Italian football, already reeling after the national team’s failure to reach the World Cup finals, is facing a major off-field embarrassment as well, with a refereeing scandal heading to court this week.
Gianluca Rocchi, the head of referees in Serie A and Serie B, is facing criminal investigation for sports fraud and will appear in court in Milan on Friday (AEST). Italy’s VAR supervisor Andrea Gervasoni, and three others, are also being investigated in a scandal that’s front page news across the country.
Rocchi, 52, is a former top Italian and European referee who was in the centre for the 2017 European Super Cup and the 2019 Europa League final.
After putting down his whistle, he was appointed to oversee referee appointments across Italy’s top two divisions, but is accused of influencing VAR decisions and manipulating match official appointments.
Rocchi has stepped down while an investigation proceeds into incidents during the 2024-25 season.
The issue has been compared to the massive Calciopoli scandal of 2006 where intercepted phone calls exposed attempts to influence referee appointments in Italy. As an upshot of that case, Juventus was relegated and stripped of two of their league titles, while several other clubs were sanctioned and officials were removed from the game. So far no clubs have been implicated in the current case.
What is the story about?
Prosecutors are trying to determine if Rocchi interfered with VAR processes and influenced referee appointments.
One incident central to the case took place during a Serie A match between Udinese and Parma on March 1, 2025, where it is claimed he influenced a VAR decision by interrupting them with advice while they were deliberating.
“In March last year, Udinese played Parma at the Bluenergy stadium. Watching from their booth at the International Broadcast Centre in Lissone, on the outskirts of Milan, the VAR, Daniele Paterna, and his assistant, Simone Sozza, spotted a possible handball in the area by Parma’s then centre-back, Botond Balogh,” The Athletic wrote.
“As is routine, they checked to see if Fabio Maresca, the referee on the day, made the correct decision to wave play on. Paterna thought Balogh’s arm was close to the body. Another angle reinforced his opinion. It wasn’t a penalty.
“Somebody then tapped on the window of the VAR booth. Paterna turned, looking apparently at whoever was trying to get his attention and appeared to mouth: “Is it a penalty?” Maresca was then informed to bring play to a halt and carry out an on-field review. A penalty was awarded, Florian Thauvin scored and Udinese won 1-0 against a Parma side fighting, at the time, for survival. Autonomy of decision-making is enshrined in the protocol of the VAR’s role. The knock on the window and apparent change of decision broke it. The knock, allegedly, came from Rocchi.”
Investigators are trying to determine if Rocchi improperly intervened to influence the decision, which would breach VAR protocols.
The complaint was initially raised by Domenico Rocca, a Serie A assistant referee. He is portrayed as an official who became disillusioned with how appointments were handed out and became a whistleblower of the whistleblowers.
Rocca’s evidence detailed the VAR incident that is now central to the case to Italian football authorities, claiming Rocchi left his position to repeatedly knock on the glass of the VAR room used by Paterna and Sozza to get their attention, prompting them to call for an on-field review.
Paterna was later questioned as a witness by prosecutors, but it was determined he was not being truthful after prosecutors viewed video of the incident.
Separate allegations relate to referee appointments, including claims Rocchi discussed selections linked to Inter Milan fixtures, including a Cup semi-final against AC Milan and a Serie A match against Bologna. The allegations are that certain referees were assigned or snubbed for those games. Inter and its officials are not under investigation and have denied involvement.
Meanwhile, VAR supervisor Gervasoni is also under investigation for allegedly intervening in a Serie B match between Salernitana and Modena in March 2025.
Prosecutors claim he urged the VAR official to send referee Antonio Giua to an on-field review that led to a penalty decision, and he has since suspended himself while the case proceeds.
Who is saying what?
Rocchi has denied any wrongdoing. He stepped aside to allow the investigation to play out, saying in a statement that he had “always acted correctly and I have full confidence in the judiciary.”
“For the sake of the CAN (National Commission of Referees) group, which must be able to operate with maximum serenity, I have decided to self-suspend, effective immediately, from the role of head of the CAN. This choice, painful and difficult, but shared with my family, is intended to allow for the proper course of the judicial proceedings, from which I am certain I will emerge unscathed and stronger than before.”
His lawyer Antonio D’Avirro told Italian media on Tuesday that Rocchie was “demoralized because he feels like the victim of an injustice.
“He believes these accusations are unfounded. He has always behaved honestly and transparently and it bothers him that such a serious accusation has been attributed to him. I don’t know if he will return, we will be able to defend ourselves well. We are evaluating what defensive measures to take.”
Inter have strenuously denied involvement.
“We are learning everything from the press, and all of this astonishes us,” Inter president Giuseppe Marotta has been quoted as saying. “We do not have ‘preferred’ or ‘unwelcome’ referees; we know we have acted with the utmost integrity, and this should reassure everyone.
“I am calm because Inter is uninvolved and will remain uninvolved in the future. The agreement at San Siro, according to the Prosecutor’s Office? I am surprised because I find no basis for this.”
Serie A president Ezio Simonelli has urged caution despite widespread speculation and reports.
“Following what has been reported across all media outlets, I would like to remind everyone that, as in any other situation, these are accusations made by investigators, and it is everyone’s duty to treat them as such within a normal democratic dialogue,” Simonelli said.
“Hasty judgments or conclusions of any kind are out of place while we dutifully wait for the investigations to complete their course and establish the truth.”
Italy’s sports minister Andrea Abodi took the Italian football federation to task over its handling of the case.
Abodi noted that a formal complaint from match official Domenico Rocca in the Udinese vs Parma match, which focused on the VAR incident, was submitted to the referees’ body and investigated by the Italian federation but was quickly closed without disciplinary action.
That probe found no sporting breach had occurred. The fact the issue had resurfaced in a broader criminal investigation has alarmed the government.
“While leaving it to the judicial authorities to carry out their work, and without wishing to comment on the actions of the CAN Rocchi referee assignor, the most serious issue that emerges is how this complaint was handled within the football system,” said Abodi.
In context: PGMOL and refereeing scrutiny elsewhere
The controversy in Italy comes amid wider scrutiny of refereeing standards and the use of VAR, including in Australia. In England there have been many controversial moments involving referees and their peak body, the PGMOL, over the past few seasons under the stewardship of Howard Webb.
Debate in the Premier League has focused on errors, inconsistency and VAR use, with PGMOL acknowledging several mistakes and offering apologies.
In contrast, the Italian investigation centres on allegations of deliberate interference and potential fraud, raising more serious questions about the integrity of the entire system.
What happens next?
Prosecutors in Milan are continuing to gather evidence and question those involved, with Rocchi scheduled to appear as part of the inquiry on Friday (AEST).
Football authorities could reopen disciplinary proceedings if new evidence emerges. However, their earlier review did not result in sanctions.
