Talk:Calciopoli

UPDATE NEEDED
Sorry to put this further on top, but considering the latest development of the criminal court case and the wide range of debate in Italy the article should be updated. I am going to try to do it, but it's a lot of stuff. Further most of the article should be rewritten considering the 1st grade sentences (convicting most of the defendants): it includes references to other investigations who have nothing to do with the case and is not very clear on facts. Gp37 09:16, 14 Dec 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
With Serie A? I think we should.. I'll do it later if noone objects.--Nissi Kim 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on merging or deleting articles until the matter has some satisfactory conclusion; a merger could make Serie A article large and unwieldy. Having a seperate article would be easier for people wanting information on the scandal. Perhaps a redirect would be a compromise that might be satisfactory for everybody.

smr 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)user:smrgeog
 * I have removed this suggestion in line with the overwhelming consensus on the Serie A article's talk page. Calsicol 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move from Italian Soccer Match Fixing Scandal
I have been old and moved this page, as some suggested in the AfD. Complaints? -- Filliam H Muffman 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Udinese?
Isn't Udinese Calcio involved? CapPixel 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No 2001:B07:645B:A5C0:7538:45A2:55F4:86AA (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Gambling/Match Fixing scandal independent events?
I read a BBC report previously saying that the illegal gambling scandal is seperate from the actual match fixing scandal... I haven't been able to access the report since (I think i'll post it later if i can find it) but if this is true then any information on the gambling scandal should ideally be placed on a separate page. Sanbuster 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposal: Move scandal article to 2006 Italian professional football scandal asap. It's more accurate, and more inclusive of the different related accusations. Disagree with merger with Serie A article. The scandal is about football clubs AC Milan, Fiorentina, Juventus, and Lazio being involved in match fixing. If these clubs are found guilty, they would be demoted to Serie B/C and perhaps will not be allowed to participate in international matches as punishment (ex. UEFA Champions League). Serie A article is about the league (rules, qualification, winners, etc), not the 4 individual clubs who happen to be in Serie A. So really, this is not a Serie A scandal, but a nitty gritty investigation on Italian professional football. . :) --Noypi380 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The gambling and the match-fixing might be related, because the gamblers were only after the money, and matches had to be fixed so the gamblers would actually get the money. Here's how it might work: Scott Gall 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) A gambler down on his luck decides to bet whatever he still has on a match. He bets for the underdogs of the tournament in question (in this example, we will call them the Cleveland Steamers.)
 * 2) The gambler doesn't realise his mistake until too late (the Steamers only having a .005%, or 1 in 20000, chance of winning,) but decides to profit from it by rigging the match in favor of the Steamers.
 * 3) The gambler, disguised as a selector, appoints a referee from Cleveland 48 hours before the match. He also gives the starting eleven on the Steamers' side some steroids, the brand chosen is one which doesn't show up in urine tests.
 * 4) Now let's say that the gambler bet $10000 on the match, which, unbeknownst to the rest of the world, is now fixed in favor of the Steamers. When the Steamers win 25-0, the gambler is very lucky indeed, seeing as he just won two hundred million dollars. And a bad reputation.

Name of Article
I suggest that this article be renamed "2006 Calciopoli Scandal" as this is its official name and in so, would be far more accurate, especially considering this is what the Italian press are calling it. Niall123 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's calciopoli? Conscious 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically means Football Scandal. While Football Scandal Scandal doesn't sound right, this is what most of the English speaking media are calling it.  212.120.129.230 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most English speakers will not understand and never have heard the term calciopoli.
 * This is the English Wikipedia and is more likely to be understood by the English lot. The redirect is right, though.  x42bn6  Talk 07:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the re-naming proposal. The scandal is widely referred to as the Calciopoli in the international football community, encluding English media. English speaking persons must realise that the English Wikipedia is not only used by English or other native English speakers. I strongly disagree with the idea that most English speakers don't know what Calciopoli is. I would argue that the vast majority with the slightest interest in football (or currrent affairs in general) knows what it is. I think the article should be re-named but may be redirected from "2006 Serie A scandal" - a term I've never seen before. One have to ask if the article is written for English people without interest in football or for English speaking people with at least some interest in football. Sebisthlm 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. "calciopoli" generates 1,010,000 hits and "2006 serie a scandal" generates 2,190 hits on Google

Why did Juventus received a harsher treatment?
Why AC Milan weren't relegated to Serie B, for example.

Juve were right in the centre of the scandal. The main culprits, if you like. Ross-1, 14 July, 2006


 * Ditto. Even the prosecution recognized this, since they requested less harsh punishments for Milan, Lazio and Fiorentina. The original requests were:
 * Serie B demotion for Milan, Lazio and Fiorentina, Serie C1 or lower demotion for Juventus.
 * 6 points deducted from Juventus, 3 points deducted from Milan, and 15 points deducted from both Fiorentina and Lazio.
 * It's interesting to note that the teams were sentenced to less harsh punishments than the prosecution had requested. Whitetigah 09:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Four teams implicated in match-fixing, but there are only three relegation spots. Perhaps the judges deemed AC Milan's participation in the scandal to be the least of the four clubs.


 * That is not how it works. Had all four been deemed guilty of enough towarrent relegation then the next best team from Serie B would have been promoted instead  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.104.65 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Champions
What's the situation with the seria A championship? If Juve have been stripped of them, who were the champions, or has that not been decided yet? Th ε Halo Θ 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume it would be going to the team that ends up with the highest point total once all this is sorted out. I haven't heard anything official on it yet, however.--Dreaded Walrus 11:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Serie A is going to have an *odd* look about it next season with no Lazio or Juventus. It'd be like the Prem with no Man U and Liverpool.

Can Juve overcome the 30 point deduction and still gain promotion back to A for next year? I think its possible, one things for certain, if they can hold onto most of their best players, they and Lazio should piss Serie B, points deductions notwithstanding.

The Serie B teams must be dancing with delight; no problem getting a couple of sellouts next season! And the 3 teams spared relegation from A can't be too unhappy either. Martyn Smith 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are too many variables to consider to work out what will happen next season. Whether they will get rid of their players or not depends on money coming in, and money coming in depends on attendances, whether sponsorship deals e.t.c. will be cancelled (Which may require compensation anyway). The player wages have got to be astronomical at Juventus, even compared to Serie A clubs. If they do take the gamble and force all their players to stay for their contract lengths, they will be hoping that they can get promoted for sure, because players like Viera most be on over £100,000 a week, surely? If they get rid of their players, however, then there is more of a chance that they won't be promoted in that season, and possibly in the season afterwards as well. It's too much to accurately predict, especially if one has no strong knowledge of Serie A, and/or the total wage bill of these teams. You can be rest assured that teams like Chelsea, Barca and Real Madrid will be getting their scouts over there soonish though. --Dreaded Walrus 12:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I imagine with a minimum of two years of no European play for the relegated teams, which is very lucrative, when they normally can expect it almost every year normally, will add to other issues (less tv money, possible sponsorship issues, probably less turnout for games) and no doubt some of the players will want to leave for a variety of reasons, it would be hard to see how they won't be parting with a number of their players. 81.129.0.53 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As an AC Milan fan (go the Rossoneri), I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out ;) I wonder though, if players do leave the religated sides, how many will want to stay in italy? It would be great to see someone like Buffon in the premiership, but I doubt that they'll all want to leave. I'm a big fan of Alessandro Del Piero, but having always (more or less) played for Juve, and is their captain, I don't think he'll leave. It certainly will be interesting this summer...Th ε Halo Θ 17:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Serie B promotion
So we know the three teams that were originally slated for relegation are to be retained. That much is intuitive. However, it may be nice to add something on who has earned promotion from Serie B, if that hasn't already been covered (I just skimmed). I know it's easy enough to look up, but still, I think it's important, if only to underscore how odd Sr. A will be next season.--Coryma 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" comment deleted. Editorializing. --Coryma 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is getting promoted? That should be mentioned. it says some teams won't be getting demoted, but that still leaves three vacancies, right? --Awiseman 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm getting at. *shrugs* --Coryma 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Atalanta and Catania have already been promoted, I can't find who won the 3rd place playoff. --Squilibob 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I found it, it is Torino F.C. --Squilibob 07:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Sucks for Juve. Juve get relegated and a club from their town get promoted to A. It'll be interesting to see if TFC can benefit from this. --Coryma 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

telecom scandal???
Telecom Italia interception scandal has nothing to do with Calciopoli. In general this page has been "kidnapped" by Juventus fans putting their partial version of the Scandal and their opinions instead of facts.

difficult to understand
I don't know anything about football (or any other sport), but i clicked the link on the front page to see what was going on... and i still have no idea. Maybe i'm just really stupid about sports, but this seems WAY too football- or maybe Italy-centric. I have absolutely no clue what's going on, i don't understand who any of these people are or what they did or what happened to them, even after skimming through some of the related articles (like the one for 'relegation').

I dunno, maybe it's just completely beyond me, but it seems like it really needs to, you know, be made easier for the lay person to understand. If at all possible.

--Lav-chan 10:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lav-chan, it is quite confusing. --Devin
 * What parts in particular? We will attempt to clean it up. --Awiseman 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the 'Sentences' section could be made clearer. Maybe a short description about the implication of what the sentences mean would do. --FearedInLasVegas 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's kind of hard to point something out specifically since i really know nothing about it but i'll try.


 * Firstly i didn't understand the implications of the punishment. Like what does 'relegation' mean in practice? I realise there's an article explaining relegation but a little one- or two-sentence explanation of what this actually means for the team specifically would go a long way. I also don't understand the point deduction. Points from what? I'm sure that must be obvious to someone who follows football, but as far as i can tell there isn't even a reference (like to another article) about what 'points' they're talking about.


 * It also would be nice if what they were doing wrong was more clear (if that information is available yet). I understand what match-fixing is, at least, but a more detailed explanation would be nice. Was it only by appointing referees, or did they do something else? Why would the referees matter that much anyway? As someone who doesn't know anything about football it isn't clear to me how referees could fix matches except in a few extreme cases. That might belong in a different article, though, i don't know.


 * Other stuff: Why would it matter if games went on while the Pope was sick ('Allegations' section)? Who was responsible for what? (Were all the individuals who were banned from football just gambling, or were they involved in the other stuff? And what was each team investigated for, specifically?) Were all these scandals completely independent of each other? (e.g., were all the teams doing illegal stuff without the knowledge of other teams?) --Lav-chan 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about "points," I clarified that in the beginning of the article. As for match-fixing and refrees, I think that's pretty self explanatory - it says they tried to get favorable refs, as refs in all sports have a lot of power - they can penalize players on one team more than others, award penalty kicks to one team, kick players out etc. The "Other Stuff" I don't know - anyone? --Awiseman 04:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding refs i might just be dumber about sports than i thought. I had assumed that refs really only come into the picture in relatively rare circumstances, like when you're not sure if the ball touched the line or you're not sure if the guy touched the base or whatever. I figured the vast majority of situations were pretty clear and free from (potential) subjectivity, but i guess not. All the more reason not to watch sports i suppose. :( --Lav-chan 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In soccer in particular, the refs do a lot, though mostly what they do is not make calls, if that makes sense. There is lots of bumping and such, and a crooked ref could really hurt one team by calling fouls on them when a normal ref wouldn't. --Awiseman 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that in sports, especially in Italy, referees are a very good way to explain your defeats. It's far better than to say plainly that you made mistakes... --Amtitti 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Differing severity of sentences
Why the differing severity of the sentences? I know Juve were the main culprits, but what caused Milan to be not relegated, while the other two teams were demoted? Is there an explanation for this (with references)? - Master Of Ninja 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The more visceral part of football
There is some discussion here of the possible effects of the scandal in the longer term on the teams, i.e. loss of good players, loss of international play etc. But what effect will it have on the fan base? What does the average fan think of what is happening and what are they likely to do? This article is very factual but it doesn't get much into the visceral part of football, the alliegances (sp?) to various teams and how it affects what people feel and talk about at the pub or whatever. Sports is about a lot of things but it is especially about feelings and identity. This article may not be intended to go it that, that's fine, but some of the contributors on this page do get into it in the comments, and it would be interesting to see someone take a crack at it. I certainly couldn't do it. Ingvar 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging consequences
I think the consequences and further consequences should be merged. Initially, I came here to see if the 3 bottom Serie A teams would remain, or if there would be 6 teams promoted from Serie B. I actually read the consequences section, and because I didn't scroll down, I just left the article. Is there any good reason why they shouldn't be merged? Regards --Ade1982 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AC Milan
All the punishments that were given are roughly the same for three teams. AC Milan was only docked points, an explanation for this could be of interest to visitors to the page.

player movement section
Is this section needed? Hidetoshi Nakata's retirement probably had little to do with this scandal. The section makes it seem like Milan is loaning out Massimo Donati to Atalanta because there penalty is forcing that on them. When it's probably more accurate that he's being loaned out because he's simply not good enough to crack the Milan roster. I can understand some of the bigger moves being listed - the four Juve players basically. But a player leaving on a free transfer isn't important to the scandal. --Bigdottawa 07:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cristobal David?
Cristobal David is not mentioned in the «full sentence»-link. I've only browsed the 154-page sentence in Italian from gazzetta.it, but I don't think he's mentioned there either. Here is the relevant edit, the only one from this IP. I have removed Cristobal from the list. Zigkill 10:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cristobal David's warning was overturned on appeal. 68.38.127.175 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lower Division
"The club with the most points at the end of the season is the league champion, while the last few teams (the number depending on the league rules) are relegated to a lower division - in Serie A's case, the last three teams." Wrong... they are usually the last four teams. "To join Serie A again, the relegated teams must play a season in Serie B and finish third or better" Wrong again... fourth or better.


 * You are wrong, they changed the promotion system. Before it was the bottom 3 plus a fourth via playoffs against the 4th. Now the Serie A changed it. --Soopafred 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Updating the article
The punishments have been lowered and some parts of the article need to be updated. what happens to the bottom three clubs of serie A now? Do the bottom two now get (re)relegated?

Can anyone comfirm that AC Milan has a champions league spot? I haven't seen anything saying the do have a spot. Kingjeff 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Check this out, from the official UEFA website, it practically confirms Milan's participation in next season's Champions League third qualifying round. -- 23:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Ross1

I saw the article before. But I still don't think it comfirms anything. I think we should wait till tommorow when UEFA announces which 4 teams are in from Italy. Not participating in champions league still might be a punishment despite the reduction in the penalty for milan. Kingjeff 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Juventus is placed in last spot of classification. So Messina, best between the teams relegated from A to B, remains in A (for the time being, at least). --badpazzword 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Final?
Not at all. There are still


 * Corte di Riconciliazione (Reconciliation Court, IIRC)
 * TAR del Lazio (Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio)
 * Corte d'Appello Federale (Federal Appaeal Court, IIRC)

IIRC = Names likely to be slightly wrong.

Lazio and Juventus, being stocked companies, will need to get through all of them (unless they don't want to get sued by stock owners) --81.75.133.81 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC), after login --badpazzword 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know we cannot include opinion in Wikipedia pages, but...
This "punishment" is a joke. These teams cheated, plain and simple. I say disband the teams permanently, take all the money in their coffers, and split it evenly amongst the other Serie A teams. The actual non-punishment makes Italian football a laughing stock. But, this is not new territory. In 1982 (last time Italy won the World Cup), there was a huge match fixing scandal and all of the guilty parties were PARDONED because they won. It's still obvious to me that Italian Sporting Authorities have no interest in punishing the guilty parties. Now, only Juventus is relegated? They will be back in Serie A in one season. Some punishment.

It's a sad day in the football world. Italian Authorities and FIFA had a chance to make a statement and both failed to do so.

TheKurgan 14:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the truth is that Lazio, Fiorentina and Milan didn't really do much and their punishment is actually being seen as being excessively harsh. The British media on the other hand don't think this due to vested interests in seeing the further promotion of the Premier League. If you actually look at the case against the 3 clubs, a 30 point deduction in 2005-06 seems excessively harsh. Quite a few match fixing scandals have happened in the last few years.  The Hans Segers - Bruce Grobbelaar - John Fashanu match fixing scandal, the Marseille 1993 affair and the German match fixing scandal of last year.  In all cases, the British media went far easier on each than in the present Serie A scandal. Niall123 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Juventus have gone beyond FIGC and are going to have their appeal heard by CONI (Italian Olympic Committee) on August 18. Lazio will do that as well. So will individuals like Moggi, Galliani, Giraudo, etc. Meanwhile Reggina is now being indicted as part of the second wave of the Calciopoli investigation. This is going to be fun! 124.184.135.76 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should rename the columns in the table to 'initial punishment' and 'post-appeal punishment'. The Reggina punishments should be in the 'initial' column, as (I believe) they are going to appeal. -- Wantok 08:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter how much they participated. The original decision was justified. Milan wasn't punished at all. Kingjeff 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Juve is a big thing, as a fanatical supporter of my club myself, if I found out they had cheated, I would want those responsible punished, not the club. Disbanding clubs on the grounds of a couple of seasons out of the hundreds of years of history is desperately excessive, and would lead to a lot of talent leaving the country, if all four of the clubs were disbanded, no doubt over £150million of talent would leave the country, this would result in a poorer showing in continental competitions, resulting in a drop in advertising revenue for italian football clubs, equating to overall lost turnover for italian clubs and the federation, and if to cover the losses, the clubs sold players, this could snowball, and so even if they get a one-off payment, italian clubs are not rich on the same terms as english clubs. They have no rules regarding expulsion from the league or relagation due to administration, so they often stray into the red to fork out for a few players. Basically disbanding clubs hurts football, and hurts people, and could (possibly) lead to severe drops in quality of the game. Philc  TECI 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What was largely misunderstood about Calciopoli is that no game has avere been fixed or rigged. Only one referee was sentenced and only for one game in which anyhow no evidence of influence was found. What was sentenced was a network of unclear relation between Italian Federation and teams (all teams, not only the one involved because of interceptions). I don't know if this is more serious than match fixing or not but please take into account that this is completely a different issue. --Amtitti 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile mundo (talk • contribs)

Shevchenko
Surely he shouldn't be included in the subsequent transfers bit? He was gone long before the rulings. HornetMike 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But at that time already investigating. Matt86hk  talk  02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The name of the section is "Player movements from the affected clubs since the ruling" not "Player movements from the affected clubs during the investigation". Shevchenko left before the rulings, not since.  I'm removing him from that list. --Billdorr 07:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He publicly stated his reasons for moving were family related anyway (his american wife wanted their kid to grow up in an english speaking country). Philc  TECI 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Serie B scandals
Genoa C.F.C. reglated to Serie C1 should include in the section "Origins". And should A.C. Arezzo included into section? Matt86hk  talk  13:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Definately not. Completely different scandal with a different setup.  The Genoa scandal involved the Genoa owner paying another team to throw a match at the end of the season so that Genoa would get promoted.  This article deals with influencing the choice of referees and linesmen in Serie A matches. Niall123 13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything to do with arezzo and genoa on wikipedia, is there an article on that? I think there should be a mention of it here, or a link to the corresponding article. It should also get a mention on the Serie B article.Sam Hayes 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffon
"The Italian national team and Juventus goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon is also under investigation for illegally betting on football match(es)."

Is he still under investigation, or is this just something that hasn't been updated since June? Bigdottawa 04:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Games behind closed doors
What does it mean when one team is to hold a certain number of their home games (in Juventus's case, three) "behind closed doors?" Does this mean nobody's allowed to attend? Scott Gall 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. --Amtitti 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bergamo's accusation
I recovered the sentence "Former refereeing designator Paolo Bergamo claimed later than many more clubs should’ve been punished in the Calciopoli scandal – including Inter" (that was removed by an unknown user) and its references and I integrated it in the previous paragraph. Probably the article should be entirely rewritten but in my opinion it would be better to wait for some more development in the story. --Amtitti 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AC Milan barred from UEFA Champions League?
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round=2361/match=300099/report=rp.html

Yeah they were really banned there.

I do remember hearing something that they did have to play a 3rd Round Qualifier against Red Star Belgrade Xatticus

SOS!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry if I'm putting this everywhere, but it's a major issue!! First off, it shouldn't be titled "2006 Serie A scandal"...it should be "2006 Italian football scandal"!!!! Lots of teams in Serie B were involved in this; Pescara and Triestina were penalized by a point and Arezzo was to be sent in Serie C1, but then it was penalized by 6 points and kept in Serie B. Is this stuff even in the article?? PLEASE, have a look at the italian version!!!! Udonknome (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

2006 Serie A scandal → 2006 Italian football scandal — Lots of teams in Serie B were involved in this; Pescara and Triestina were penalized by a point and Arezzo was to be sent in Serie C1, but then it was penalized by 6 points and kept in Serie B. Have a look at the italian version —Udonknome (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

 * I would prefer Italian football match-fixing scandal. I do not think there is a need for "2006" (unless there is another Italian match-fixing scandal article?) and in Google News I find 2980 for "match-fixing scandal" juventus and 66 for "betting scandal" juventus. Other similar searches using "Italian", "Serie A", or something else instead of Juventus shows "match-fixing" to be more common descriptor. Zuiver jo (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as in fact there are 2 other articles relating to match-fixing scandals in Italy. See Totonero 1980 and Totonero 1986. Though I think Italian football match-fixing scandal would be the appropriate disambiguation page. Udonknome (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Juventus players involved in Calciopoli
There is no source or link stating that the certain Juventus players, such as Del Piero, Nedved, and Trezegeut were involved, therefore, the sentence was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.192.16.1 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Della Valle
Andrea Della Valle banned? Why he still became ACF president? Matthew_hk  t  c  23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is hopelessly outdated
Based on the evidence coming out in the trial in Napoli, this article needs a complete rewrite. Also, the SIM card thing was discredited long ago. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's difficult to find information in english, we need someone who speaks italian to do some translation and updating 68.100.214.173 (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Currency
Some of the fines listed are shown just in sterling and not in euros. It would be more accurate to show the actual euro ammount fined instead of a conversion to British pounds. If there is a reason to show alternate currency ammounts, then this should probably be listed after the original euro ammount, maybe in brackets. Unfortunately, the reference for the fines is the BBC and they only show the ammount in pounds, but if anyone knows of a reference that shows the actual fine ammount could they add it 87.112.35.86 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-01_1017261.html
 * In 2006 Italian football scandal on 2011-05-26 02:06:06, 404 Not found
 * In 2006 Italian football scandal on 2011-06-13 18:38:05, 404 Not found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldFootballNews&storyID=2006-06-27T144042Z_01_L27826816_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-SOCCER-ITALY-SCANDAL.XML
 * In 2006 Italian football scandal on 2011-05-26 02:06:27, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
 * In 2006 Italian football scandal on 2011-06-13 18:38:34, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mXORBIHjO80J:www.playthegame.org/News/U
 * In 2006 Italian football scandal on 2011-05-26 02:06:27, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
 * In 2006 Italian football scandal on 2011-06-13 18:39:04, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What did these teams/people actually do wrong?
As someone reading this article with no prior knowledge of the scandal, I'm left with no idea what actually happened. There's heaps of information on the punishments and how things were uncovered and the aftermath - but the entire description of what the teams did wrong is one brief sentence: "The teams have been accused of rigging games by selecting favourable referees." And I don't really know what that means. This article needs a new subsection, located at the start, which clearly explains who was doing what, what rules it broke, how it influenced results etc. Aspirex (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Badly written
This page is very badly written and seems like it was written by someone who has English as a second language. The grammar is of a very low standard and some parts do not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.42.252.4 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Calciopoli
This template is about match fixing ("as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law") not about corruption in association football which could well include this case at least. 2006 Italian football scandal has ZERO match fixing cases according 2 of 2 sentences in the sporting trial (2006) and 3 of 3 sentences in the ordinary trial (2007-2015), so is completely ridiculous to insist with a fully rejected theory by the Italian justice system (cf. pages 195; 199; 200-202 of the last sentence published to date for more details). This article in it.wiki is more detailed, maybe someone could translate it.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2006 Italian football scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050717001500/http://www.channel4.com:80/sport/football_italia/jul14m.html to http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/jul14m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 Italian football scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820101836/http://www.theworldgame.com.au/home/index.php?pid=st&cid=74227 to http://www.theworldgame.com.au/home/index.php?pid=st&cid=74227
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624011105/http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/07/16/story15710.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/07/16/story15710.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2006 Italian football scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-01_1017261.html
 * Added tag to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldFootballNews&storyID=2006-06-27T144042Z_01_L27826816_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-SOCCER-ITALY-SCANDAL.XML
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715003604/http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2008/0618/juventus.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2008/0618/juventus.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215015602/http://forum.giulemanidallajuve.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1266 to http://forum.giulemanidallajuve.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1266
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718053350/http://english.gazzetta.it/Football/14-12-2009/football-chaos-3-years-for-giraudo-criminal-association-602322087450.shtml to http://english.gazzetta.it/Football/14-12-2009/football-chaos-3-years-for-giraudo-criminal-association-602322087450.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Juventus Serie C1
Here is a reference that says Juventus original punishment was relegation to Serie C1.

Mobile mundo (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's wrong. That was the propost made the accusation side and that at law level is irrelevant due only counts the verdict. According to Italian Sporting Justice, the punishment for a corruption case is the relegation to Serie B for a Serie A club as in 1948 Napoli case, Totonero 1980 (Milan and Lazio), 2005 Genoa case (from Serie B to C), etc.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening paragraph grammar
"Involving various clubs and numerous executives, both from the same clubs and from the main Italian football bodies (AIA [it], FIGC, and LNP), as well as some referees and referee assistants, the scandal was uncovered in May 2006, when a number of telephone tappings showed relations between clubs' executives and referee organizations during the football seasons of 2004–05 and 2005–06, being accused of selecting favourable referees."

This run-on sentence is atrocious and borderline impossible to follow what is trying to be said. 2601:42:801:ED0:D8FC:90C6:334E:1710 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)