The Italian football landscape is facing a deepening crisis as the ‘Caso Negreira’ Italian edition unfolds. The Serie A and Serie B referee designator, Gianluca Rocchi, is under investigation by the Milan Prosecutor’s Office for alleged “complicity in sports fraud.” Rocchi, who has denied any wrongdoing and immediately suspended himself to address the case, threatens to become a major institutional firestorm in Italian football.
The spotlight now falls on a key moment and location: April 2 at San Siro stadium. The investigation centers on Rocchi’s appointment decisions for the matches Bologna-Inter (with Andrea Colombo as referee) and Inter-Milan (with Daniele Doveri). Both referees have testified before the prosecutor as individuals aware of the facts, declining to explain why they were assigned those matches.
However, a significant mystery remains. Some witnesses—exclusively from within the refereeing community—have mentioned the term “combined appointments.” But what does this concept entail, given that the referee designator has the freedom to assign matches according to his judgment? The publication *La Gazzetta dello Sport* outlines the various threads that explain the investigation based on the testimonies gathered.
Was it done to favor the referees themselves? According to various statements collected by the Milan Prosecutor’s Office, a so-called ‘Rocchi system’ existed. This system was allegedly based on a model of favoritism, where appointments were used to boost the careers of certain referees at the expense of others. It involved internal power dynamics within the refereeing body, without direct involvement from clubs. The designator’s decisions reportedly impacted internal votes and potential sanctions.
Referees considered “aligned” would continue to receive high-profile matches—including top-level Serie A games—which also brought economic benefits. These important matches served as rewards for those who followed the established line, along with other advantages within the system. Conversely, those who did not conform were marginalized or penalized. Indeed, the complaints come primarily from referees or former referees who consider themselves harmed by these decisions, either through exclusion or having been singled out.
Another branch of the investigation suggests that appointments were not solely based on internal refereeing criteria, but also on factors related to clubs—such as relationships or assessments of a particular referee’s suitability for a given team. In this scenario, it would need to be analyzed whether the designator himself may have obtained indirect benefits. Various hypotheses are considered: for example, assigning certain referees to avoid conflicts with clubs or to protect them from compromising situations (such as returning to officiate a team they previously clearly disadvantaged). The possibility of attempting to favor specific clubs is also considered, although no supporting evidence has emerged so far. No Serie A club representatives have been implicated in the investigation to date.