Conflicting legal opinions on Malagò: Football Federation and Coni disagree on the commissionership

After the four legal opinions requested by CONI, the five requested by the Football Federation arrive. And the conclusions are totally opposite, thus increasing the uncertainty of the vote to which the 16 members of the Council first, and then the entire Council, will be called from 1pm next Tuesday: should Giovanni Malago's FIGC be placed under commissionership or not? While anticipation grows for the meeting called by Coni president Luciano Buonfiglio, "political" phone calls from federation presidents, sponsors and top athletes continue, and further elements of controversy emerge, such as the one concerning Buonfiglio's son and his professional roles in the football field. In this tense climate, between vote counting and battles over who can or cannot participate, the file collected by the Football Federation is also about to arrive on the table of those who will have to decide.

The Football Federation had asked its five experts, including Sabino Cassese and Bernardo Giorgio Mattarella, two questions: whether the membership that Malago' lacked was an "essential requirement" to run for the federal presidency, and whether that lack is a "serious violation" of the Statute such as to lead to commissionership. To the first question, the answer is diametrically opposed to that of the four Coni jurists: membership would not be essential at all, because the real fundamental requirement is the accreditation of one of the members and because membership is not foreseen for the president - claims Cassese -. To the second question - which also did not fall within the scope of evaluation of the Coni jurists - the answer is that there is no "serious violation" capable of justifying the commissioner. For Ruperto, "the admission of Malago to the candidacy and therefore the election cannot be overturned", because those who could have objected (FIGC prosecutor's office or Coni guarantee bodies) did not do so within the established deadlines (7 days). Therefore, Malagò's appointment "is unassailable".

Scoca, Medugno, Coccia and Angeletti, at the request of Coni, had instead been unanimous on the principle that membership was an "essential requirement" and ""the election of a non-member is invalid". Regarding the commissionership, all four, however, attributed to Coni the evaluation of opportunities, "on a technical-juridical basis" and not "political". The same line had already been expressed in recent days by Buonfiglio, who invited the members of the Executive and Council to choose on the basis of right and not "of personal positions", without however having any effect on the hunt for the vote in these hours.

The battle will also be over the admission to the vote of Diana Bianchedi and Elisabet Spina: validation is with the board of auditors, but there is a current of thought that is convinced that the 'autocratic' power should fall to Buonfiglio, assuming he wants to exercise it to the full. In short, more of a political debate than a legal one, even if it could then end up with jurists again: whatever the outcome, there are also the CONI, TAR and Council of State to which, if necessary, appeal.