The Furious Aurelio

❗This is the English version of the post - L'Aurelio furioso -, originally published in Italian in the ITALY community

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to yet another Italian-style mess, one of those that have unmistakably characterized these nearly ten years of disastrous Gravina management. This time, the federal short circuit has involved Napoli and Aurelio De Laurentiis, which, despite being considered one of the best-managed clubs from an accounting standpoint, found itself at the beginning of the year facing a surprising transfer market ban.

The decision was taken due to the breach of the ICLA (Extended Labor Cost Indicator), an economic parameter established by the FIGC a couple of seasons ago which essentially prevents those who violate it from operating on the transfer market, unless they do so at break-even (purchases must be offset by sales).

Napoli has formally exceeded the maximum allowed threshold of 0.8, meaning that the cost of all personnel exceeds 80% of the club’s revenues, triggering the ban. The measure was introduced to avoid financially problematic situations, improve balance sheets, and push clubs to better manage their resources.

In other words, it is an attempt to make the football system more sustainable, as also requested by UEFA within the Financial Sustainability Regulations. In this regard, liquidity reserves were excluded from the indicator, as they may derive from an occasional sale and do not necessarily represent prudent financial management. And this is exactly where the dispute arises.

Over the years, the Neapolitan club has accumulated solid capital reserves, the result of work done in previous seasons to always keep the balance sheet in order. Aurelio De Laurentiis requested, during an emergency meeting convened by the League, that funds set aside over the years also be included in the indicator, in order to significantly improve the ICLA ratio and allow operations in the January transfer window.

During the meeting held in recent days, fifteen Serie A clubs voted in favor of the amendment, but Inter, Juventus, and Roma abstained, while Milan alone declared itself firmly opposed.

_{AC Milan President Paolo Scaroni. Government.ru, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons}

Despite obtaining an overwhelming majority, the League sent the amendment request to the FIGC, which, however, was unable to ratify the proposal. According to federal advisers, the risks were too high that the clubs opposed during the vote might later appeal, with unpredictable consequences.

In short, without written clearance from all four “rebels” — Inter, Juventus, Milan, and Roma — nothing will happen. And since the clubs in question do not appear at all inclined to grant it, Napoli’s January transfer market must still be considered at zero balance.

The real issue at stake is not so much the merit of the request, but the timing. If it seems absurd to prevent a club with adequate financial resources from operating on the market, it is equally true that the rule has existed since the 2023–24 season and has already affected major clubs in the past such as Lazio, Roma, and Sampdoria.

Changing it mid-season has rightly seemed wrong to everyone (even though it did not seem so in 2001, when the rules on foreign players were effectively changed to avoid the relegation of several clubs following the fake passport scandal), and the anger of Aurelio De Laurentiis has had little impact.

This time it seems that the administrators of Italian football, usually very inclined to accommodate the whims of the Neapolitan president (and to keep him out of trouble when needed), cannot patch things up. If Napoli wants to satisfy Conte’s requests, it will first have to offload players such as Lucca and Noa Lang, and it will not be easy.

After all, the Manzi, Liguori, and Palmieri cards have already been played, and champions like that are born roughly once every 33 years.