clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Report: Judge rejects initial requests made by prosecutors in Prisma investigation

An important step in the off-field drama.

If you buy something from an SB Nation link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

FBL-ITA-SERIEA-JUVENTUS-INTER-HEALTH-VIRUS Photo by VINCENZO PINTO/AFP via Getty Images

Over the last two weeks since Juventus’ board of directors abruptly resigned out of nowhere, there has been a whole lot written about what is going on in Turin. We know the reason why they stepped down is because of the ongoing investigation into Juve’s financial activities and just how potentially wrong they might have been.

The investigation, being run by the Turin Prosecutor’s Office,

According to Tuttosport on Sunday, the judge for the preliminary investigation into Juventus, Ludovico Morello, has rejected initial requests made by prosecutors. This, by no means, is not a total acquittal of Juventus — which has yet to give their defense following the allegations laid out by the Turin Prosecutor’s Office — but at the very least it is a step in the right direction after so much has been thrown out there over the last two weeks that has painted those involved in a pretty terrible light.

The judge points to three reasons as to why these requests can be rejected:

  1. The use of capital gains and how it has become such a common practice within the game today, thus suggesting that Juventus has not done anything criminally wrong.
  2. Juventus’ management is very much aware of the consequences of the investigation and previously had a clean record.
  3. Juventus cut salaries as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and if there was no once-in-a-century health crisis then Juve wouldn’t have been forced to act accordingly.

Now, we know Point 1 is pretty much the 100% truth since there have been a handful of other Serie A clubs who have been accused of the exact same thing Juve has when it comes to plusvalenza dealings. (Hi, Napoli.) The same can be said for Point 3 because there was a direct cause for Juventus to take that kind of action when it came to players’ salaries during the first few months of the pandemic.

It’s Point 2 that can — and probably will — be twisted in a way that many will make assumptions about the legitimacy of. Did Juventus know what they were doing? How closely were they acting within the limits or how much did they try to push the lines? What about the moves they made prior to the pandemic that are under investigation when the club’s finances weren’t so dire?

There’s still a long way to go in this, but this does seem like a win for Juventus in the sense that there needs to be a lot proven right in the court rather than just big headlines in the Italian media.