Scudetto of the Pistols explained

The journalistic expression ‘Scudetto of the Pistols’ refers to the title of ‘champion of Italy’ conquered by Bologna in the 1924-1925 First Division, the 25th edition of the top level of the Italian men's football championship, as well as, in the broad sense, to the entire season and the numerous controversies that determined its outcome.[1]

The competition, won by Bologna in the national final against Alba Roma, was in fact characterised by a sporting, political and judicial battle that took place during the final of the Northern League (the section of the championship reserved for teams from northern Italy) between Bologna and reigning champions Genoa; this challenge, which lasted for five matches held over eleven weeks, was marked by refereeing disputes, institutional clashes and even acts of violence (the latter inspiring the name by which the Scudetto is popularly known).[2]

Genoa repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the tournament result, which was unfavourable to them,[3] while Bologna always defended its validity.[4]

Background

The 1923-1924 championship

The beginnings of the clash in 1925 between Genoa and Bologna that went down in history as the Scudetto of the Pistols developed during the previous championship, the 1923-1924 First Division.

The two red and blue teams faced each other for the final of the Northern League on 15 June and 22 June 1924, after having reached it in a dramatic manner.[5] In Group A, Genoa indirectly benefited from the Rosetta case, a scandal linked to the transfer of full-back Virginio Rosetta from Pro Vercelli to Juventus: after a long tug-of-war with the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio, the League managed to prevent the official recognition of Rosetta's transfer to Edoardo Agnelli's team, and the Bianconeri's title race was compromised by three games lost for having irregularly fielded the defender.[6] In Group B, however, Bologna overcame Torino by a single point following a defeat suffered by the granata on the field of Spezia, marked by controversy over the unsportsmanlike behaviour of the home crowd; the ‘Toro’ appealed for an automatic victory, but the request was rejected and the score on the field validated.[7]

The first leg match of the final, held in Genoa, was marked by several brawls that broke out in the stands;[8] some spectators even invaded the pitch: among them Giovanni Battista Traverso, a former Genoese footballer and coach of Cremonese, who punched Giuseppe Della Valle, the Bologna captain.[9] [10] The match was decided in favour of the hosts only at the end, with a goal from Ettore Neri, despite the sporting chronicles recognising Bologna's supremacy in the game.[11] Bologna later lodged a complaint against the homologation of the result, which was rejected by the Northern League board on 22 June; Genoa were fined 1,000 lira for the fans' invasion of the pitch, while Traverso was disqualified for four months.[12]

The return match took place in Emilia a week later, on the Sterlino pitch hit by relentless rain. Bologna, as in the first leg, maintained the clear dominance of the match, but Genoa responded promptly on the pitch in the first half, with a counter-attack goal by Santamaria; the scoreline angered the Bologna public.[13] In the first quarter of the second half Bologna managed to equalize with a penalty converted by Pozzi,[13] [14] [15] [16] and in the next thirty minutes the match dragged on convulsively, ravaged by both the downpour and the turbulent behaviour of the fans,[13] to the point that the referee Panzeri from Milan completely lost control of the situation (a chronicle of the next day described him as ‘shipwrecked in a storm’).[17] [18] The match was suspended a few minutes from the end, after some Bologna supporters had attempted another pitch invasion, climbing over the fencing nets:[19] [20] at the beginning the referee justified the decision on the basis of the impracticability of the field due to bad weather conditions, but then confided to reporters that he had taken such a measure because of the intemperance of the home fans, and to have awarded the penalty for the draw only after heavy pressure[21] [22] (in the match report, he explained verbatim that he had ‘purposely granted the penalty kick to Bologna to avoid incidents on the field and in the stands’).[17] [18]

The Lega Nord did not homologate the result (also following Genoa's complaint) and reserved its decision after having questioned the referee.[23] The Lega Council, noting a different and contradictory version in Panzeri's report, in particular ‘on a point of serious technical importance’, gave the Lega presidency, in conjunction with the technical commission, the mandate to further investigate the course of the Bologna match.[24] The affair ended with the Lega Nord council meeting of 16 July, in which Panzeri provided the requested clarifications and Article 15 was applied against Bologna, with the consequent awarding of a 0-2 victory to Genoa due to ‘serious public intemperance’.[25] The Bologna press harshly criticised the work of sporting justice on the occasion of the two finals, accusing the League of having applied a double standard in favour of Genoa and noting alterations in Panzeri's report.[26] [27]

The ‘Grifone’, having thus obtained the title of Northern League champions, faced Savoia of Torre Annunziata in the final in September, after a long wait due to the protracted southern championship. The Campanians put in an excellent performance, becoming the first team from the Southern League to snatch a draw from a northern side; despite this, Genoa prevailed in the two-legged clash (3-1 home win, 1-1 away draw) and won their ninth Italian league title. Savoia complained about an alleged ghost goal scored by Ligurian Daniele Moruzzi in the return match.[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

The 1924-1925 northern group stage

During the first phase of the 1924-1925 First Division championship, the progress of Genoa, the defending champions with the scudetto on their chests, was mixed. It was Modena who took advantage of this, leading the Northern League Group A for long stretches: with two rounds to go, the Emilians were two points ahead of Casale and four ahead of Genoa; the ‘Grifone’, however, had to play two more matches that had been postponed. Two victories would, therefore, have guaranteed the Gialloblù victory in the round or the play-off with the Rossoblù for first place in the event of a tie. On the penultimate day, however, the Emilians collapsed in an away match against Brescia, who were fighting not to be relegated, and the Genoese, who also benefited from the postponement of the last match, overtook them in the standings by a single point, grabbing the qualification to the League final in extremis, thanks to two wins and a draw in the three replay matches against teams that had nothing to play for in the championship (although, according to the chronicles, they fought hard).[34]

According to the Modenese, the reasons that allowed Genoa to postpone the three matches were highly questionable. The match against Pisa on 29 March was postponed by the decision of the referee Trezzi, motivated by the impracticability of the ground due to the torrential rain that had fallen during the morning, although the two teams (who at that time were paired at the top with 23 points) still played a friendly match (won by Genoa 2-1) for the paying public;[35] the match of 5 April against Torino was postponed by order of the Northern League so that Genoa could play a friendly against Nacional of Montevideo; the match of 26 April (last day) against Spezia was postponed for reasons of public order by prefectural order, for the supposed presence in the stands of the Picco of some supporters of Modena who had come to check the regularity of the match, with the consequent danger of incidents.[36]

In group B, the protagonists were Bologna, Pro Vercelli and Juventus. In particular, the duel between the Rossoblù and the Bianconeri was marked by mutual overtaking at the top of the standings. Juventus managed to take the lead by beating their rivals in Turin, but were overtaken at the end of the first leg and then overtaken again when the Emilians took revenge in Bologna. Finally, the Bianconeri missed their last chance for a breakthrough when, five days from the end, they were unable to take advantage of the defeat suffered by Bologna in Alessandria, losing to the third-placed opponents from Vercelli.

The ‘’five finals‘’

The first two matches

Genoa and Bologna faced each other again for the Lega Nord final a year after the previous confrontation, marked by fan intemperance, in which the Ligurians had prevailed, winning one-nil at home in the first leg and two-nil in the return match away. The experienced Ligurians, led on the bench by Englishman William Garbutt (who went down in history for being the first professional coach in Italy),[37] were considered favourites by the press; the Emilians, however, had a very strong attack made up of Bernardo Perin, Angelo Schiavio and captain Giuseppe Della Valle, and were coached by Austrian Hermann Felsner, a proponent of the dictates of the ‘’beautiful game‘’ theorised by the Danubian school of football.[38]

The two teams faced each other for the first of two matches at Bologna's Sterlino Stadium, on 24 May 1925: Genoa took the lead in the second half thanks to goals first from Cesare Alberti and then from Edoardo Catto, while at the end Schiavio scored the consolation goal for Bologna. The following week, in the Marassi Stadium, Bologna took the lead in the first half with a goal from Giuseppe Muzzioli on an assist from Schiavio; in the following half Emilio Santamaria brought the game to a draw, but Genoa, instead of settling for a draw, continued to throw themselves into the attack in search of victory and found themselves exposed, conceding a goal from Della Valle with seven minutes to go. After the match there were public order problems and an attempted aggression by the Genoa fans towards referee Achille Gama, who was rescued by the Carabinieri, the field commissioner and some of the ‘Grifone’ managers.[39]

The non-homologated one-game playoff

A playoff was therefore necessary, set for the following Sunday, 7 June, in Milan. The flow of supporters who flocked to the Lombard capital by trains and special coaches organised by the clubs was so great that it completely filled the stadium where AC Milan were playing, with the crowds thronging to the edge of the pitch. Referee Giovanni Mauro told Enrico Olivetti, president of Lega Nord as well as Inter, that he did not consider the playing conditions regular, and only the latter's insistence persuaded him to start the match.[40] [41] [42] [43] According to the Genoese journalist Renzo Bidone, Mauro had announced his intention to suspend the match if two hundred policemen had not arrived within fifteen minutes of the kick-off whistle, guaranteed to him by the match officials; the alleged pact between the match director and the organisers is not mentioned by other sources, however, and the match continued anyway after the first quarter of an hour despite the arrival of the aforementioned officers not having taken place.[44] In any case, Mauro formally rejected responsibility on Olivetti for what might have happened, even though the two clubs were not informed of the arrangements made.

Genoa took a double lead with Daniele Moruzzi and Alberti and the enthusiastic Ligurian fans invaded the ground several times; nevertheless, the match continued without incident until the sixteenth minute of the second half, when a shot by Bologna's Muzzioli entered the goal defended by Giovanni De Prà in an apparently anomalous way: the referee, in fact, did not award the goal to Bologna, but rather a corner, believing that the ball had actually left the playing area, deflected by the Genoese goalkeeper. The press statements of the time and the posthumous accounts of the protagonists do not clarify what actually happened:[45] [46] part of the reporters agreed that the goal seemed blatant to many spectators and that Mauro could not have perfectly followed the dynamics of Bologna's attack as he was far from the penalty area,[47] [48] [49] [50] while other newspapers defended the action arguing that the fans gathered at the sides of the pitch had probably compromised the regularity of the action, allowing Muzzioli to keep the ball in play while he was in face-to-face with De Prà (Mauro himself explained that he had not seen the ball enter the goal and spoke of ‘inexplicable bounces’); bystanders, moreover, made the situation more confusing by obstructing the journalists' view and moving the ball away after the referee's intervention.[51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Even the opinion of the linesmen Trezzi and Ferro is not completely clear: the majority of sources reported that they were inclined to concede the goal to Bologna, with the sole but relevant exception of the authoritative magazine Guerin Sportivo, which claimed that they were instead in favour of Mauro's decision.

The fact is that Mauro's choice unleashed chaos: numerous supporters of the ‘Veltri’ entered the field encircling the referee and threateningly demanding the granting of the goal. The impasse lasted about fifteen minutes: Mauro, after having tried to interrupt the match by fleeing, renounced his intention after an attempt of violence by a spectator and by request of an unspecified FIGC executive, to whom he reiterated his opinion about the irregularity of the match; finally, after consulting with the linesmen, he decided to go on with the match and to award the goal, even if he did not consider it valid, in order to appease the Emilian supporters. The match resumed and, eight minutes from the end, Bologna equalized with Pozzi: the Genoans protested for some alleged restraints during the action,[56] which were not, however, detected by any reporters of the match.[57] The match continued, interspersed with further pitch invasions, and the Bologna side also scored the 3-2 goal with Della Valle, which was cancelled due to a charge by the Bologna captain on De Prà.[58] Finally, after 112 minutes of play, regulation time ended in a draw.

At that point, however, Genoa refused to play extra time, forcing Mauro to prematurely whistle the end of the match: according to the directors of the ‘Grifone’, Mauro had confirmed to them that he considered the first goal to be irregular, and the Ligurians replied that, as the nullity of the goal was established, they considered themselves winners, therefore the dispute of extra time was unnecessary and liable to ‘equivocal interpretations’.[59] According to De Prà's posthumous testimony, when Bologna's first goal was validated Mauro would have explicitly assured Genoa captain Renzo De Vecchi that the match was to be considered over at that moment at 2-0 in favour of the reigning champions, and that the continuation would simply be pro forma;[45] other Genoa players made similar unofficial statements to the press as they were about to leave Milan,[60] yet official Genoa communications and the account written by De Vecchi years later for the weekly Il Calcio Illustrato rule out the existence of a guarantee given by the referee.[59] [61] After the match, there was also a brawl between the opposing fans at Milano Centrale station.[62] [63]

In the following two weeks the result of the match remained sub iudice, while both Genoa and Bologna appealed for a forfeit victory: the Ligurians by virtue of the forced award of Muzzioli's goal;[59] the Emilians by reason of the failure to play extra time (according to the argument of the Bologna team, the rivals, by forfeiting, had automatically lost any right to complain).[64] The dispute, however, was resolved with a controversial solution. Giovanni Mauro, in fact, had reported the ruling on public order notified to the Federation on the occasion of the match, and resubmitted it during the Lega Nord Council meeting held on 20-21 June. Having taken note of the statement provided by Mauro, and although commenting negatively on the referee's actions, the League decided not to homologate the match, rejected both the Genoese and the Bolognese complaints and decreed that the playoff should be repeated;[65] the Federal Council of 27 June confirmed the previous deliberations and in addition fined the reigning champions for not having continued the match in extra time.[66]

Interviewed by the Guerin Sportivo on 26 June, Mauro explained again that he had invalidated any outcome of the playoff ab initio,[40] but the annulment sentence and the version of facts sustained by the referee from Domodossola were contested by the press, along the lines of the criticism expressed in the Lega's communiqué. In particular, Il Paese Sportivo of Turin and La Gazzetta dello Sport of Milan argued that, although Mauro had claimed that the match was totally irregular, the direction of the match itself had begun in strict accordance with the rules, since the referee had not communicated to the teams his intention to invalidate it, and the sporting legislation in force did not provide for the possibility of annulling a match on the basis of a ruling applied retroactively; it followed that, in accordance with the rules, the match should not have been disallowed and the League should have ruled in favour of one of the teams.[67] [68] [69] According to the retrospective of Giancarlo Rizzoglio, historian of the Genoa Foundation, Mauro would have put the accent on the original problem of the game's atmosphere, and ultimately on the organisational responsibility of the League, rather than on the subsequent events of the field, for the presumable reason that, as an article of the ‘Guerino’ of 18 June would show, he was one of the candidates to assume the presidency of the League; at the same time, the departing president Olivetti is said to have disavowed the match report by claiming that the first half of the match was regular. However, the Guerin Sportivo in those years was famous for being particularly critical of Mauro, so it may not be fully reliable.[70]

The shootout in Turin

On 5 July, the second playoff took place in Turin, in the Corso Marsiglia stadium of Juventus (initially the chosen venue was the Villa Chayes ground in Livorno, later rejected due to insufficient capacity). In the capital of Piedmont, in a practically militarized stadium, it was Bologna who immediately took the lead with Schiavio, but Genoa managed to equalise with Catto: the match ended 1-1 after extra time. There was, however, a serious crime incident at the Porta Nuova station, when the two special trains run by the clubs and taking their respective fans home met: during the ensuing clash, around 20 revolver shots were fired from the Bologna convoy at the Genoa fans, causing two injuries.

While a confrontation broke out between the two clubs to the tune of reciprocal insults in official communiqués, on 11 July, a joint meeting was held between the League and the Federation: the FIGC, after expressing solidarity with Genoa and inviting Bologna to identify the perpetrators of the attack as soon as possible, decided that yet another match would be played on 19 July in Turin, but behind closed doors.[71] The situation, however, became even more complicated, since Agostino D'Adamo, prefect of the province of Turin, did not give his consent to host the match and Bologna's board of directors opposed the federal stance, presenting an agenda in which they complained about alleged instigation by the Genoese on the occasion of the misdeed of Porta Nuova.[72] [73] Consequently, on 18 July, the Federation decided to postpone the new match to a date to be decided, fined Bologna for its insubordination and ordered it to hand over those responsible for the shooting to the authorities by 31 July, under penalty of the application of Article 22 of its Statute, which would have led to the disqualification of the team (as well as a possible suspension) and granted Genoa access to the final.[74]

Bologna and the public opinion close to it, however, rebelled against this measure, denouncing a hypothetical plot hatched against the Felsinei: the Bologna periodical La Voce Sportiva pointed out that of the seven representatives of the federal directorate, which had threatened the club's ouster from the final, four were from Piedmont, three from Liguria and none from Emilia;[75] Bologna's secretary Enrico Sabattini, moreover, declared that the FIGC communiqué recording the minutes of the assembly of 11 July had an untruthful content, designed both to conceal the discussion regarding the provocations of the Genoa fans prior to the shootout in Turin, and to cast a shadow over the firm condemnation of the Petronian club towards the behaviour of its supporters.[76]

For these reasons, on July 20, the Bologna-based association launched an angry protest at Piazza del Nettuno in the Emilia capital with the support of local political authorities. On that occasion, the members' assembly reiterated its belief in the existence of a conspiracy to favor Genoa: the charges laid out were the failure to disqualify Genoa for forfeiting in extra time in Milan, the choice of Turin as the venue for the rematch (which they considered to be non-neutral and favorable to Genoa), and the 15-day wait for the match to be played (which they said was aimed at allowing the reigning champions to recover their strength); the Turin newspaper Il Paese Sportivo stigmatized the Bologna controversy in substance and method, calling it an “exceptional fabrication” as well as describing the statements uttered as “insulting” and the tone used as “clearly offensive.”[77] [78] The conclusion of the session was entrusted to city councilor Galliano, who launched a scathing attack on the FIGC leadership:[79]

This fiery rally was followed by the intervention of Bologna prefect Arturo Bocchini, who, in a statement directed to the Ministry of the Interior, benevolently described the protests as “platonic and enthusiastic” but expressed fear that the federal decision would engender “consequences [...] on public order in other cities on which the Bologna team by virtue of the Federation's deliberation could be deemed excluded from sports competitions.”[79] A general meeting of the Northern League, whose leadership (Olivetti at the head) had in the meantime resigned en bloc because of scandals, was then called in Parma on July 26. During the meeting, through the mediation of Juventus executive Umberto Malvano, Bologna member Sabattini and Genoa representative Lawyer Bianchi agreed on settling the issue of superiority between the two teams on the pitch. Malvano's agenda, which was approved, asked the Federation to suspend sine die the sanctions against the Emilians and to schedule, regardless of the investigation into the Turin incident, the holding of a third playoff match, the fifth overall.[80] On the same day, Lawyer Giuseppe Cavazzana was elected as president of the Northern League, a figure estranged from past deliberations, while Silvio Marengo, a former Genoese footballer as well as a member and delegate of the Ligurian association, became one of the new vice-presidents; until a few days earlier he had been in dispute with Sabattini over the events in Turin.[81] On September 20, however, Olivetti returned to the leadership of the body and Marengo lost his position, while Cavazzana became the head of the newly formed committee of northern clubs of the Third and Fourth Divisions.[82]

Meanwhile, on August 2, ratification of the agreement had taken place by the Federal Council, which had instructed the League to set the date and field of the match, and the representatives of Genoa and Bologna, showing deference to FIGC authority, had solemnly renewed the Parma pact.[83] [84] The provision of an investigation into the Porta Nuova shooting, however, produced no results, and the Bologna attackers were never identified.

The last secret match

In the days following the League assembly, the clubs were told the date and place of the match: on August 9 at 7 a.m., in Turin behind closed doors. Following the repeated prohibition of the prefect of the Piedmontese capital to let the match take place, it was moved to Milan at the last moment: Bologna had reached the Savoy city on Friday the 7th but, informed of the change of schedule, had to leave the next day for Lombardy; Genoa, on the other hand, reached the Milanese city directly on Saturday evening. The chosen playing field, the Vigentino field of the Società Ginnastica Forza e Coraggio, was kept secret from the public to avoid further incidents.[85]

In the preceding weeks, the interruption of the championship had caused both clubs to reduce the intensity of their training, while still holding friendly matches to keep themselves in shape, and thus they had little time to prepare for the match in the best possible way.[86] It was Genoa, however, who apparently suffered the most from the long competitive break: the last match, played in front of very few people present,[87] was easily won 2-0 by the Felsinei (goals by Pozzi and Perin), despite the fact that they had ended the match with 9 men due to the expulsions of Alberto Giordani in the 13th minute of the second half and Giovanni Borgato in the 44th minute.

The Bolognese newspaper Il Resto del Carlino illustrated the match as worse in beauty but more emotional than the one in Turin, due respectively to the anomalous absence of the crowd and the heavy stakes, and identified Bologna's merits in the “cold calculation” with which it had played the match and in the “organicity” of its team play; the Voce Sportiva's concurrent report extolled the superiority highlighted by the winners, although the month-long break in the competition could theoretically facilitate the Genoan squad, more in need of recovering the energy lost during the course of the championship as they had a higher average age in comparison to that of Bologna. Both publications gave, however, credit to Genoa, which, while proving less effective and mobile than usual, had nevertheless tried until the end to turn the unfavorable match situation around.[88] [89]

As far as the Genoa press was concerned, it was the words of Vittorio Pozzo, an eyewitness to the five finals, in an editorial published on 22 August 1925 in Il Calcio, a weekly sports magazine edited by Rino Sacheri, that highlighted Bologna's ultimate success as the better team, both technically and physically:[90]

The Genoese newspaper Il Lavoro also claimed that the tournament was lost by Genoa on May 31, when the Bolognese redeemed themselves from their home defeat in the first leg final by storming the Marassi and forcing the defending champions into the play-offs; he commented that Bologna deservedly won the match because its performance was slightly inferior to the usual one, unlike the Genoans, who stumbled into a very bad day perhaps due to the early rise as well as to the abnormality of the match played at an unusual hour and in a silent environment; he finally added that, in spite of everything, the outcome of the match could have been different if Alberti's shot in the opening match had entered Bologna's goal instead of bouncing luckily off the knee of defender Mario Gianni.[91]

Many years later, however, a backstory emerged that provoked new controversy in relation to the outcome of the Northern League final. The aforementioned Bolognese executive Sabattini declared, in fact, that he had secretly gone to Vigentino, in the company of coach Felsner, on the morning before the final playoff: there, with the complicity of the janitor (who was paid 20 lire for the “disturbance”), the pair could benefit from an inspection of the ground of the imminent match, received the assurance that the Bologna players would use the comfortable locker room reserved for the home team instead of the more cramped one for the away teams (although, the next day, the Emilians arrived at the stadium already in match attire, while the Ligurians took advantage of the Forza e Coraggio rooms), but above all they secured the advantage of using their own game balls, personally inflated by Felsner in such a way as to “favor the victory” of Bologna, instead of those provided for the field. It is unclear whether this last ruse was simply a superstitious gesture or a real trick, since, according to Sabattini, the exchange contrived by the Austrian coach had not made an “appreciable difference” in favor of the Petronians; nonetheless, the fact remains that the ploy went down in history as “the ball deal.”[92]

Between the years 1960 and 1970, in a televised debate between Sabattini and the Genoese goalkeeper De Prà, the defender recounted that the Emilian midfielder Pietro Genovesi had confided the incident to him, explaining to his former rival that the game balls prepared by Felsner were lighter than the norm;[93] the member of the Petronian club replied to the accusation by stating that the infamous balls had always been used in the matches played by the Bologna team over the course of the tournament[94] (although visual evidence showed that the balls used in the match had 12 pentagons, not 18 like those Bologna normally used).[95] In any case, as much as Sabattini's and Felsner's conduct may have been sportingly questionable, it has never been established that the stratagems they implemented irregularly affected the outcome of the fifth match and that there were legal grounds for a disqualification of the Felsinei or for yet another replay of the playoff; moreover, decisions regarding the use of the balls fell under the responsibility of referee Gama, who found no anomalies.

Aftermath

Bologna's triumph

Thus it was that Bologna, at the end of an eleven-week battle with Genoa, achieved the coveted qualification to the national final. The Emilians found themselves up against Alba Roma, the newly crowned champions of central and southern Italy: the green-and-whites had won the Southern League without too much trouble, even though this success was marred by an alleged match-fixing. On the Albini, in fact, weighed the suspicion of having bribed the goalkeeper of Cavese Pasquarelli on the occasion of the direct clash between the two teams in the first leg of the interregional semifinals: the match in question had ended 5-0 for the Romans.[96] [97]

Similarly to the previous finales, the predictions saw Bologna as clear favorites by virtue of the technical gap that the northern formations almost always boasted over the peninsular ones. The first match between the Rossoblù and Alba, played on August 16 at the Sterlino, confirmed this tradition: the Felsinei dominated the match and prevailed 4-0, also taking advantage of the imperfect condition of their opponents, who had not played official matches for over a month in the long wait for the conclusion of the Northern League final.[98] [99]

The return match in Rome was again won by the Bolognese 2-0, despite an underwhelming performance;[100] the Capitoline press, however, complained about two hypothetical refereeing errors against the hosts (a possible offside in the action of the first goal and the failure to concede a phantom goal to Alba at the end of the match).[101] Bologna won, therefore, the first national title in its history, while Genoa failed to grasp the chance to boast its tenth Scudetto. This championship would later be nicknamed in journalistic circles as the Scudetto of the Pistols, in reference to the aforementioned Turin blood events.[1]

Genoa's request for the reassignment of the title

In the decades following these events, various exponents and supporters of Genoa contested the regularity of the play-offs on several occasions, believing that the Northern League had robbed the Ligurian club of a victory by default in the final and that Bologna had benefited from favoritism granted by the Fascist regime. The Genoans, in particular, called this tournament the Theft of the Star, or the badge that has been awarded to Italian teams for every 10 championships won since 1958.[1] Fans and affiliates of Bologna, on the contrary, have always defended the validity of the title won, branding their rivals' assumptions as the fruit of a conspiracy theory and pointing out that the “Grifone” could be the subject of equal claims by the Bolognese themselves, about the disputed events of both 1925 and 1924. Contextually, there have been numerous historical reconstructions aimed at supporting or refuting, as the case may be, the two opposing theses.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, former Genoa mayor Fulvio Cerofolini submitted a parliamentary interpellation to then Minister of Tourism and Entertainment Franco Carraro regarding the Scudetto of the Pistols. However, the promised opening of an investigation file into the circumstances that led Bologna to win the championship fell into oblivion due to the outbreak of the Tangentopoli scandal.[102] In 2008, the British newspaper The Guardian included the third final between Bologna and Genoa in a list of the greatest regulatory misdeeds in football history.[103]

In 2016, the Genoa Foundation expressed its intention to ask the FIGC to revoke the Scudetto from the Emilian team and reassign it to the Genoa club,[102] an intention against which the Bologna supporters' associations reacted by pleading for the legitimacy of the championship.[104] On October 30, 2018, Genoa announced its intention to ask the Federation to evaluate the awarding of the 1925 Scudetto ex aequo with Bologna for the alleged irregularities that occurred during Lega Nord matches, on and off the field;[3] [105] in turn, the Emilian club called the Ligurians' petition based on episodes that were “not substantiated,” as well as a “legal aberration” since it referred to the Lega Nord final and not to the national final.[4] [105]

At the Federal Council meeting on January 30, 2019, Federal President Gabriele Gravina proposed the creation of an ad hoc commission to analyze, with a historical-scientific approach, both Genoa's 1925 Scudetto request and the petitions of Lazio, Bologna, and Torino relating to the 1915 and 1927 championships;[106] the collegial body was established the following May 30, and Matteo Marani, the vice-president of the Football Museum Foundation, was appointed to coordinate the university professors who make it up.[107]

See also

References

  1. Web site: 2 November 2018 . Roberto Gotta . 2 November 2018 . Dalla Lazio ai Pompieri, caccia agli scudetti perduti . Il Giornale.
  2. Web site: 13 September 2019 . Alessandro Bassi . 1 November 2018 . Lo scudetto delle pistole che il Genoa rivuole dal Bologna: ecco come andò . calciomercato.com.
  3. Web site: 1 November 2018 . Marco Liguori . 31 October 2018 . Scudetto 1925: il Genoa chiede alla Figc l'ex aequo col Bologna . Pianeta Genoa 1893.
  4. Web site: 2 November 2018 . 31 October 2018 . Fenucci: "Nessuno getti ombre sulla storia del Bologna" . bolognafc.it.
  5. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,4/articleid,1629_01_1924_0120_0004_24344941/anews,true/ Le Finaliste del Campionato italiano, "La Stampa", 20 maggio 1924, p. 4
  6. .
  7. ‘La Gazzetta dello Sport’, 23 May 1924: F.I.G.C. Official Notice - Meeting of the Executive Board of 17 May 1924 - Complaint Torino F.C. (Spezia - Torino match of 30-3-1924) ‘The Executive Board, having heard the referee of the Spezia-Torino match regarding the various points made by Torino in its complaint; considering that the referee himself confirms that the course and the outcome of the match are to be considered completely regular, although the behaviour of the spectators was, at certain times, deplorable so as to force him to suspend the game to provide three times the appropriate warnings and admonitions; having also heard the Commissioner of the Field who confirms in every part the complaint of the referee; rejects the complaint of Torino F.. C. and confirms the decision of the Northern League; and addresses the most severe and solemn admonition to Spezia F.C. reminding it of its precise duty to take care of the conduct of its team and public. The Pres. of the Board E. Pasteur; the Secretary of the Board Lawyer L. Bianchetti’.
  8. The account of Vittorio Pozzo, correspondent of ‘La Stampa’, 16 June 1924: ‘Yesterday's match was characterised, and I would better say marred, by the state of nervousness to which I alluded above. For the entire duration of the match, the stands, the ‘parterre’, the spectators' seats and the pitch were similar to an electric accumulator charged at very high voltage; every now and then the pressure found vent in punches, bursts here and there in small fatuous fires, fatuous in more than one sense, of insults, nervous outbursts, punches, blows. Frowning faces off the field, impulsive gestures on the field, that's the picture of the environment.’
  9. Bruno Roghi's report, from ‘La Gazzetta dello Sport’, 16 June 1924: ‘Tempers flared in the second half. The crowd was nervous. [...] On the opposite side of the pitch, Della Valle, having got into an argument with a spectator on the pitch, was punched. The hitter was expelled and led out of the enclosure. Regarding which: we do not know the reasons for the disgusting incident. However, we will never get tired of repeating that there is one way to avoid such incidents, which, regardless of their causes, irritate and disgust the serious spectator and inevitably shock the players: to demand, with inexorable firmness, that all outsiders be removed from the inner court enclosure. This is a strict duty of every referee.’
  10. From the original report of the referee, Arturo Bistoletti of Milan: ‘15 June, GENOA. GENOA F.B.C. ONE; BOLOGNA F.B.C. ZERO. 16.30-17.15; 17.25-18.18". "In the second half, while the game was stopped and the ball had to be put back into play from the touchline, the Bologna player Della Valle was punched by a spectator - identified as Mr. TRAVERSO, formerly of Genoa and now, I believe, coach of Cremona FBC.

    This incident originated - Mr. Livraghi, who was present at the unfolding of the events, told me verbatim - from a misunderstanding: A spectator made a few remarks and even apparently insulted Della Valle, who, believing that Traverso, seated beyond the edge of the pitch but inside the net, had been the insulter, insulted him by calling him a coward three times, whereupon Traverso, becoming resentful, then hit Della Valle with his fist. I immediately ordered Traverso and all the other people on the sidelines to leave, which they did immediately, and the game resumed as usual. Della Valle too immediately resumed the game, showing - at least according to my impression - that he was not affected by the incident that had occurred to him. As far as regularity is concerned, I would like to make it known that before the start of the match I gave the order to the officials at the entrance to the pitch that no outsiders, other than the two coaches, should enter the enclosure, which unfortunately did not happen. For my part, I did not consider it necessary - prior to the incident - to suspend the match in order to remove the intruders from the pitch, and this is understandable in football matches, so as not to create, by suspending the game, an atmosphere adverse to my work and thus to the conduct of the match."

  11. The report by Vittorio Pozzo, correspondent for ‘La Stampa’, 16 June 1924: ‘A lucky victory: a victory obtained towards the end of the second half, when everything seemed to point to a draw, and when Bologna had shown in the overall action that they were undoubtedly the best team on the pitch. [...] The second half came, and Bologna continued to prevail. It was a clearer, more constant, and more deserved domination; this time a domination that came directly from the better quality of the Petronian attacking play. Such play at this point was convincing and compelling in everything but the goal-scoring. In the middle of the pitch and right up to the penalty area there was only one team: Bologna.’
  12. ‘La Gazzetta dello Sport’, 24 June 1924: F.I.G.C. Official Notice - Northern League Council meeting, 21/22 June 1924. Genoa - Bologna match of 15 June 1924: ‘The Board having seen the referee's report, having read the complaint of Bologna F.. C., having seen the declarations of the linesman Mr. Livraghi, the player Della Valle and Mr. Traverso regarding the incident that occurred on the Genoa pitch; considering that in this incident there are no grounds for the application of Art. 15 paragraph a) of the Organ Regulations, deliberates to reject the complaint of Bologna F.C. homologating the result of the match as follows: Genoa beats Bologna 1-0. Fine of 1,000 lire to Genoa for allowing strangers to enter the playing area; disqualification of four months as trainer and as player of Mr. G. B. Traverso, guilty of hitting the Bologna player Della Valle. The Lega Nord Secretary Olivetti; the Lega Nord President Baruffini".
  13. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,2/articleid,1629_01_1924_0149A_0002_24873087/ Il Genoa campione della Lega Nord, La Stampa, 23 giugno 1924
  14. ‘La Gazzetta dello Sport’ of 23 June 1924, article by Bruno Roghi: [...] ‘And in the 12th minute Della Valle burst into De Prà's area and slotted past De Vecchi. Two other opponents came towards the Bologna player to close off his shot. Suddenly we saw Della Valle on the ground, probably the victim of a tripping. Panzeri awarded the penalty, which was converted into a goal by Pozzi. [...]
  15. ‘Il Lavoro’ of Genoa, 24 June 1924: [...] ‘In the second half, in the 10th minute, for a foul by Leale on Della Valle, the referee awarded a penalty kick and Pozzi had the chance to equalise’. [...]
  16. ‘Il Calcio’ of Genoa, 28 June 1924: [...] ‘The equaliser was the merit of Pozzi who, at the 12th minute of the second half, converted into a goal a penalty conceded by the referee after two Genoa players in the penalty area had thrown Della Valle to the ground as he was about to shoot on goal’. [...]
  17. https://books.google.it/books?id=rRp3DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=Panseri+di+Milano+arbitro+genoa&source=bl&ots=LYI6sR4ByU&sig=ACfU3U3IylTI_rhmvw6OJYiQFUTUlsypIQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivj67GtpHjAhVNalAKHVElA-s4ChDoATAAegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Panseri%20di%20Milano%20arbitro%20genoa&f=false Luca Baccolini, 1001 storie e curiosità sul grande Bologna che dovresti conoscere, 89. Un naufrago in tempesta
  18. .
  19. ‘Il Piccolo di Genova’ of 23 June 1924, article by Renzo Bidone: "[...] An event of particular importance had occurred just moments before Panzeri made his much-discussed decision: some of the most excited Bolognese had climbed over the net separating the spectators from the players, attempting to invade the pitch."
  20. “Corriere della Sera” of June 23, 1924, [...] “We have reason to believe, however, that this is not the official version adopted in order to avoid incidents, and that indeed the referee suspended the game because of the state of mind of the public, where there were numerous agitated people, some of whom had even managed to break into the playing field.”
  21. “La Gazzetta dello Sport” of June 23, 1924, article by Bruno Roghi: [...] “We were able at a late hour to speak with referee Panzeri. Asked about the reason why he had thought of suspending the match, Panzeri openly declared to us that he had ended the match given his own abnormal state of mind as a result of the public's intemperance.”
  22. “Il Piccolo di Genova” of June 23, 1924, article by Renzo Bidone: [...] “We have learned from a reliable source that referee Panzeri in the report he will present to the Northern League, about the match played yesterday at Sterlino, will state that he had to concede the penalty kick against Genoa under pressure from outsiders and that he had only conducted the match, which he considered from that moment on to be virtually over, to avoid possible incidents.”
  23. “La Gazzetta dello Sport,” July 4, 1924: F.I.G.C. Northern League council meeting, July 2, 1924. Final match of Division I Bologna - Genoa on June 22, 1924. - “Any decision regarding the match is referred to the League Council.”
  24. “La Gazzetta dello Sport,” July 15, 1924: F.I.G.C. Official communiqué - Northern League council meeting, July 12, 1924. Bologna - Genoa match of June 22, 1924. - “Noting a contradiction in the various reports of the Referee over a point of serious technical importance, we are unable to make a final decision. Therefore, we mandate the Presidency of the League to question the referee in cooperation with the CT in order to obtain a precise clarification, and entrust the Presidency itself with the task of then deciding with full powers on everything concerning the match in question following the directives already indicated for this purpose by the Council. The decisions of the Presidency should therefore be considered as previously ratified by the Council. Secretary L.N. Olivetti; President L.N. Baruffini."
  25. “La Gazzetta dello Sport,” July 18, 1924: F.I.G.C. Official communiqué - Northern League council meeting, July 16, 1924. Bologna - Genoa match of June 22, 1924. - “The Presidency of the League having heard, in conjunction with the C.T., the further statements made by the referee in clarification of the point in his reports found to be inaccurate and contradictory to the League Council: taking into consideration the new statements made by the linesmen; seeing that from the referee's reports it emerges that the match could not have a regular course due to serious public intemperance; judges, in relation to the directives for this purpose set by the League Council, that, in application of Art. 15 paragraph a) of the Organ Regulations, the victory shall be awarded to Genoa F.C. 2-0. Bologna F.C. shall be fined 500 lire, limiting the punishment to this in consideration of the fact that the Bologna officials took excellent care to avoid incidents. Secretary L.N. Olivetti; President L.N. Baruffini."
  26. Article from “La Voce Sportiva” of Bologna, July 10, 1924: “FOOT-BALL - The kicks of... Pirein” - ”How many Bolognese on Sunday morning anxiously open the newspaper, look for the expected news, and feel bitter disappointment? There are still many naive souls who hope for the serenity of the helmsmen steering the federal boat, for the justice of decisions that are always affected by the hour in which they are made. And once more we shall hear cursing, the harmless strides will be thrown that will bounce off the hard epidermis, and then oblivion, this great leveler of all injustice. He who has had it, has had it, and good night to the musicians. And the music, once more will be the responsibility of the red-blue team. It's been three weeks, that a referee who we don't know whether he was incompetent, fearful or worse, suspended with six minutes to go, a game that due to the weather conditions, should not have started, and still today we don't know whether it was interrupted, due to the impracticability of the ground, or due to the hypothetical pitch invasion. And the judgment is deferred by Herod to Pilate, and in the meantime the players are kept on the warpath, in a state of mind not easily described, all the while that, eager for rest and coolness as they are, one can imagine the show of good play they will give if called upon to play a final, which could not even, end in nothing. No one is a prophet in the land and we will not be the ones to anticipate events. But it is easy to see that the method of double standards adopted by federal leaders on more than one occasion and still in vogue has in our case a new confirmation: an example is the Traverso case. An imbecile, I transcribe the words of Crema [Cremascoli, a Genoese journalist of the Guerin Sportivo, ed.], a friend of Traverso's, is in the playing field where, by regulation no one should be. One fine moment this nice fellow gets angry and delivers a jab at Della Valle. The latter for ten good minutes goes off into dreamland. And the referee? He brings his bouncing belly to the scene of the incident and finds nothing better than to try to send off Traverso, who, having smelled the treacherous wind, had already melted away. The decision came, very quickly, a week, the agreement was perfect; a suspension to Traverso to be served during a period in which no football is played, and a fine to the host club, a drop of water removed from a full vase. And of the impaired physical capacity of the affected player, with the related lower performance of the team and consequent distorted result, who took that into account? At Sterlino, a spectator shook the net perhaps a little too strongly, the referee, who certainly must not be an Achilles, got scared, suspended the game, and the Northern League board, three weeks later, has still failed to give us its enlightened judgment. The sports journos keep quiet. Bologna? Poof. Negligeable quantity."
  27. Article from “La Voce Sportiva” of Bologna, July 24, 1924: “The metamorphosis of a relationship” - “The deliberation of the Northern League Presidency by which, applying Article 15, the victory which was given to Genoa 2-0 deserves a brief comment. The great mass of the public unaware of the background immediately asked a logical question: 'did it really take 25 days, three meetings of the Presidency, one meeting of the Council to take such a deliberation?' The question is more than justified. In the reasons for this delay lies the whole secret of the devious maneuver staged to target Bologna F. C. The 25 days represent in fact the time taken in cleverly twisting the report of referee Panzeri in favor of the Genoan thesis, and through four different versions. And here are, without comment, the four successive versions. The 1st report said roughly as follows: “The match is to be considered irregular from the beginning because the impracticability of the ground did not allow it to take place. I (i.e.: Panzeri) had it carried out only as a result of the lively insistence of the two captains. In the 2nd report this sentence is confirmed in full.” In the 3rd report, however, drafted by a member of the Technical Committee and only countersigned by Panzeri, things begin to get tangled: “The ground was uneven at first, but as time went on and the rain decreased (the match ended in a downpour) it became even: this was also thanks to the scattered sawdust (two bags of it!) and to the permeability (if there is an impermeable football field, it is precisely that of the Sterlino) of the ground itself.” In the 4th report the long-awaited “clarification” came: “the ground was even at the beginning and was so until the end of the match.” This was the genesis of the arbitration report. The signalmen were also heard twice and probably their depositions also underwent the same metamorphosis. In regard to the signalmen it will be good indeed to do a little retrospective history. On the Wednesday preceding the Bologna-Genoa match, as usual, the Technical Committee met and the latter gave a specific assignment to one of its members (Dr. Bellini of Padua) to arrange for two referees from the Veneto region to be sent to Bologna to act as signalmen. Dr. Bellini carried out the assignment. Meanwhile, after many refusals, after much hesitancy Mr. Panzeri was designated to direct the match, who accepted the assignment but refused the two signalmen already designated and demanded to bring with him two of his own. Mr. Bianchi, Secretary of the C.T., yielded to the imposition and so Panzeri left for Bologna with his two cronies who went by the names of Sessa and Crivelli. [...] It should then be added that the two Venetian signalmen also arrived in Bologna, who had not been given advance notice of their substitution, and who had to be content to follow the match from the top of the grandstand! Any comment is superfluous and useless. From these all too clear facts the environment, the methods and the people in charge of the direction of the football business in Italy is placed in its true light. But it would be vain and puerile to protest or to be scandalized by the way the Northern League and the Technical Commission proceed (of the former is vice-president and of the latter Mr. Marengo of Genoa is president): all honest sportsmen of Italy have long since judged. Of the same opinion as them is even the President of the Northern League himself, lawyer Baruffini, who, sickened by the methods in use, has decided to leave office. Too bad he realized it a little late: still on time, though!".
  28. “La Gazzetta dello Sport” of September 8, 1924: “In the 26th minute Genoa scores the first goal on a high shot by Moruzzi. The ball bounces under the crossbar. Visciano picks up the ball with his hands, it escapes him and touches the ground a few inches inside the net."
  29. “Corriere della Sera” of Sept. 8, 1924: “The Neapolitan goalkeeper was put to a good test, but he could not prevent Catto in the 33rd minute from scoring the goal for the red and blues with a strong shot.”
  30. “Il Lavoro,” Sept. 9, 1924: “In a subsequent Genoese attack in the 26th minute Moruzzi picked up a weak Visciano save and tossed the ball into the net.”
  31. https://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ABAS0084736_46161&mode=all&teca=MagTeca+-+ICCU&fulltext=1 "La Basilicata" del 9 settembre 1924
  32. http://digiteca.bsmc.it/m/bigimg.php?img=http://teca.bsmc.it/pub/images/materiale_a_stampa/periodico/Mezzogiorno(Il)/CFI0358434_1924_00216/CFI0358434_1924_00216_002.jpg&asset=1 Il Mezzogiorno del 9 settembre 1924
  33. Web site: 3 December 2021 . 7 September 2021 . ll piccolo Savoia che contende lo scudetto ai campioni del Genoa .
  34. http://www.magliarossonera.it/img192425/uff83_1925.jpg La Gazzetta dello Sport of May 4, 1925 (Genoa b. Pisa 2-1):
  35. http://www.magliarossonera.it/img192425/uff79_1925.jpg La Gazzetta dello Sport del 30 marzo 1925
  36. From “Modena F.C. 1912-2012 - The Beauty of a Hundred Years”: “The standings that day said: Modena 29, Casale 27, Genoa, Internazionale and Pisa 25, with Genoa having as many as 3 matches to catch up on, against Pisa, Torino and Spezia. The Genoans needed only 5 points against unmotivated opponents to overcome Modena and reach the final. 5 points that were obtained (2-1 over Pisa, 1-0 win in La Spezia and 0-0 home draw against Toro) and it was a scandal. It was a scandal starting from the reasons that allowed Genoa to postpone the 3 matches: the first one to be postponed was the one against Pisa on March 29: officially it was postponed due to flooding of the field, too bad that the two teams (which at the time were paired at the top with 23 points) still played a friendly match for the paying public. The second, against Toro on April 5, was postponed by dispensation of the Northern League so that Genoa could play a friendly against Nacional Montevideo. The third, as mentioned, for reasons of public order, by order of the prefect, according to some because in the stands of the Picco there were also some Modenese who had come to check the regularity of the match and thus resulting in the danger of incidents. There was nothing to say, someone had good connections, someone did not."
  37. Web site: 13 June 2020 . Lorenzo Damiani . William Garbutt, il primo di tutti i mister . contropiede.ilgiornale.it.
  38. Web site: 13 June 2020 . Sergio Rizzo . FELSNER, Hermann . treccani.it.
  39. Article from “Il Lavoro” of Genoa, June 2, 1925: "The title of Italian champion is still up for grabs after the second final. Bologna won at Marassi with a score of 2 to 1": "Towards the end of the game, the crowd, which was pressed against the metal fence behind the Bologna goal, pressed so hard against it that it toppled forward. It was a strange sight to see more than a hundred people propped up on the grate, one on top of the other, struggling to get up. Thanks to the quick intervention of the Carabinieri and the Genoa managers, the crowd was pushed back and the fence was raised. [...] At the end of the game, a group of troublemakers, angered by the referee's behavior, tried to assault him as he was retiring to the dressing room. The immediate intervention of the Marassi commissioner Dr. D'Alò, assisted by some Carabinieri and Genoa officials, was able to avert the danger of more serious incidents".
  40. Testimony of Giovanni Mauro, referee of the match, Turin's “Guerin Sportivo,” June 26, 1925, page 2: “INTERVIEW WITH MAURO [...] THE REFEREE'S REPORT [...] I had stated from the beginning that I considered it impossible for the game to be played regularly, and I influenced the outcome - whatever it was - before it began. I was asked to lead the beginning. I formally declined the responsibility to Olivetti, with whom I spoke, and the match began. After the game, at about 7:30 p.m., I found myself walking down Lombardy Avenue. It was logical that the prodigy of the Northern League organization would want the poor devil who had refereed to make a mistake. I get home at 8:15. I take a bath, smoke a cigarette, and write the report. At half past nine I finished it and waited for the arrival of Mr. Zappa and Mr. De Martino, journalists whom I had asked to come at that hour to see the report. This is exactly what happened: after I read the report to my two colleagues, I sealed it in an envelope and gave it to the League for safekeeping. Then I had dinner. My mental recapitulation followed: "Report: made immediately after the game with the conclusion of forfeiture for general irregularities.
  41. The account of Bruno Roghi, correspondent of “Il Mondo,” June 9, 1925: "The game was clearly ruined by the organization. The crowd had flooded the Milan stadium in an avalanche, as happens in international matches. The Northern League certainly did not expect such a flood, and its unequal organization was suddenly overwhelmed. Not to mention the journalists, who could not find even the shadow of a reserved seat; the concession of access to the field for anyone with a press card created an edifying Babylon with a final attack on the stands. Our colleagues who had come from outside were enchanted by this friendly reception. As for the spectators, fed up with the neck-breaking, they climbed over the fences by the thousands and positioned themselves in double hedges around the white lines of the field. I believed that referee Lawyer Mauro would not start the game. I remembered what had happened in Antwerp at the Olympic final between Belgium and Czechoslovakia, and the inappropriateness of starting the game seemed glaringly obvious. Mauro started the game with dozens of spectators crowded on the sides and behind the nets, obscuring the view. In these conditions, the episode occurred that would lead to a long interruption of the game and probably to Genoa's withdrawal after the two halves of normal time".
  42. The chronicle of the “Gazzetta dello Sport”: “[Mauro] expressed a preliminary ruling on the regularity of the match, if the square placed between the metal nets was not cleared of the thousands of people who had crowded there [... ] The referee decided to start the match only under pressure from the organizers and in view of the certain damage that would have resulted to the Federation from the postponement of the match, and more so out of fear that the fact would provoke tumultuous and serious demonstrations by the public largely made up of people from afar."
  43. The chronicle of the “Paese Sportivo”: “[...] For us, the match was regular from the moment that it was thought appropriate to start it; but the attitude of the referee and the withdrawal of Genoa make us suspect that the Northern League championship is not yet over [...] Any other referee, including Mauro, if he had found himself in similar conditions in any league match would not have brought the game to life. But today, for the most important match, they wanted to be less strict, admitting in a way we would not say too lightly, but certainly too comfortably the case of force majeure.”
  44. Renzo Bidone's chronicle in “”Genoa 80th: 1893-1973“”: “Lawyer Mauro called the captains: he told De Vecchi and Della Valle that he was well aware that the conditions were not regular, but nevertheless he would start the match, because the managers in charge of the organization had promised him the imminent arrival of two hundred officers. Mauro made a commitment that after a quarter of an hour, if the officers did not arrive, he would suspend the match.”
  45. Statement by Genoa goalkeeper Giovanni De Prà: “Muzzioli's escape, with a final shot from a few meters, which I barely managed to deflect into the corner. Mauro's whistle granted Bologna the corner kick. At this point the huge crowd thronged inside the playing enclosure, just behind the lines, invading the field. The crowd included a few bigwigs from the Federation, such as Leandro Arpinati, at the head of the Bologna fans, and Mauro, tossed around and threatened, after a long and useless discussion, conceded the goal to quell the tumult, not without having warned our captain De Vecchi to consider the match over at that moment, and urged him to bring it to a close to avoid more incidents."
  46. Statement by Bologna center forward Angelo Schiavio, from “La Gazzetta dello Sport Illustrata,” September 29, 1979: “A lot has been said.... There has always been a lot of talk, they have brought up political stories, and even the story of revolt to undermine the validity of our success, which instead was completely legitimate and deserved. They won the first game at Sterlino (2-1) and we won the second in Genoa (2-1). It became necessary to play the third game in Milan, on the Viale Lombardia field. Two special trains followed us (45 lire all in all), but the Genovese were also numerous. The crowd climbed over the fences and sat along the lines: referee Mauro would have liked to postpone the game but all hell would have broken loose. We scored two goals in the first half and threw ourselves all forward in the second half scoring with Muzzioli. The Genoans protested violently, asserting that the ball had come in from the outside; poor De Prà even made a hole in the net to corroborate that claim."
  47. The account of Bruno Roghi, correspondent of the “Mondo,” June 9, 1925: “In the second half, Bologna, far from slacking off and defending, counterattacked with extreme vivacity and, after a quarter of an hour, scored the first goal thanks to Muzzioli. The players were hugging each other deliriously happy, and after a few seconds De Prà collected the ball in his goal. But the referee who was heading toward the net at that time waved his arm in denial and pointed his finger toward the corner. Goal? Corner? Did the ball perhaps come off the goal line? In the corner of the stand where I stood, opinions were divided. By my own account I had seen Muzzioli's shot, decisive and powerful, I had seen De Prà stooping to pick up the ball in the net, I had not seen the lightning trajectory of the ball. The hundred or so spectators glued around De Prà's net prevented me from exactly seeing the sequence of events in this episode. However, it is my impression that Mauro did not convey with his gesture the reality of the situation. Long complaints. The crowd, in its immense majority, shows discipline and waits for the events. Mauro gives some sign that he wants to throw everything away. Ten minutes pass and, as is natural, opinions, discussions, predictions intermingle. Eventually having questioned the linesmen, Mauro puts the ball back in the center and restarts the match. The Genoans do not indulge in protests."
  48. The chronicle of the “Piccolo” of Trieste, June 8, 1925 (evening edition): “Bologna's first goal came, the one that was to give rise to the incident. From his normal position Bologna's left winger cut inside, leaving Bellini behind, and moved up to within a few yards of the goal and shot hard and low from there. De Prà touched but did not manage to hold onto the ball, which penetrated the net by half a meter. Shouts of joy, the whistle of the referee who with an energetic gesture points to the corner kick. Bolognese protests. Players surround the referee arguing heatedly. Numerous spectators invade the field. The referee turns his back on them and walks off as if intending to leave. The linesmen intervene and on their statements concede the goal. All of this takes exactly a quarter of an hour.”
  49. The chronicle of “Prealpina Sportiva”: "[...] We are at the moment of Bologna's first goal: Muzzioli, in the second half, with impetuous action, goes past Barbieri with speed, tightens under De Prà's goal; he is alone, his teammates are too far back; with lightning intuition he squeezes in the middle, goes to the extreme limit and unleashes a powerful shot from two meters. De Prà jumps over the ball with a feline leap, but it is useless; the goal is scored. The crowd is on its feet in a roar of passion that lasts for a long time; it is the 16th minute. Here a tragic note enters the passionate drama of the souls in pain of the fans. The referee, in a first drastic decision, cancels the goal. It was despair, anger and grief that caused a frenzied uproar that could have been heard in Bologna and Genoa. The referee Mauro, who was not close to the action, did not see the goal and seems to have had the impression that the goal was irregular because it was provoked by the presence of the crowd pushing the back line of the field. It's 13 minutes of passion for the thousands of Bolognese present; finally, after consulting the two linesmen, Terri and Frezzi, the goal is conceded".
  50. “Corriere dello Sport” reports: “Della Valle passes to Muzzioli, the brave winger sprints past two direct opponents, squeezes in on goal, scores. Enthusiasm, hugs. But Mauro does not concede the goal. The Bolognese and Milanese audience screams. The referee, who is not sure why he wanted to concede a corner, after several minutes of discussion with the players decides to question the signalmen, who both consider the goal valid. Play resumes after 13 minutes of interruption."
  51. News: 17 October 2019 . 8 June 1925 . La Stampa . La burrascosa e controversa partita di Milano .
  52. The chronicle of “Avanti!”, June 9, 1925: “[...] At the second half, however, Bologna attacked and after several chances on the 16th the most important incident of the day occurred. A ball shot by Muzzioli gives the impression that it went into the goal, but the crowd all tightened around the net, preventing a proper view of the action especially as an unknown foot chased the ball away on the goal line. The referee cancels the goal causing a tremendous chorus of protests. After questioning the linesmen he goes back on the decision he made and concedes the goal.”
  53. The “Gazzetta dello Sport” report: “In the 16th minute Muzzioli moves close to the goal and shoots from distance. We see a gesture of desperation by Della Valle, while De Prà remains stunned and other Bologna players embrace Muzzioli. Is it a goal or not? The ball is in the net, but the crowd near the goal riots and some show that the net has been dislodged and torn. Mauro hints for the corner to be taken, but it is tight on all sides. Players and spectators crowd around him. After two attempts to leave the field, the referee decides to have the ball put in. Play resumes after 14' of stoppage time [...] Regarding Muzzioli's much-discussed goal, lawyer Mauro told us that he did not see it go in. The ball bounced inexplicably. However, he, the referee, did not see it enter the goal, and he would not have conceded the goal even behind the lineman's affirmative opinion. Bearing in mind his ruling on the irregularity of the match, he conceded the goal claimed by the spectators who had invaded the field, and did not suspend the match out of deference to a person who was part of the federal presidency who begged him to bring the match to a close.”
  54. The “Paese Sportivo" chronicle: ’The referee at first did not concede the goal. A tumultuous rally was formed around De Prà's goal in which at one point the crowd thronged around the goal with an attempted breakout. To us, of course, could not reach the words exchanged by the contending parties in the heated discussion, but they must not have been too polite because at one point the referee walked toward the exit of the field. Since the incident had broken out under the goal located on the opposite side of the exit, Mauro had to cross the entire field to get to the locker room. When the referee arrived with the retinue of shouting and gesticulating players in the middle of the field, one person from the crowd made the act of rushing at him to hit him. The offending supporter was stopped in time but Mauro must have judged it appropriate not to continue on his way. Stopping then, still surrounded by the players, he consulted with the two signalmen and after new heated discussions conceded the goal. It should be noted that in denying the goal the referee had hinted with the gesture that the ball be taken into the corner, and during the entire discussion a soldier there held it waiting for the corner kick to be taken [...] The referee, speaking with some journalists after the match, claimed that he had not seen the goal and that he had conceded it only after the favorable opinion of the two signalmen. We have already said that at first he had denied the goal, hinting with his outstretched arm at the corner. He had therefore seen correctly."
  55. The “Giornale di Genova” reports: “A run down the left by Bologna, culminated by a shot by Baldi, is frustrated by a splendid save by De Prà who sends the ball over the goal line. But a spectator knocks the ball back into play, which, picked up by Muzzioli, is propelled into the Genoa net. Bologna supporters claim the goal. Lawyer Mauro at first opposes granting the goal with blatant signs of denial. A sensational crescendo of public protests. The suspension of play goes on for a long time. Lawyer Mauro after 15' of interruption, validates the goal [...] This scene exploded in the resumption at the first opportunity provided by the referee's denial of the action already described, with obvious detriment on the decisions that Mauro had to make on the matter. In fact, he denied that the goal had been scored, and conceded it only after a quarter of an hour of violent discussions reverting - we do not know whether deliberately or not - his first decision. Mauro immediately denied that the famous goal had been scored. He denied it adamantly and repeatedly.”
  56. Statement by Genoa captain Renzo De Vecchi: “Schiavio scored the goal while Pozzi held our goalkeeper by the jersey [note that De Vecchi confuses the author of the goal with the one allegedly responsible for the foul, ed.]: the goal was conceded and the equalizer achieved by Bologna.”
  57. The chronicle in “La Gazzetta dello Sport,” June 8, 1925: “Genoa defends with its usual precision. Its midfielders show signs of fatigue while battling well. The Bellini - De Vecchi barrier remains firm. Which, however, is beaten by a breakaway by Muzzioli who centers low to the ground. Pozzi collects it within a few passes and scores the equalizer in the 37th minute.”
  58. Renzo Bidone, “Il Piccolo” of Genoa - June 8, 1925: “For a few minutes the match continued with alternating events and with dangerous moments for both goals until the 50th minute in which Bologna reached the equalizer following a new breakaway by Muzzioli and subsequent shot by Della Valle that De Prà parried but not in such a way as to prevent Perin who had come running to collect the ball and score. In the 60th minute this action was repeated and ended with a new goal by Della Valle but the referee annulled the goal due to a foul by the Bologna captain on De Prà who lay on the ground bruised causing a new five-minute suspension of play.”
  59. From “La Gazzetta dello Sport,” June 9, 1925: Deep impression in Genoa - Genoa F.C.'s complaint “The news about the course and outcome of the championship final has produced a very painful impression in the Genoese milieu [...] After the many trepidations, the lively comments of Sunday evening, this morning's newspapers have gone wild among the crowd eager to know from the critics' judgment the true course of the match and above all the real reasons that prompted Genoa's conduct. The decision not to return to the field for extra time had been taken by the [Genoa] managers in full agreement with captain De Vecchi - whose equilibrium and sporting serenity everyone knows and admires - and constitutes the most tranquilizing guarantee of the thoughtfulness of the gesture, in any case to better clarify the situation in the face of some more or less interested opinion, we wanted to take information directly from the Genoa club that allows us to expose the Genoese point of view on the subject of the unfortunate match and the team's withdrawal. Genoa categorically refutes the first Bolognese goal, in which some anonymous member of the public thronged behind the net and allegedly introduced the ball into it after De Prà had deflected it into the corner. Genoa referred to and recalled in this regard the decision of the referee who did not concede the goal until after long hesitation and pressure from the crowd. When the referee was questioned at the end of the game by the Genoa officials, he, again according to Genoa, reconfirmed his decision, that is, that the goal was invalid: which was why the officials themselves, including the team captain, clearly stated their point of view, that is, that since the invalidity of a goal had been established they considered themselves winners, which was why it was unnecessary for them to play the extra time. They also added that they did not intend to re-enter the field even under reserve so as not to give rise to equivocal interpretations. Genoa also protested briskly against the audience's demeanor and the play of the Bolognese. All this forms the basis of the very widespread complaint filed by the Ligurian club with the federal bodies."
  60. The “Paese Sportivo” chronicle: “It was then noted that if it was Mauro's intention to have the match cancelled, he could very well have walked off the field at the end of the two regular times [...] Gama [Mauro's colleague] questioned after the match said, ‘I have the impression that the match ended after Bologna's first goal.’ One recalls in this regard a circular of the AIA already criticized at the time. It could be that Mauro saw the reassuring faces of some of the supporters, sensed the atmosphere and conceded the goal with the intention of having the game annulled. [...] But the Red and Blue [of Genoa] came off the field too happy and smiling to suggest that they had been beaten. They gave the impression of being confident. Back at the station, some of the players confessed that they had not returned to the pitch because the referee had assured them that the game would be abandoned anyway."
  61. Account of the Genoa captain Renzo De Vecchi in the magazine “Il Calcio Illustrato”: “When the normal time was over, the referee called us back, after sending us back to the locker room, for the playing of extra time, to which, however, Genoa refused. I remember being criticized for that decision, which in agreement with the manager on the field I thought it my duty to follow, but to this day I still believe that I acted justly and with seriousness toward my team, because it could not be considered absolutely regular, and therefore deserving of continuation, a match played under such conditions and spoiled by such a singular episode. This was, of course, Genoa's argument, set out in the complaint submitted to the Federation; and we also demanded that we be awarded a win in the match, since the famous decision had affected our conduct; Bologna, on the other hand, complained, claiming that our refusal to play extra time amounted to a withdrawal, resulting in the award of the title to Bologna. But Lega Nord and the Federal Council, as we shall see later, did not concede the win to either of us.”
  62. Phonogram. Milan, 7/6/1925 midnight. Originating from Central Police Headquarters. Claudio transmits. Sabattini receives. Mr. Prefect. MILAN No. 3873: “This evening, about 2,000 sportsmen left on special trains for Bologna and Genoa, having arrived here this morning to take part in the football competition at the Viale Lombardia sports ground. At the normal time of departure for Genoa at 8.45 p.m., a group of sportsmen who had been on the special train for Bologna boarded the said train for Genoa and, after a lively discussion about today's competition, some of the said group got into a fistfight with other sportsmen on the Genoa train. The prompt intervention of these officers and some railway soldiers prevented further incidents."
  63. “Guerin Sportivo,” June 11, 1925, page 5: “Even if they had deliberately combined them to cause an accident, they could not have made the 'special trains' from Genoa and Bologna arrive more simultaneously than they did last Sunday in Milan. In the morning, at about eleven o'clock, these convoys arrived at the station almost at the same time, and in the evening "bis in idem". As it happened, the first quarrels broke out as soon as they arrived, because the supporters of Bologna had written insults against the Genoese on the carriages of their two trains, and the Genoese (ah, telepathy!) had written the same insults against their opponents in chalk. Each side accused the other and demanded that the other's writing be erased, but no one wanted to take on the role of provocateur, especially as the outcome of the match was uncertain. In the evening, after an unlucky day - especially for the "Northern League" and the referee - the two "specials" and the "normal" for Bologna, and the "special" and the "normal" for Genoa, stood side by side in the station, with no more than a metre between these cages of lunatics, not enough to avoid any short circuits. The logical consequence: a lot of verbal abuse, fights, fistfights, revolver displays, a few arrests.... If nothing really serious happened, it was certainly not the fault of the political or sporting authorities, neither of whom had thought that the inevitable could happen among those three thousand exaggerated "fans"...”
  64. From “La Gazzetta dello Sport,” June 10, 1925: What they say in Bologna: "Bologna has given its returning champions from Milan the warmest and most enthusiastic welcome [...] Naturally, the commentary around the Milan match is lively, and in Bologna it can even be said that there is nothing else to talk about [...] In the Bologna 'entourage' it is stated that the validity of Muzioli's goal is indisputable: the two linesmen and most of the crowd were witnesses to it. The "forfeit" of Genoa is considered to be of fundamental importance. According to the Bologna team, if a team withdraws, it loses the right to compete. The news that Genoa had claimed the title doubled the number of comments and intensified the debate. However, the decisions of the federal authorities are being awaited with calm confidence."
  65. From “La Gazzetta dello Sport” of June 23, 1925: F.I.G.C. Official Communiqué - Northern League Council - Session of June 20-21, 1925. Genoa - Bologna match of June 7, '25. - “The Council of the League, on the basis of the precise statements made by the referee both in his report and in his subsequent explanations, confirms that the match must be considered irregular due to the serious conditions of the atmosphere and the constant partial invasion of the field on which it was played, conditions which have been getting worse and worse since the start of the match; considering that the match could have taken a very different course if the referee had refused to start the match before the pitch had been completely cleared, despite the explicit and precise invitation that should have been sent to the captains of the two teams and the managers of the two clubs; decides not to homologate the match in question and orders that it be replayed on 5 July at the ground of U. S. Livorno. Finally, it refrains from taking any action against the Genoa team, which left the pitch when the referee returned to it at the start of extra time: this was due to the particular, unpredictable and, at that moment, irreparable conditions of the atmosphere. The chairman of the meeting was the lawyer Giorgio Campi.”
  66. From “La Gazzetta dello Sport” of July 2, 1925: F.I.G.C. Official Communiqué - Federal Council Meeting - Turin - June 27, 1925. - “4. Complaints: ‘Bologna F.C.’ and ‘Genoa F.C.’ (“Bologna - Genoa” match played in Milan on June 7, '25. The Federal Council having examined the complaints made by “Bologna F.C.” and “Genoa F.C.” against the resolution of the Northern League Council of June 20, 1925; having heard the President of the Northern League, the representative of “Bologna F.C.” and the referee of the match; in the absence of the representative of “Genoa F.C. ” duly invited; considering that from the referee's report, verbally confirmed in all its parts, it appeared that the match was not conducted in a regular manner and that indeed the irregularities of it subsequently increased so that it was precluded to the referee, by his formal and explicit declaration, the possibility of fulfilling his task; Resolves: a) to confirm the decision of Lega Nord as regards the annulment of the aforementioned match; b) to impose on ‘Genoa F.C.’ the fine of 1,000 (one thousand) lire to be paid by July 4, for the act of indiscipline committed by its own team for failing to appear on the field for the start of extra time; c) considering that the U.S. Livorno field does not have sufficient capacity for the foreseeable turnout of spectators; noting that the competing clubs concerned have made explicit declarations in this regard; d) orders that the match must be repeated in Turin on July 6 at 4:30 p.m. on the field of “Juventus F.C.”. The organization will be taken care of by the Northern League Presidency in agreement with the Federal Executive Committee. Accordingly, it rejects the claims made by the plaintiff clubs by forfeiting the relevant fees. In view of the special circumstances in which the clubs: "Bologna F.C." and "Genoa F.C." found themselves for the replay of the match, the Federal Council decides, exceptionally, to pay each of them a percentage of 20% of the net profit. The Federal Council also decides to allocate a percentage of 20 per cent to sports organisations which it will designate at a future meeting. Secretary General Vogliotti. President Bozino".
  67. The analysis of the “Paese Sportivo” (June 11, 1925): “[...] It seems that he [Mauro] intends rather to appeal to the ruling made before the match, but we have already said that it cannot be sufficient by itself to cancel the outcome of the match. On the other hand, there is the withdrawal of Genoa that clarifies the situation. De Vecchi would not have withdrawn his men if he had to rely solely on Mauro's interference. He was then able to rely on some far more precise statement, a statement that cannot be but that of the nullity of the goal [...] Here one falls under the precise provisions of Article 18 [... ] It is clear, therefore, that the referee by conceding the goal, albeit after consultation with the signalmen, and at the same time giving De Vecchi assurance that the goal would not be valid, came implicitly to declare that he had conceded it under pressure from the crowd [...] undoubtedly the referee's uncertain attitude further complicated a situation that was already not very clear. We are of the opinion that the match cannot be annulled simply because of the referee's bias, which is not provided for in any of the regulations, whereas the forced award of a goal would certainly require the application of art. 18. [...] And since the regulations offer no solution other than the application of article 18 to this forced concession of a goal, Genoa would of course be fully entitled to complain if the Northern League were content to simply cancel the match. [...] It was necessary to speak clearly and explain that the match was a friendly, given the irregular conditions in which it was to be played. At the very least, the teams should have been able to regulate themselves. So we do not understand Mauro's reservation. Not only that, but in our opinion it has no value. The game, which was played without the premise of its official value, must be recognised as valid as far as the conditions of the match are concerned."
  68. The commentary of the “Gazzetta dello Sport” (June 30, 1925): “The Northern League, as the regulating body of the championship, could not fail to feel the consequences of its own guilt of inaccuracy, but the state of accusation in which the League has been placed, as if the organisation of the final were the last and most serious of a series of mistakes and errors, is not fair and legitimate [...] Everyone feels how dangerous and unacceptable it is from a sporting point of view to start a match with a tacit assumption of irregularity: tacit both with regard to the teams on the field. Irregularity, in our opinion, must be relative and arise from a specific unforeseen fact that manifests itself during the course of a match, and not from a set of facts that already exist prior to the match."
  69. The comment of the “Paese Sportivo ‘ (July 2, 1925): "We believe, for example, that the rules have been somewhat compromised in order to find a worthy solution to this difficult problem. It could not have been otherwise, everyone agreed, but experience will have taught everyone by now, including Mauro, that certain preliminary considerations should no longer be used in the future. It is too convenient and would be a way of confirming abuse and injustice [...] To tell two teams who have just played a tough game that their efforts were in vain because the game had no official value is, at best, a mockery."
  70. Account by Vittorio Pozzo, from “Il Calcio Illustrato” No. 38, 1949, p. 15: “For a long time Il Guerino, which attacked everyone and said bad things about everyone, was one of the most read and followed sports papers in Italy. It was satirical, acerbic, investigative, insightful. In football, it made "anti-maurism" one of its favourite banners.”
  71. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,7/articleid,1166_01_1925_0165_0007_24351133/anews,true/ La Stampa, 12 luglio 1925, p. 7.
  72. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,4/articleid,1166_01_1925_0171_0004_24351408/anews,true/ La Stampa, 19 luglio 1925, p. 4.
  73. Bologna manager Enrico Sabattini's account to the "Gazzetta dello Sport" on the occasion of Bologna's 70th anniversary: "On the 11th of July, the federal presidency and the presidency of the Northern League met in Turin and invited representatives of both clubs. I was sent to Bologna, but the trip was never more pointless. As soon as I entered the meeting room, together with Genoa's representative, the lawyer Bianchi, they read out a communiqué (already drafted and leaked to the press) in which "the Federal Presidency expresses to Genoa its deep sorrow for the criminal act suffered by its supporters at Turin railway station and asks Bologna to intensify its investigations in the search for the perpetrators". A long debate then began between the president of the F.I.G.C., lawyer Bozino, lawyer Bianchi and myself, in which each of us put forward his own thesis, but it was a purely academic discussion, because the decisions had already been taken without the intervention of the parties and without even the semblance of an investigation having been carried out. The presidency also decided that the final match would take place in Turin, behind closed doors, on Sunday 19 July. In the meantime, however, two new facts had emerged to complicate the situation: on the one hand, the Turin police had forbidden the match to take place for reasons of public order, and on the other, the Bologna board of directors had submitted to the F.I.G.C. an agenda approved by the general meeting that had taken place in the meantime, in which the Genoa supporters were blamed for provoking the incidents that had occurred."
  74. The resolution of the Federal Council of 18th July 1925: "The C.F. does not allow any kind of protest to be presented by federation clubs of any rank against the decisions of the higher federal authorities": "orders Bologna F.C., for the aforementioned offences, to present to the Federal Council and the Council of the Northern League, by the 31st of this month, a full apology for the agenda signed by the President of Bologna; to publicly disown the agenda approved by the General Assembly, while imposing the fine of 5,000 lire, to be paid by the 31st of this month; further orders Bologna F.C. to announce the results of the investigations referred to in the last paragraph of the previous communiqué within the aforementioned period, with the certainty that they will be able to identify the guilty parties; calls on Bologna F.C. to scrupulously and vigilantly comply with all the disciplinary obligations prescribed by the regulatory norms, and warns it in the strongest possible terms to put an immediate end to these manifestations of its blatant rebellion against federal decisions, with the reservation that, in the event of non-compliance with federal orders, it will be subject to the most severe sanctions provided for in Art. 22 of the Federal Statutes; finally, decides to postpone any deliberations on the organisation of the final of the championship until after the above-mentioned deadline, i.e. after 31 July".
  75. "La Voce Sportiva", 24 July 1925: "Who judged Bologna F.C.: Bozino - PIEDMONTESE. Ferretti - LIGURIAN. Vogliotti - PIEDMONTESE. Levi - PIEDMONTESE. Oliva - PIEDMONTESE. Tergolina - LIGURIAN. Silvestri - LIGURIAN. May the Societies called to elect new Federal Officers remember this".
  76. "La Gazzetta dello Sport", 20 July 1925, page 3: "Even with regard to the statements allegedly made by the Bologna representative to the Federal Council at the Turin meeting, there is a profound divergence between the Federal Communiqué and the following statement communicated to us by Mr Sabattini: "The undersigned, as representative of Bologna F.C.. to the Executive Committee at the meeting of the 11th, in view of the recent press release from the Federal Council in which we read that the aforementioned representative made no mention of the serious provocation committed by the Genoa supporters at the Turin station, loyally recognising the extent and extreme seriousness of the condemned act, of which he only wished to remove the aggravating circumstance of premeditation, I retract the aforementioned statement, being on the contrary the truth that at the meeting he made specific mention of the aforementioned provocation and discussed it in a contradictory manner with Mr. Bianchi and Mr. Marengo, representatives of Genoa; the discussion, which had become somewhat lively, was interrupted by Bozino who, without fail, dismissed all three disputants".
  77. Chronicle of the "Paese Sportivo" (23 July 1925): "It is necessary to read carefully the first paragraph of the agenda, where the Federal Council 'indignantly insists on the unsuccessful attempt of the Bologna F.C. directors to make the criminal act committed by some of their supporters appear to be in retaliation for alleged provocations of equal gravity allegedly committed by the Genoa supporters [...]'. In an agenda adopted at a shareholders' meeting in Bologna, the threatening cry was uttered: "This is the last straw". It is the trendy phrase. There was talk of injustices committed by the Federation to the detriment of Bologna. For example, the choice of the neutral ground of Turin was mentioned, with the intention of favouring Genoa and damaging Bologna; the "scandalously forgiven" forfeit in the Milan match was recalled, ignoring, or pretending to ignore, that the Federation was forced to deliberate on the basis of Mauro's report; the Federation was blamed for the 15-day break for the last final, a break that should have served to rebuild Genoa's strength. These were the three major accusations. And it ended by solemnly admonishing the League and the Federation for the act of "Pharisaic and poorly concealed partisanship" they had committed. The agenda of the Bologna Directorate was only the consequence of this extraordinary fabrication".
  78. The chronicle of the “Paese Sportivo” (July 26, 1925): “In Bologna, rallies are being held and people are railing against the Federation with a phrasing that, just for the sake of understanding, we can describe as excessive [...] The agenda voted at the Bologna rally last Monday will certainly be deplored by those who have a sense of responsibility and mental equilibrium. It is not with big and offensive words that one can hope to emerge decently from a difficult and delicate situation [...] What results then are hoped for from rallies and strong words? [...] The storm arose as a result of the resolution taken by the Federal Executive Committee at its meeting on Saturday, July 12. Let us repeat it in its full text: “The Executive Committee, while expressing to the Genoa Club its deepest sorrow to which its supporters were subjected at the Turin station, invites Bologna to intensify the certainly already begun investigations to search for the culprits, reserving the right to take further measures if this dutiful search is not carried out with the necessary diligence” [...] Bologna rebelled against this order. All serene sportsmen can easily note that it rebelled wrongly. It should be noted that the Federation did not actually intend to take any action against Bologna. It only demanded that the perpetrators be found and entrusted the search to Bologna itself. Where is the offence? [...] From the Emilian capital came an answer with an agenda that was a trumpet blast. They spoke of the enemy's provocations and of revolver shots allegedly coming from the Genoese train. It should be noted that this accusation against the opponents came at least eight days too late. Bologna's own representative at the executive committee meeting had not mentioned it [...] Can a federation allow itself to be accused by a subordinate club? Bologna's mistake lies in this absolute lack of form. The Federal Council would have welcomed any protest and looked at it calmly, as long as it was written in a style that showed deference and respect. Instead, it rebelled and could not do otherwise in the face of the insulting statements and the clearly offensive tone [...] We do not see how Bologna can hope to benefit from an attitude of revolt. Moreover, there is no justification for such an attitude."
  79. Web site: 19 October 2019 . Giancarlo Rizzoglio . 12 April 2016 . ESCLUSIVA PG. Ecco la prova che condannò il Genoa allo spareggio farsa del 1925 . pianetagenoa1893.net.
  80. "La Gazzetta dello Sport, 28 July 1925 - Communiqué of the Northern League Assembly (26 July 1925): Malvano's agenda for the Bologna - Federation and Genoa vs. Bologna final is worded as follows: "The Football Clubs of the Northern League have met in Assembly: Having noted with great regret the various and painful incidents which have disrupted the final matches of the Italian Northern League Championship, matches which, however, have brought out even more clearly and brilliantly the splendid technical and volitional qualities of the two finalist teams, both of which are very deserving of the title of champions; having noted that the current situation is such that it is likely, as a consequence, to bring a very serious halt to the life of Italian football; Hoping that the solemn assembly gathered here will make the gesture that will show everyone the honourable and dignified way out of this difficult and dangerous step, making the sporting voice resound very loudly, so that every other one covers and prevails over all others; formally and passionately asking the two finalist clubs to declare null and void all the communiqués published regarding the Genoa-Bologna final; sending a most fervent prayer to the F. I.G.C., so that, in the supreme interest of harmony and sport, it may consider the following requests: a) that all proceedings against Bologna remain suspended; b) that an investigation be carried out into the painful incident that has occurred, in order to allow the parties concerned to present any further clarifications they deem appropriate; c) that arrangements be made immediately, and independently of the investigation, for the final of the pending championship. The agenda was adopted by acclamation."
  81. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,3/articleid,1166_01_1925_0177A_0003_24351667/anews,true/ L'assemblea della Lega Nord a Parma, La Stampa, 27 luglio 1925, p. 3.
  82. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,2/articleid,1167_01_1925_0224A_0002_24385172/anews,true/ L'assemblea della Lega Nord, La Stampa, 21 settembre 1925, p. 2.
  83. Communiqué of the Federal Council (2 August 1925): "[...] has noted with lively satisfaction the openness and sincere reconciliation that has taken place between the two noble federation clubs, both worthy of the title and both deserving of national sport [...] unanimously decides [...] to propose to the next Federal Assembly the lifting of the punitive sanction imposed on Bologna F.C. at the session of 18 July 1925 for the act of indiscipline that provoked the sanction itself".
  84. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,4/articleid,1166_01_1925_0184_0004_24351797/anews,true/ La Stampa, 4 agosto 1925, p. 4.
  85. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,4/articleid,1166_01_1925_0189_0004_24384430/anews,true/ La Stampa, 9 agosto 1925, p. 4.
  86. Article from "La Gazzetta dello Sport", 8 August 1925 - "A jumble of riddles - With the balance of mutual caution broken, the match has all the logical reasons to end with a winner. Which is it? The first question to be answered is this: what did the two teams do during the month of the fans' bitter campaign? Did they work? And with what intensity? Did the coaches keep the players under their thumb? A mystery. Neither Sterlino nor Marassi were short of training sessions. The Genoans stretched their legs in academic matches against visiting English sailors, while the Bolognese practised with regional teams. It is understandable, fast and light, unpretentious gallops, but with a purpose: to keep the boiler burning in case of the final [...]".
  87. Article by Vittorio Pozzo, taken from 'Il Calcio' no. 50-51, p. 3, 22 August 1925 - The final of the Northern League. Bologna beat Genoa 2-0: "At six o'clock in the morning there were thirty of us on the field of the Officine Meccaniche, in front of Porta Vigentina: the Genoa team, with its members, Cavazzana, the newly appointed president of the Northern League, with some of his council colleagues, the referee Gama and the two linesmen, the groundskeeper and us, officially strangers to solemn sporting competitions. Genoa watched from above. From the terrace of the gymnasium, the players of the winning team, in their shirts or half-naked, watched the other heroes of the "final", who had interrupted their rest at five o'clock in the morning to come and watch the resumption of hostilities on an unknown pitch. Downstairs looking up and upstairs looking down, the opinion was the same: "You've got some nerve!" Cavazzana had the most courage. He was alone at that hour. Alone to face a possible invasion of the field by the rioting crowd that was not there. The two poor cameramen, who were in the street looking for an interesting scene, a fight or a brawl, could not find anything worthy of filming. We had to improvise a small scene in front of the gate, a scene which, in order to match the naturalness of the football world, had to take on an agitated and excited pace. "If you don't beat yourselves up, they'll know it's not true," shouted the philosophical cameraman."
  88. The chronicle of the "Resto del Carlino", 9 August 1925 - "[...] The match, without the warm cheers of the crowd, lost much of its beauty; technically it was even inferior to that of Turin, but it surpassed it in terms of emotion and, especially at the end, reached dramatic tones, as everyone felt what great stakes were being decided [...] The Genoa team, today deprived of the title it had held for two years with a clear defeat, fell with all honour. It could not have been otherwise. For those who did not watch today's match, it is enough to consider the role played by the former Italian champions in their group and to examine the four previous matches against Bologna. Genoa lost the game because their admirable defence was less effective today, or rather: it was less precise [...] Bologna deserved to win because of the cold calculation with which they played the game and the organicity shown by the team."
  89. The chronicle of the "Voce Sportiva", 10th August 1925 - "[...] It is not necessary to make an umpteenth analysis of the game between Bologna and Genoa. [...] But one thing remained and still remains: the technical superiority of the Bolognese. What could vary was the performance on the field. And here, too, the Bolognese were at least on a par with the Genoese. So equal performance and technical superiority can only lead to absolute superiority. And this superiority is simply immortalised by yesterday's result. The environment and the circumstances of the moment, even in the guise of absolute impartiality, were decidedly in Genoa's favour. The same not inconsiderable period of rest proved to be far more beneficial to the Genoese than to the Bolognese. Nevertheless, Genoa was defeated. It did not surrender, it was never at the mercy of its opponent, it resisted with all its strength, with all its will, but it had to surrender. The Genoese fortress, although solidly built and resting on firm foundations, was not able to withstand the attacks of the Bolognese. It did not break, but it gave way".
  90. Web site: 25 October 2018 . 2 November 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20191102045754/https://www.asdponderano.it/wp-content/themes/ponderano/file/pozzo.pdf . Il Calcio raccontato da Vittorio Pozzo - ASD Ponderano .
  91. http://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Ateca.liguria.it%3A16%3AIC0005%3ACFI0357378_27025&mode=all&teca=Biblioteca+Digitale+Ligure Il Lavoro, 11 agosto 1925, p. 3.
  92. Account of Bologna manager Enrico Sabattini to the "Gazzetta dello Sport" on the occasion of Bologna's 70th anniversary: "In order to distract the public, all the pitches in Milan were put on alert and prepared as if they were ready to receive a visit from the two most famous teams in Italy within a few hours. [...] But as soon as I told Felsner that the game would be played at Vigentino, he immediately wanted to make a reconnaissance of the pitch. And so, without saying a word to anyone, the two of us took a carriage and drove slowly, panting and sweating in the hot sun, to Vigentino, a place on the outskirts of Milan, not far from the Officine O.M. Felsner obviously had a plan of his own, because he was carrying three balls that he had brought from Bologna. [...] Felsner gropes, feels, treads on the grass in different positions, wants to be very sure of the height of the screws he will have put on the boots; then we visit the changing rooms, make the acquaintance of the janitor, into whose pocket we slip 20 lire. We managed to get the most spacious changing room reserved for us and, above all, to play the game with our balls. The janitor had no difficulty in agreeing to our request and, as a guarantee, gave us the three balls he had already prepared; Felsner personally took care of inflating the balls needed for the game. In truth, I could not see any significant difference in our advantage from the change of balls, but Felsner was very concerned. When we were back in the carriage, he was happy as a lark: this was obviously his own way of celebrating victory. It was only after lunch that we informed the players that the pitch was that of the Vigentino, that we had visited it and found it to be perfectly suitable. Not a word about the ball".
  93. Excerpts from statements made by Genoa goalkeeper Giovanni De Prà in a televised debate with Enrico Sabattini: "[...] On the other hand, Genovesi [Pietro, Bologna midfielder, ed.] told me in a recent meeting, when we met [...]: 'Look, we went the day before with the coach to put the lighter balls on the pitch'. I can confirm that in front of Genovesi."
  94. Extract from the statements made by Bologna manager Enrico Sabattini in a televised debate with Giovanni De Prà: "[...] These were the balls we used in all the league games, so...".
  95. See, for example, the photo reviews of the Genoese magazine Il Calcio during the 1924-1925 season.
  96. Web site: 16 September 2019 . 3 June 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20190603170530/http://www.cavese1919.it/100x100-cavese-di-fabrizio-prisco-storia-di-astuzie-gol-e-raggiri/ . 100x100 Cavese di Fabrizio Prisco: storia di astuzie, gol e raggiri, cavese1919.it, 31 ottobre 2018 .
  97. Web site: 16 September 2019 . 7 October 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20191007140809/https://calcioantico.altervista.org/unione-sportiva-cavese/ . Unione Sportiva Cavese, calcioantico.altervista.org, 13 agosto 2018 . 13 August 2018 .
  98. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,2/articleid,1166_01_1925_0194A_0002_24384516/anews,true/ La Stampa, 17 agosto 1925, p. 2.
  99. http://digitale.bnc.roma.sbn.it/tecadigitale/visore/#/main/viewer?idMetadato=1549412&type=bncr L'Impero, 23-24 agosto 1925.
  100. http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/page,2/articleid,1166_01_1925_0200A_0002_24384613/anews,true/ La Stampa, 24 agosto 1925, p. 4.
  101. http://digitale.bnc.roma.sbn.it/tecadigitale/visore/#/main/viewer?idMetadato=1549419&type=bncr L'Impero, 25-26 agosto 1925.
  102. Web site: 17 August 2020 . Gessi Adamoli . 11 February 2016 . Una squadra di storici e avvocati al lavoro per ridare al Genoa lo scudetto scippato nel '25 .
  103. Web site: 13 September 2019 . Scott Murray . 25 September 2008 . en . The Joy of Six: shocking refereeing decisions . The Guardian.
  104. Web site: 22 June 2018 . Manuel Minguzzi . 15 March 2016 . Comunicato di Futuro Rossoblù sullo scudetto del 1925 . tuttobolognaweb.it.
  105. Web site: 17 November 2020 . Maurizio Crosetti . 1 November 2018 . Dal Genoa alla Lazio: la battaglia degli scudetti contesi .
  106. https://www.figc.it/it/federazione/news/il-consiglio-federale-d%C3%A0-il-via-alla-riforma-dei-campionati-dal-201920-la-serie-b-a-20-squadre/ Il Consiglio federale dà il via alla riforma dei campionati, dal 2019/20 la Serie B a 20 squadre
  107. Web site: 13 September 2019 . 2 June 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20190602120321/https://www.ilsecoloxix.it/sport/2019/05/30/news/dal-genoa-a-torino-e-lazio-ecco-la-commissione-dei-saggi-per-gli-scudetti-contesi-1.33090247 . Dal Genoa a Torino e Lazio, ecco la commissione dei saggi per gli scudetti contesi . 30 May 2019 .

Bibliography

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Scudetto of the Pistols".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.