Scudetto of the Pistols

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 series of disputes involving sporting decisions, political influences, and judicial rulings, 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 series, lasting five matches, included refereeing disputes, institutional disagreements, and incidents of violence, leading to the nickname ‘Scudetto of the Pistols’.

[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.

[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.

[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,[21] 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[22][23] (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’).

[25] 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’.

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.

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 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.

[21][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,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] with the sole but relevant exception of the authoritative magazine Guerin Sportivo, which claimed that they were instead in favour of Mauro's decision.

[56] Mauro's decision led to significant unrest among fans, including interruptions and protests during the match: numerous supporters of the ‘Veltri’ entered the field encircling the referee and threateningly demanding the granting of the goal.

[66] Even the account of the aggression suffered by Mauro by pro-Bolognese comrades is not corroborated by the chronicles; La Stampa of Turin, on the contrary, claimed that two National Security militiamen had gone to the referee to protect him from intimidation by the public.

[75] Interviewed by the Guerin Sportivo on 26 June, Mauro explained again that he had invalidated any outcome of the playoff ab initio,[41] 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.

[79] 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).

[80] 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.

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.”[86][87] The conclusion of the session was entrusted to city councilor Galliano, who launched a scathing attack on the FIGC leadership:[88] The citizens of Bologna gathered in an impressive public rally; having taken note of the disgusting abuse that the leaders of the Italian Football Federation want to perpetrate against Bologna F.C., only guilty of having exercised and wanting to exercise the elementary and irrepressible right of defense against accusations that are completely unfounded and for responsibilities that absolutely do not exist: and in the belief that the offense, in addition to the sports club, concerns the entire citizenry: 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.”[88] 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.

[91] 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.

[97] 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.

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),[97] 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.

[108] 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.

[1] 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.