15 April 2010; Corriere della Sera, 1 July 2011.
  104. ^ JMania, 15 April 2010.
  105. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 7 April 2010.
  106. ^ L'Unione Sarda, 17 February 2017.
  107. ^, 18 February 2017; Tuttosport, 18 February 2017; Il Giornale, 19 February 2017.
  108. ^ Sport Fair, 2 November 2017.
  109. ^ a b c d D'Ottavi 2019.
  110. ^ a b c d e Mensurati 2015.
  111. ^ a b c d Panorama, 17 March 2015.
  112. ^ a b La Repubblica, 6 April 2018.
  113. ^, 7 April 2010a.
  114. ^ a b Jacobelli 2011.
  115. ^, 1 July 2011.
  116. ^ a b, 5 July 2011.
  117. ^ a b, 18 July 2011.
  118. ^ La Repubblica, 25 April 2007; La Repubblica, 27 April 2007.
  119. ^ La Repubblica, 18 December 2007; La Repubblica, 19 December 2007.
  120. ^ Il Giornale, 16 April 2007; Il Giornale, 18 April 2007.
  121. ^, 20 April 2007.
  122. ^ La Repubblica, 26 April 2007.
  123. ^ La Repubblica, 10 May 2011.
  124. ^ FIGC, 18 June 2008; RTÉ Sport, 18 June 2008.
  125. ^ Associated Press, 14 December 2009.
  126. ^, 5 May 2010.
  127. ^ Sorrentino 2005.
  128. ^ Ju29ro, 18 September 2010.
  129. ^ La Stampa, 2 June 2010.
  130. ^ Juventus News, 25 May 2010.
  131. ^ Iuliano 2015.
  132. ^ Bergamo News, 5 May 2010.
  133. ^ Libero Quotidiano, 29 February 2012.
  134. ^ Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 38–41.
  135. ^, 6 April 2010b; Il calcio è uguale per tutti, 9 March 2019.
  136. ^ a b, 16 November 2010.
  137. ^, 6 April 2010b.
  138. ^ a b c d e f La Repubblica, 3 April 2010.
  139. ^ Sky Sport, 3 April 2010.
  140. ^, 7 April 2010b.
  141. ^ a b La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 April 2010.
  142. ^, 3 April 2010.
  143. ^ Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 35–36, 44.
  144. ^, 16 December 2013; Jmania, 16 December 2013.
  145. ^ La Repubblica, 3 April 2010; Parlongo 2011.
  146. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 April 2010.
  147. ^ Moretti 2011.
  148. ^ TuttoMercatoWeb, 20 September 2011.
  149. ^ FIGC, 15 June 2011; Famiglia Cristiana, 8 November 2011; Piccioni 2012.
  150. ^ Hooper 2006; BBC, 14 July 2006; Warren 2006.
  151. ^ a b La Gazzetta dello Sport, 4 July 2011.
  152. ^ Palazzi 2011, pp. 14–15, 70–72.
  153. ^ Iaria 2011.
  154. ^ La Repubblica, 18 July 2011; Allen 2011.
  155. ^ a b c Il calcio è uguale per tutti, 26 April 2019.
  156. ^ Corriere della Sera, 8 November 2011.
  157. ^ Campanale 2013.
  158. ^ Palazzo 2021.
  159. ^ Ziliani 2014.
  160. ^ Ripani 2006; Censoni 2020.
  161. ^ Corriere della Sera, 9 May 2020.
  162. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 5 January 2014; Panorama, 17 March 2015; Fanpage, 24 October 2020.
  163. ^ a b c d e f Reina 2019.
  164. ^ a b c Censoni 2020.
  165. ^ Tuttosport, 17 March 2016; Agresti 2017; Marca, 20 May 2020.
  166. ^ Sgambati 2007.
  167. ^ a b c Corriere dello Sport, 28 April 2016.
  168. ^ TuttoMercatoWeb, 8 May 2014.
  169. ^ Corriere della Sera, 8 August 2005.
  170. ^ Il Tirreno, 22 April 2011.
  171. ^ a b, 6 August 2020.
  172. ^ Corriere della Sera, 11 November 2005.
  173. ^, 16 November 2010;, 6 August 2020.
  174. ^ Morrone 2020.
  175. ^ Mocciaro 2019.
  176. ^ Quadarella 2018.
  177. ^ Blasting News, 14 November 2014; Munno 2018.
  178. ^ Cecino 2019.
  179. ^ a b Storie di Calcio, 24 February 2020.
  180. ^ Blasting News, 14 November 2014.
  181. ^ Munno 2018.
  182. ^ Abbate 2010.
  183. ^ La Repubblica, 12 April 2004.
  184. ^ Corriere della Sera, 10 July 2002; Corriere della Sera, 11 July 2002; La Repubblica, 12 April 2004.
  185. ^ a b c d e f, 26 October 2011.
  186. ^ Panorama, 17 March 2015; Panorama, 24 March 2015.
  187. ^ Pampinella 2020.
  188. ^ Mariottini 2016.
  189. ^ Camedda 2021.
  190. ^ Fanpage, 22 May 2020.
  191. ^ Morra 2021.
  192. ^ Morra 2018; Virgilio, 11 October 2019; Gentile 2021.
  193. ^ Mariottini 2016; Sportmediaset, 26 April 2018.
  194. ^ Schira 2012.
  195. ^ Fatto Quotidiano, 4 April 2013.
  196. ^ Reina 2019; L'Arena del Calcio, 26 April 2020.
  197. ^ Corriere dello Sport, 5 December 2018.
  198. ^ Galanto 2013.
  199. ^ Supreme Court, 23 March 2015; Supreme Court, 24 March 2015, p. 138; Gladwell 2015.
  200. ^ Associated Press, 23 March 2020.
  201. ^ Football Italia, 23 March 2015.
  202. ^ Assem 2015.
  203. ^ Football Italia, 25 March 2015.
  204. ^ Campanale 2021.
  205. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 September 2015.
  206. ^ Gazzetta World, 9 September 2015.
  207. ^ a b c d Vaciago 2015.
  208. ^ Football Italia, 16 March 2017.
  209. ^ Football Italia, 6 September 2016.
  210. ^ Football Italia, 13 December 2018.
  211. ^ Football Italia, 12 January 2019.
  212. ^ CONI, 6 May 2019.
  213. ^ Eurosport, 8 March 2022; Lamorte 2022; Sportmediaset, 28 October 2022.
  214. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 25 July 2006; Corriere della Sera, 8 November 2011.
  215. ^ a b Tuttosport, 23 October 2018.
  216. ^ Il Sussidario, 10 November 2011; Santilli 2012.
  217. ^ Il Fatto Quotidiano, 12 April 2011.
  218. ^ a b TuttoMercatoWeb, 16 February 2018.
  219. ^ Blasting News, 9 January 2020.
  220. ^ a b c d e Demos & Pi, September 2011.
  221. ^ Bertacchini 2010.
  222. ^, 7 April 2010a; Jacobelli 2011; Sport Fair, 2 November 2017.
  223. ^ Berkbeck 2021.
  224. ^ Nigro 2021;, 14 May 2021.
  225. ^ Fiorenza 2021.
  226. ^ a b Virgilio, 22 February 2020.
  227. ^ a b c Beltrami 2021.
  228. ^ Pizzimenti 2020; De Santis 2020; Corriere dello Sport, 5 May 2020.
  229. ^ La Repubblica, 22 May 2009; Fiorito 2010; L'Arena del Calcio, 22 August 2020.
  230. ^ Pediglieri 2011; Sky TG24, 2 May 2021.
  231. ^, 12 November 2018.
  232. ^ Il BiancoNero, 2 June 2021.
  233. ^ Il BiancoNero, 20 December 2017; Juventus News 24, 28 March 2021; Virgilio, 12 November 2021.
  234. ^, 26 February 2012; Pediglieri 2020.
  235. ^ Zallocco 2012.
  236. ^ Conti 2014.
  237. ^ Triolo 2017.
  238. ^ De Stefano 2012.
  239. ^ a b Ferraro 2012.
  240. ^ Virgilio, 12 November 2021.
  241. ^ Cosattini 2018.
  242. ^ Cicciù 2020.
  243. ^ Milone 2010.
  244. ^ Virgilio, 16 March 2021;, 6 May 2021.
  245. ^ Tuttosport, 27 February 2021.
  246. ^ Pizzigallo 2021.
  247. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 28 February 2021.
  248. ^ Calcio News 24, 1 March 2021.
  249. ^ Moria 2021.
  250. ^ Salvador 2021.
  251. ^ OneFootball, 1 March 2021.
  252. ^ Polichetti 2021.
  253. ^ TuttoMercatoWeb, 24 March 2015.
  254. ^ Pambianchi 2011; Gottero 2016.
  255. ^, 11 April 2010.
  256. ^ De Felice 2011.
  257. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 8 July 2011.
  258. ^ a b Sconfini, July 2011.
  259. ^ a b c Pelizzari 2012.
  260. ^, 12 May 2017.
  261. ^ TuttoMercatoWeb, 5 December 2014.
  262. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 7 December 2016.
  263. ^, 14 August 2012.
  264. ^ Loffredo 2009.
  265. ^ Blitz Quotidiano, 21 December 2012.
  266. ^ Bertagna 2012; Jacobelli 2015.
  267. ^ a b Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 1–15.
  268. ^ La Repubblica, 12 May 2006a; La Repubblica, 12 May 2006b.
  269. ^ Jmania, 15 October 2011.
  270. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 30 November 2009;, 5 January 2018.
  271. ^, 15 April 2010.
  272. ^ a b c Ju29ro, 10 October 2006.
  273. ^, 17 June 2011; La Gazzetta dello Sport, 4 July 2011.
  274. ^ Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 9–10.
  275. ^ Lemma 2013.
  276. ^ Corriere della Sera, 5 August 2007.
  277. ^ Pelucchi & Vernazza 2006.
  278. ^ Adamoli 2016.
  279. ^ La Stampa, 14 January 1928.
  280. ^ Ruta 2020.
  281. ^ Fabiano 2020.
  282. ^ Caliceti 2001, p. 57, "Riunione di famiglia".
  283. ^ Rinaldi 2015; La Stampa, 26 February 2018; Il Fatto Quotidiano, 22 July 2020.
  284. ^ La Repubblica, 27 January 1988.
  285. ^ Ferraris 2015.
  286. ^ La Stampa, 2 October 1998; La Stampa, 12 August 1999.
  287. ^ La Stampa, 10 November 1999.
  288. ^ Ballario 2004.
  289. ^ La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno, 15 December 2005; Avvocati Novara, 28 March 2006; Supreme Court, 29 March 2007.
  290. ^ Ballario 2005; ESPN, 14 December 2005.
  291. ^ La Repubblica, 3 January 2009.
  292. ^ La Repubblica, 7 October 2005.
  293. ^ Piva 2005.
  294. ^ Calcio News 24, 15 September 2012.
  295. ^ Mola 2015.
  296. ^ Castellani 2015.
  297. ^ Crescente 2015; Cazzullo 2017.
  298. ^ Gregorace 2015.
  299. ^ Fatto Quotidiano, 7 May 2013.
  300. ^ Rossi 2010; Calcio Goal, 8 April 2015.
  301. ^ Tribuna, 6 August 2020.
  302. ^ Blasting News, 7 August 2020.
  303. ^ Virgilio, 17 September 2020.
  304. ^, 3 January 2019.
  305. ^ Il Fatto Quotidiano, 10 November 2011a; Stile Juve, 14 November 2020.
  306. ^ Olivaro 2009.
  307. ^ a b Ju29ro, 7 April 2010.
  308. ^ Discreti 2010.
  309. ^ Ju29ro, 6 July 2013; Biscotti 2020.
  310. ^ L'Arena del Calcio, 11 March 2020.
  311. ^ a b Cardinali 2020.
  312. ^ Ciccù 2020.
  313. ^ La Repubblica, 5 June 2010; Jmania, 5 June 2010.
  314. ^ Pisapia 2012.
  315. ^ Il Fatto Quotidiano, 1 March 2019.
  316. ^ Di Santo 2007.
  317. ^ a b Mastroluca 2016.
  318. ^ Demos & Pi, September 2011; Agresti 2016; La Repubblica, 9 July 2017.
  319. ^ Nieddu 2006; Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 53–57.
  320. ^ Ju29ro, 7 November 2007.
  321. ^ Ju29ro, 13 January 2009; Ju29ro, 26 November 2010; Ju29ro, 24 July 2011.
  322. ^ Ju29ro, 2 June 2010.
  323. ^ Ju29ro, 29 September 2007.
  324. ^ Fava 2020a; Fava 2020b.
  325. ^ BBC, 14 July 2006; Famiglia Cristiana, 8 November 2011.
  326. ^ Corriere della Sera, 8 July 2006.
  327. ^ O'Brien 2006.
  328. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 1 July 2006.
  329. ^ Imparato 2006.
  330. ^ Tuttosport, 22 January 2007.
  331. ^ Eurosport, 12 February 2007.
  332. ^ La Repubblica, 10 June 2009.
  333. ^ a b c La Repubblica, 17 December 2007.
  334. ^ Rocca 2006; Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 53–57.
  335. ^ a b c Rocca 2006.
  336. ^ a b Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, pp. 53–57.
  337. ^ Bertacchini 2010; Sky Sport, 27 September 2011.
  338. ^ a b Il calcio è uguale per tutti, 9 March 2019.
  339. ^ Il calcio è uguale per tutti, 29 January 2018.
  340. ^ Sport e Vai, 12 December 2020.
  341. ^ Svoboda 2020.
  342. ^ OneFootball, 11 January 2021; Blasting News, 12 January 2021.
  343. ^ Beha 2011; Tiscali, 11 November 2011.
  344. ^ Il Fatto Quotidiano, 10 November 2011b.
  345. ^ Beha 2012.
  346. ^ Galanto 2021.
  347. ^ Ju29ro, 27 August 2010; Salvetti 2010.
  348. ^ Blasting News, 5 March 2014.
  349. ^ Ju29ro, 23 January 2015; L'Arena del Calcio, 26 January 2020.
  350. ^ Candido 2000.
  351. ^ Cambiaghi & Dent 2007, p. 54.
  352. ^ Pagine Romaniste, 5 January 2014.
  353. ^ Piccioni 2011;, 12 January 2011.
  354. ^ La Repubblica, 8 January 2000a; La Repubblica, 8 January 2000b.
  355. ^ Blitz Quotidiano, 14 April 2010.
  356. ^, 23 April 2016.
  357. ^ Masiello 2020.
  358. ^ a b c La Gazzetta dello Sport, 3 December 2013.
  359. ^ La Repubblica, 9 July 2017.
  360. ^ Corriere della Sera, 14 November 2021.
  361. ^ a b Bufi 2015.
  362. ^ La Repubblica, 5 May 2001; Gaetani 2018; Curzi 2020; Ruta 2020.
  363. ^ Landolina 2010.
  364. ^ a b, 19 October 2010.
  365. ^ a b Baiocco 2020.
  366. ^ La Repubblica, 7 May 2000; Lombardi 2014.
  367. ^ L'Arena del Calcio, 10 May 2020.
  368. ^ Ju29ro, 26 March 2014.
  369. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 12 June 2020.
  370. ^ Rossi 2020.
  371. ^, 5 March 2012;, 6 April 2016.
  372. ^ a b, 19 December 2015.
  373. ^ Corriere della Sera, 6 June 2006.
  374. ^ La Stampa, 30 March 2015.
  375. ^, 1 May 2007.
  376. ^ Buccheri 2012.
  377. ^ QN Quotidiano Nazionale, 12 October 2011.
  378. ^ a b, 23 April 2013.
  379. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 20 August 2005; Corriere della Sera, 21 August 2005.
  380. ^ La Stampa, 11 October 2011.
  381. ^ Tuttosport, 5 September 2015.
  382. ^, 24 March 2015; Toscano 2015.
  383. ^ La Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 April 2017.
  384. ^, 8 May 2014; Siragusano 2018.
  385. ^ Sport Fair, 8 December 2017; Virgilio, 8 December 2017.
  386. ^ Il BiancoNero, 10 March 2017.
  387. ^ SpazioJ, 10 March 2017.
  388. ^, 9 September 2021; Calcio Goal, 10 September 2021; L'Arena del Calcio, 1 October 2021.
  389. ^ Gentile 2018; TuttoMercatoWeb, 19 March 2021.
  390. ^ La Stampa, 24 January 2011; Pampinella 2019; Fanpage, 24 October 2020.
  391. ^ Sky Sport, 2 May 2021.
  392. ^ a b Lippi 2018.
  393. ^ La Repubblica, 21 June 2007.
  394. ^ a b Bassi 2018.
  395. ^, 15 April 2009; Bassi 2017.
  396. ^ Chies 2012.
  397. ^ Corriere dello Sport, 26 August 2015.
  398. ^ a b Tuttosport, 26 August 2015.
  399. ^ Sportmediaset, 13 December 2018.
  400. ^ Nicolino 2015.
  401. ^ Weatherhill 2018.
  402. ^ Corriere dello Sport, 13 December 2018.
  403. ^ Damascelli 2009.
  404. ^ La Neve 2019.
  405. ^ Tuttosport, 22 September 2008.
  406. ^ Positano News, 9 December 2017.
  407. ^ Sannucci 2003; Oliva 2015.
  408. ^, 16 October 2013.
  409. ^, 6 November 2014.<