Betting, the live penalty in Fagioli shows the way

Seven months without football. Few? At first glance, one may have this feeling: the sentence inflicted on Fagioli, who confessed to having bet on football matches, does not appear severe. This was achieved through plea bargaining, which is a kind of negotiation: the more you give me (information, truth, signs of repentance), the less I give you (disqualification). It is clear that the Juventus midfielder was particularly collaborative with the FIGC Prosecutor’s Office, starting with the first step: the self-report.

the agreement

—

Choices and behaviors appreciated by investigators; attitudes that paved the way towards the agreement. Yet many, perhaps even thinking back to past sentences, were amazed: but isn’t seven months a short time for a football player? A doubt that perhaps also occurred to the person who wrote the sentence, who not surprisingly used a curious terminology, mixing the cards a bit: “Twelve-month disqualification, five of which are commuted to alternative prescriptions.” So the disqualification months are seven, because in the last five he will be able to play; claiming that there are twelve certainly has a different effect.

THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY

—

Fagioli committed what, for sporting justice, is a serious crime: he bet on football matches. The minimum sentence for anyone who behaves like this is a three-year disqualification, which was halved because the plea agreement arrived before the referral; the midfielder’s subsequent moves further reduced the suspension. Among the main aspects that worked in Fagioli’s favor was the fact that he did not focus on the matches of his team, Juventus. We are indeed faced with incorrect behaviour, but without this having influenced the results of the pitch. Fagioli bet because he suffers from gambling addiction: he can’t do it, so he has to pay. However, he was not disloyal towards his club, his teammates, his fans, football lovers in general. In short, he didn’t fix any matches. It is a big, huge difference compared to what happened several times in the past when football encountered clandestine betting, starting with the scandal of 1980. In those cases people’s trust was betrayed, after those events we all looked at the pitch with a hindsight: but will what we see be real or fake? Today, until proven otherwise, this is not the case. There are no crimes, there are no scams.

STREET

—

There is another important reason behind the significant reduction in Fagioli’s disqualification: the fact that we wanted to create a model, to indicate a way. It could have been done with an exemplary, harsh sentence, which would have sounded like a warning to all footballers: whoever makes a mistake like this will pay dearly for it. A different path has been chosen, not a threat but almost an invitation: if someone has made a mistake, admit it, tell everything, free your heart and conscience because you can get out of this nightmare, this illness. The message reached Tonali, who began a journey similar to that of Fagioli. It might be more tiring, but it also allows him to look to a future as a footballer.

Sometimes you don’t need exemplary sentences, but simply examples. The story of Fagioli, a negative model of a footballer who bets, can become a useful reference for those who risk risking their career – and perhaps more – behind a clandestine bookmaker.