Italian Commission Questions Authority to Reform Serie A Financial Metrics

The Italy Independent Commission tasked with monitoring the financial health of professional sports clubs is seeking greater authority to recommend changes to the financial indicators federations use to assess their members. The request emerged during a radio interview where commission president Massimiliano Atelli voiced concerns about the scope of the commission's regulatory mandate.

The Core Issue

Atelli, who chairs the Independent Commission for Verification of Economic and Financial Balance in Professional Sports Companies, raised a straightforward jurisdictional question: Does the commission have authority not just to enforce financial standards, but to propose changes to them?

"The regulation governing our remit is quite broad and clear on some functions, but much less so on the power to recommend changes to the indicators federations adopt," Atelli stated during an interview on Radio CRC's A Pranzo con Chiariello program. "In my view, it would benefit the system to gain clarity on this."

The distinction matters because Italian law grants federations statutory autonomy to set their own financial benchmarks. The commission, operational since October 2025 and replacing the COVISOC as the primary financial watchdog, is tasked with enforcing those standards—not designing them. Atelli's comments signal that the commission believes it should have explicit authority to recommend reforms if existing indicators prove inadequate.

Why This Matters

• The commission will determine which clubs qualify for Serie A and Serie B licenses starting with the 2026/27 season, meaning its decisions could exclude teams unable to meet financial standards.

• If the commission lacks explicit authority to propose indicator changes, it can only flag concerns to federations, which may or may not act on them.

• Current financial standards include the Cost of Labour Allargato (CLA) threshold, which drops to 70% of revenues from the 2026/27 season onward, requiring clubs to spend no more than 70% of revenues on player salaries, transfers, and agent fees.

• The commission's dual mandate is to ensure that all teams finishing a season are the same ones that started it and to guarantee equal rules for all competitors.

The Indicator Problem

Financial indicators serve as distilled snapshots of a club's accounting health. The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) currently uses different metrics for different divisions. For Serie A, the landscape shifted in 2025/26 with the introduction of the Cost of Labour Allargato (CLA) metric, which caps spending on players, coaches, amortization of player rights, and agent commissions at 80% of revenues this season, tightening to 70% from 2026/27.

Atelli's critique centers on whether such indicators capture the full picture of a club's financial viability. "The fundamental question today is whether current indicators truly reflect a club's state of health and verify both virtuous behaviors and those that are less so," he said. "An indicator must be built with sound reasoning, with a clear understanding of all the interests it must serve over the medium to long term."

The underlying concern is that some clubs may appear compliant on paper while engaging in creative accounting or receiving unsustainable ownership injections, while others face penalties for transparent practices that briefly spike certain ratios.

What This Means for Residents

For anyone in Italy who follows professional sports—or cares about the stability of clubs like Napoli, Roma, or Milan—the commission's mandate questions carry practical implications:

• Regulatory efficiency: Clarifying the commission's authority to recommend indicator changes could streamline the process of updating financial standards when deemed necessary.

• Consistent oversight: The commission's primary goal is that teams complete the seasons they start. Accurate financial metrics are essential to that objective, and the commission's role in proposing improvements could strengthen oversight.

• Club stability: While financial regulations cannot prevent poor management or ownership changes, clearer authority for the commission to recommend indicator refinements could improve the system's effectiveness at identifying clubs under genuine financial stress.

• Competitive fairness: Well-designed financial indicators aim to ensure that competitive outcomes reflect merit rather than accounting practices, benefiting both clubs and fans.

International Context

Atelli confirmed that meetings with UEFA representatives are scheduled, indicating Italy's sports financial oversight operates within a broader European framework. The commission also monitors developments in other countries' regulatory approaches, ensuring Italian standards align with international best practices.

The commission approved its 2025 operating budget on December 23, 2025, and has begun full-scale oversight for the 2026/27 licensing cycle. Its seven-member board includes five appointed experts and two ex-officio members: the Director General of the Italy Revenue Agency and the President of INPS, the national social security institute. This composition reflects a whole-of-government approach to sports oversight.

The Path Forward

Atelli's public appeal for "maggiore chiarezza"—greater clarity—amounts to a request for statutory or regulatory clarification that would explicitly empower the commission to propose or mandate indicator changes, rather than simply flag concerns when metrics appear inadequate. Whether such authority will be granted remains to be seen, but the question itself reflects normal governance refinement as a new regulatory body establishes its operational role.

For now, the commission proceeds with its mandate to enforce existing standards while seeking the authority to recommend their improvement.