The CONI Guarantee Board has published the reasons for the provision with which it decided to refer the assessment of the capital gains case to the Federal Court of Appeal, which will have to re-examine the position of some managers and consequently establish the amount of the sanction against the Juventus club. For the Guarantee Board "it is within the prerogatives of the judicial body not only to give the exact legal qualification of the disputed facts, but also (concretely) to impose an adequate sanction, among those provided, for the offense ascertained", also because Juventus, as a company, "responds in any case, pursuant to art. 6 of the Regulations of Justice of the FIGC, for the actions committed by its representatives and managers against whom the violation of art. 4 of the CGS of the FIGC".

The Board assesses that "the contested sentence, made against the directors without operational powers", is "lacking in its motivating part where the Federal Court - with motivation to be considered apparent - referred to a generic, but unproven, 'widespread awareness', or to an alleged sharing, by these administrators, of the concrete details and purposes of the sports operations scrutinized, failing to provide adequate motivational support for such affirmed and unproven circumstances". "Considering, in fact, that the extent of the penalty sanction imposed on Juventus is determined in relation to the ascertained violations of its representatives and managers, as well as its directors without delegation, the failure, for the ascertained motivational defect, of the sanction for the latter is reflected, at present, also on the overall sanction imposed on the company and makes, therefore, a new assessment by the Federal Court of Appeal is necessary on the possible responsibilities of individual directors without delegation and then also of the Juventus company itself.

The necessary relationship of proportion between the specific conduct held and the sanction imposed is now peacefully acquired in the elaboration of jurisprudence, including constitutional jurisprudence, constituting a logical expression of the criteria of equality and reasonableness of the sanction and requiring the judge to proceed with a dosimetric evaluation inspired by the two aforementioned criteria ".