The dispute over the Italian Football Federation -FIGC- election has acquired a new institutional dimension after Italian National Olympic Committee -CONI- President Luciano Buonfiglio requested clarification of the powers of a commission established by Giovanni Malagò to review presidential candidacies. Malagò, the extraordinary commissioner overseeing the federation, is also seeking its presidency in the election scheduled for 14 December. His rival, Adriano Galliani, has challenged the commission’s legitimacy before the federation’s National Federal Tribunal.
The controversy comes barely a month after CONI placed the FIGC under extraordinary administration on 6 October and appointed Malagò to organise fresh elections. He had previously been elected federation president on 22 June, defeating Giancarlo Abete, before a dispute over his eligibility led to renewed institutional intervention. The commissioner’s mandate requires him to restore elected leadership by 31 January 2027 at the latest. The current challenge therefore concerns the procedure intended to bring that temporary administration to an end.
Administrative support or electoral authority?
According to ‘ANSA’, Buonfiglio wrote to Malagò on 10 November seeking explanations about the commission’s functions, role and powers under the federation’s statutes and regulations. Malagò replied that the body, established on 2 November and coordinated by General Vincenzo Parrinello, existed solely to provide operational support to the general secretariat in checking documentation. He maintained that it had no authority to determine the validity of candidacies. That responsibility remains with FIGC Secretary General Marco Brunelli, with the list of valid candidacies due to be published by 14 November.
Galliani’s challenge, filed on 9 November, questions whether a body appointed by one of the candidates should participate in that scrutiny. His argument concerns both the commission’s statutory basis and the impartiality of the procedure. The federation has opposed the challenge, maintaining that the commission supports rather than replaces the secretary general. The distinction matters: administrative assistance and decision-making authority are different functions, but whether the arrangements comply with the applicable rules remains a question for the tribunal.
Genoa’s endorsement and the nomination threshold
A separate but connected dispute concerns Genoa’s endorsement. The club initially supported Galliani before withdrawing that backing and endorsing Malagò. Galliani nevertheless included the original endorsement in his nomination documents. The issue has practical consequences because Malagò needs eleven endorsements from Serie A clubs for his nomination through the league. Genoa’s support provides the eleventh; without it, he would fall below that threshold. The validity of the endorsement could therefore become a further ground for challenging the admission or exclusion of a candidacy.
The National Federal Tribunal is scheduled to examine the commission dispute on 13 November, one day before the deadline for publishing candidacies. The request for an immediate interim suspension was not granted, but that does not resolve the substantive challenge. Nor would a ruling on the commission necessarily settle every dispute over individual nominations. The immediate procedural question and any subsequent challenge to the accepted candidates are distinct matters, leaving the electoral timetable exposed to further litigation.
Another challenge within Italian football
The uncertainty extends beyond the presidential contest. Francesco Massini’s election as president of the Italian Referees Association -AIA- has also been challenged before the federal tribunal. Sue Ellen Salvatore, a candidate on Carlo Pacifici’s list, is contesting the procedure used at the association’s 10 October assembly, including the calculation of the majority required in the second round. The AIA’s published results recorded 461 votes for Massini, 441 for Pacifici and ten blank ballots. The challenge concerns how those figures should be assessed under the applicable electoral rules; it does not establish that Massini’s election was invalid.
No postponement of the FIGC’s 14 December election has been confirmed. CONI’s request for clarification likewise amounts to scrutiny of the procedure, rather than a finding that the commission acted unlawfully. For the federation, the immediate task is to complete the candidacy process while responding to the pending challenge. The next scheduled steps are the tribunal hearing on 13 November and publication of the candidacies by 14 November, against the outer deadline set by CONI for restoring elected leadership by 31 January.
Last related articles
