WHAT DOES A FOOTBALL CLUB DO? What is its raison d’être? Is it to play matches in leagues and cup competitions, or is it to provide entertainment, attract sponsorship and offer jobs, in other words to exist as a legitimate business? It is not only a philosophical question. It is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved before football’s authorities and the law are on a collision course again, just as they were over the Bosman ruling ten years ago.

Football is governed by football law, which is administered by national football associations, who, in turn, must answer to Fifa. Businesses, like individuals, are governed by civil law, which is administered by the courts, who, on some issues, must answer to the European Court of Justice.

What happens when the two mix? Who has the upper hand? Fifa is clear on this. Only the FAs can determine footballing matters and they must do so in an independent manner, free from outside interference, whether political or legal. That is why, on July 3, Fifa suspended the Greek FA’s membership of world football’s governing body after the Greek Government refused to pass a law that guaranteed that all football matters could be decided only by the Greek FA.

Few took notice at the time — there was the small matter of the World Cup, after all — but it was a hefty punishment. Fifa barred Greece and Greek teams from competing in all international competitions and banned Greek clubs from buying players from abroad. It was the football equivalent of Death Row and, nine days later, after a rapid climbdown by the Greek Government, Fifa lifted the suspension.

Fifa’s argument is that it is a voluntary association of member FAs, just as the member FAs are a voluntary association of member clubs. No one is forced to join, but if an association wants to stay in, it has to abide by the rules. And rule No 1 is effectively: whatever happens in the family stays in the family. There is no law except for football law.

This kind of set-up might have worked well when football clubs were just that: clubs. Everyone was an amateur and winning came second to having a good time while chasing a ball up and down the pitch. Now, given recent events in Italy, it is proving to be severely outdated.

Juventus, who were caught up in Italy’s latest match-fixing scandal, are unhappy with the Italian FA’s punishment. They have been stripped of two titles, relegated to Serie B and were forced to start the 2006-07 season with minus 17 points. Having exhausted all possible levels of sporting appeals, last week they took their case to the civil courts, reportedly asking them to overturn the domestic FA ’s sentence, while seeking damages of about £88 million.

Apart from the fact that, if Juventus were awarded such a large sum in damages, it would probably bankrupt the Italian FA, the domestic governing body would end up between a rock and a hard place if the civil courts upheld the Turin club’s appeal.

If it recognises the court’s authority and abides by its verdict, its membership of Fifa would be suspended or even revoked (as a stern letter from Zurich intimated). But, if it does not follow the verdict, it would be held in contempt of court and be breaking the law.

And the disturbing and unpleasant truth is that Juventus have a mighty strong case. On the one hand, the evidence that they attempted to influence referees is overwhelming. Phone transcripts revealed that Luciano Moggi, the club’s general manager, made hundreds of calls to various FA officials, lobbying hard for favours, including the appointment of certain referees. From a sporting perspective, there is little question that this is a serious ethical breach, violating the most basic principles of sportsmanship and fair play. The problem is that, from the perspective of civil law, you can make a persuasive argument that what Juventus did is not a crime and therefore the punishment meted out by the Italian FA is excessive. There is no evidence of money changing hands, no evidence of quid pro quo favours, no hard evidence that anyone acted upon Moggi’s requests.

“What we were doing was lobbying for support, nothing more, nothing less,” Moggi said last week. In fact, Juventus argue, that is exactly what they were doing: lobbying. In many Western democracies (including the United States), big corporations pay lobbyists millions to cajole and persuade politicians into passing legislation that favours their interests. In some cases, those same lobbyists can legally pay large sums to fund a politician’s re-election campaign.

Juventus stopped short of that. They did not pay anybody off. They simply lobbied high- ranking FA officials — football’s equivalent of government Ministers — so that they would keep an eye out for their interests. Is that so different from what other big corporations do? And that is what Juventus are. They are listed on the Italian Stock Exchange, have an annual turnover in the hundreds of millions of pounds and employ several hundred people. They are, to all intents and purposes, a business. At least when it comes to this court case.

In short, what they did may have been wrong in the sporting world, but in the corporate world it was just business as usual. That is the crux of the issue.

Fifa’s structure and regulations are made for recreational clubs, not businesses. Its whole premise — an international body that cannot be sued, does not recognise the authority of the courts or of elected officials and that punishes those member FAs that do — is at odds with what football has become.

Juventus may or may not be the test case that brings it all crashing down, but sooner or later something has to give.

Explore Football

• Premier League

• Football League

• Scotland

• European Football

• International Football

• TheGame

• Live Match Tracker

• The Fink Tank

• Fantasy Football