YOU CAN CALL IT “The Case of the Incredible Shrinking Sentences”. On July 4, Stefano Palazzi, the Italian FA’s prosecutor in the influence-peddling scandal that soiled Serie A over the past two seasons, called for harsh penalties. He wanted Juventus to be relegated to Serie C and slapped with a six-point penalty, while Fiorentina, Lazio and AC Milan were to be sent down to Serie B, with penalties of 15 points for the first two and three for the Rossoneri.

Ten days later, the Italian FA’s tribunal issued its sentences. Juventus avoided Serie C but were relegated to Serie B with a 30-point penalty. Fiorentina and Lazio were also sent down to Serie B with penalties of 12 and seven points respectively. And Milan remained in Serie A, albeit with a 15-point penalty.

On July 25, in what should have been the second and final sentence on appeal, Juventus had their penalty reduced to 17 points. Fiorentina, Lazio and Milan remained in Serie A, with penalties of 19, 11 and eight points respectively.

That should have been that. Except that a number of the clubs involved were unhappy with the sentences and threatened to sue the Italian FA in a civil court. Enter Fifa, which reminded the Italian football authorities that entering litigation in a civil tribunal was illegal under the governing body’s statutes. They faced suspension or expulsion from world football, which meant no participation in Euro 2008 and no Champions League football for Serie A teams.

Faced with these two options — contempt of court and, possibly, prison if they ignored the civil tribunals and expulsion from world football if they did not — Italy’s FA reached the most Machiavellian of compromises. They set up a third tribunal — except, cleverly, they called it “arbitration” instead — and handed the hot potato to the Italian Olympic Committee. Any club who pledged not to take legal action in a civil court could get one last shot at sporting justice via arbitration.

The results were predictable. After all, no sane club would drop their right to a law suit in exchange for arbitration if they did not believe their sentences would be further reduced. Thus, Juventus had their points penalty in Serie B slashed to nine points. Fiorentina’s penalty was cut to 15 points and Lazio’s to three. Milan’s was left unchanged at eight.

The affair was an exercise in the convoluted art of compromise. In practical terms, not much has changed. Juventus are pretty much guaranteed to be back in Serie A next season; Fiorentina will probably avoid relegation, which they would have done anyway; and Lazio have a slightly better chance of reaching a Champions League spot.

What is different now, however, is the belief that, once the appeals process has been exhausted, sentences are final, which is a basic concept in any society governed by a rule of law. What this case shows is that, if you do not like your punishment, you can always turn to someone else. Those unfamiliar with the elements of this case will conclude that it was a whitewash.

Clearly, that is not the case. Juventus, the main culprits, took an enormous hit. Lazio, Fiorentina and Milan were punished to varying degrees, even after the “arbitration”. Yet the image of a whitewash will not go away so easily.

The frustrating part is that it is hard to see how any of the parties in this tale could have acted differently. Fifa feel that it cannot recognise the authority of civil courts because most of its members are not functioning democracies with established legal systems.

Equally, clubs feel that they have a right and a duty to peruse every avenue, including civil action. And the Italian FA, caught in the middle, had few options but to reach this uncomfortable and credibility-damaging compromise.

The only positive that could come out of this is if football recognises that problems such as these are likely to resurface and establishes a coherent way of dealing with them. What if, for example, the FA Premier League bans Gareth Southgate from managing because he does not have the requisite licence, the Middlesbrough manager takes it to court and the tribunal finds that Southgate is being discriminated against? Who does the Premier League listen to? Fifa, or the British courts?

Perhaps the only rational solution is for Fifa to take action not against entire FAs, but against individual teams. It could maintain its rule that any club or individual who turns to civil justice faces expulsion or suspension, but rather than punishing the FAs to which the club or individual is affiliated it would take action against the club or individual themselves.

This would require FAs to cede more sovereignty to Fifa, something they are loath to do. The alternative, however, is a ticking time bomb that will explode in our faces. And the ensuing fallout — a leading FA banned from international competition for following its country’s laws or Fifa’s authority undermined to the point of irrelevancy — could be disastrous.

Explore Football

• Premier League

• Football League

• Scotland

• European Football

• International Football

• TheGame

• Live Match Tracker

• The Fink Tank

• Fantasy Football