It was the summer of `59. Prato had just got promoted to the second division of Italian football and were in the process of assembling a team capable of staying up. For their midfield, they had identified Lucio Dell'Angelo, a former Milan midfield player -- by then entering his 30s -- who was on the fringes of their Tuscan neighbours Fiorentina's squad. Smooth the negotiations weren't. There was a deadlock that didn't look likely to be broken. No matter how hard they tried, Prato and Fiorentina just couldn't agree on a price. But then a mediator by the name of Giacchetti had a big idea. Why not co-own him?
And just like that, transfer history was made in Italy. A practice known as co-ownership was born. Down the years it has figured in some of the most (in)famous deals in the history of calcio. Like, for instance, that of the great Paolo Rossi.
In 1976, Juventus sold a 50-percent share to Serie B outfit Lanerossi Vicenza. Over the next couple of seasons, he would emerge as one of the greatest talents Italian football has ever seen. Rossi scored 45 goals. On the back of them, Vicenza were promoted and even finished runners-up in their first year back in the top flight. As Rossi departed for the World Cup in Argentina, Vicenza and Juventus set about resolving his future. They "went to the envelopes."
This is what happens in co-ownership if, at the end of a year, an agreement can't be reached on the extension of the existing arrangement. In essence it is a blind auction. Each party submits a bid for the half of the player that they don't own. Naturally the highest bidder wins. Vicenza's owner Giuseppe Farina had planned to make out a check for 750 million lire, but word reached him that Juventus were inclined to gazump him. So Farina changed his mind and cut a new one for 2.6 billion lire. It meant he was valuing Rossi at 5.2 billion lire, a colossal figure, three times the world transfer record at the time. Too bad that his information was incorrect.
Juventus' president Giampiero Boniperti had only bid 875 million lire. At a time when the Italian economy was in recession, Farina's recklessness caused outrage. Debates were held in parliament and Franco Carraro, the head of the league, resigned. "I'm ashamed of myself," Farina said, "But I couldn't do without him. Football is like art and Paolo is the Mona Lisa of our football." Vicenza were relegated the following season and Farina had to offload Rossi to Perugia.
- Horncastle: The mess in Milan
- Parma president resigns over UEFA row
There are many other weird and wonderful stories around co-ownership. Unfortunately, there will be no more. On Tuesday, the FIGC announced that it is to be phased out. Clubs will be allowed to renew existing deals for one year to allow for transition but no new co-ownerships will be permitted from the beginning of this summer transfer window.
A 55-year practice will come to an end. Considering 164 Serie A players are co-owned and no fewer than 92 of those arrangements are due to expire in June, the scale of the change isn't to be underestimated. It impacts high-profile players from Fiorentina's Juan Cuadrado and Lazio's Antonio Candreva, both of whom are co-owned by Udinese, to Sampdoria's Manolo Gabbiadini and Sassuolo's Domenico Berardi in whom Juventus have a 50-percent stake.
So why are the FIGC enacting this reform? For one, no other league in Europe practices co-ownership. Italy is an exception. And so there is an element of bringing the country into line with the rest. It will simplify player trading between clubs in Italy and other nations. Co-ownership has sometimes complicated matters.
A recent example is that of Ciro Immobile. After a 22-goal season for Torino, the striker attracted some high-profile interest. Borussia Dortmund identified him as the player to replace Robert Lewandowski. On doing their homework, they discovered that Immobile was co-owned by Juventus. Unable to see him playing ahead of either Carlos Tevez or Fernando Llorente next season, the Italian champions were willing to sell. Torino weren't, however -- at least initially.
An agreement now looks to have been reached for 19 million euros, and Juventus and Torino will split the money. But Torino president Urbano Cairo could have scuppered the whole thing had he gone through with his threat to "go to the envelopes" and attempted (Farina-like) to buy the other half of Immobile. Were that to have happened, Dortmund and other foreign clubs would be within their rights to think it's too difficult to do business in Italy.
Abolishing co-ownership makes it easier. It also renders club accounts more straightforward. The practice has often raised the eyebrows of the Italian tax authorities suspicious of creative bookkeeping.
But is the end of co-ownership in favour of loans with a fixed option to buy necessarily a good thing? On the one hand, yes. Some players have complained that being co-owned means they have no real sense of belonging. On the other, though, co-ownership is to their benefit. A team taking a player on loan has no real incentive to develop him. Why should they play him unless he makes them win straight away? They don't get anything else out of it. Were they to co-own him, however, they would have a stake in the player. Should they make him better, they would eventually see a return on their initial investment.
Take Immobile, for instance. Genoa purchased a 50-percent share in him from Juventus in 2012 for 4.5 million euros. It didn't work out for him at Marassi. He was considered a flop but he did play 38 times. Torino then bought Genoa's stake for just 2.5 million euros a year ago. Immobile came good. He finished Capocannoniere in Serie A and -- with the help of UEFA refusing to grant Parma a license -- got them into Europe, which, it's estimated, is worth 10 million euros to them. While reluctant to see him go, Torino will get 9.5 million euros from Dortmund for Immobile, as will Juventus -- who would never have thought of receiving such a windfall for him this time last year. Co-ownership helped Immobile realise his potential.
It's a shame to see the practice go, not least because it allowed clubs to spread risk. This is one reason in particular why smaller teams with fewer, more-precious resources found co-ownership to be a good system. It allowed them to get a player for half the price. And were he to turn into a bust the loss they suffered would be more manageable.
Far from being retrograde, in many respects Giacchetti's eureka moment all those years ago brought about an evolution of the loan deal. And so while there's a sense within the FIGC that it's anachronistic because no one else in Europe uses it, it doesn't necessarily follow that being the exception to the rule means it is wrong.