da betway： Everything you need to know about the biggest controversy to hit the Italian game since Calciopoli in 2006.

da prosport bet： It's happened again. Some 17 years after Calciopoli, Juventus find themselves at the centre of a scandal that has resulted in them being banned from competing in Europe next season. This latest scandal isn't about influencing match officials, though. This is about 'plusvalenza', and quite a bit more.

The club were hit with an initial 15-point deduction by the the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) in January for "financial irregularities" and "false accounting" in relation to past transfer dealings. Those points were restored on appeal in April, pending a new trial, but the Bianconeri eventuallyhad 10 points taken away, which resulted in Massimiliano Allegri's side dropping out of the top four, thus depriving them of a place in the 2023-24 Champions League.

Juve's seventh-placed finish still entitled them to a Europa Conference League spot but, on Friday, it was announced that the club had accepted a €20 million (£17m/$22m) fine and a one-year ban from competing in UEFA competitions for breaching the organisation's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.

So, how has it come to this and is the saga finally over? GOAL explains all below…

What is plusvalenza?

The key to understanding this whole affair is plusvalenza, or capital gains, which is basically the profit made on a transfer.

Say, for example, Juventus sign a player for €100m on a five-year contract. They would amortise the cost of the player's registration rights over the duration of his contract, most likely spreading the payments out equally over five years. In short, the player's amortised value would be €20m per year (€100m divided by five).

So, if Juve then sold that player after three years for €60m, they would make a capital gain of €20m on his registration rights (€60m minus the remaining €40m in amortised value).

AdvertisementWhy are capital gains important in football?

Because they count directly towards a club's annual profits, and this is now of greater importance than ever before because of the introduction of UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations more than a decade ago.

As we all know, clubs' balance sheets are under intense scrutiny these days, and those found to have broken the rules can face severe punishments.

The pressure, then, is very much on the clubs to balance their books on an annual basis. Some clubs have reportedly resorted to inflating the value of assets in order to be seen to have made a profit on certain transfers.

This is often done in the movement of young players. Academy players are homegrown, they usually arrive for free, meaning that if they are sold, the fee is pure profit.

As the price of unknown academy players can be over-inflated, it is difficult to judge their true value.

Consequently, clubs could insert players of a dubious value into swap deals or player-plus-cash transfers in order to help balance the books.

Is this only a problem in Italy?

As the has previously outlined, the practice of plusvalenza is undeniably of colossal importance in Italy.

In 2018-19, the last season before Covid-19 hit, 20 Serie A clubs made a total of €699m in capital gains – more than any of the other 'Big Five' leagues.

Tellingly, that figure is also higher than the sum of money the Italian top flight made from commercial deals during the same financial year (€647m), underlining just how dependent Serie A sides are on the transfer market to turn a profit.

The Premier League, La Liga and the Bundesliga clubs are all generating far more money, as a collective, from TV rights and sponsorship agreements, than buying and selling players.

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making profits on transfers. Issues only arise when clubs are inflating the value of players, and it is worth remembering that this remains an issue in many other domestic leagues.

The difference is that while this affair does involve clubs in other countries, it is focused on Italy, and Juventus in particular.

GoalWhy are Juventus at the centre of this scandal?

Let's begin with the best example…

In the summer of 2020, Arthur Melo moved from Barcelona to Juventus, while Miralem Pjanic went in the opposite direction. Officially, these two deals were not connected. They were not announced as part of the same transfer.

Barcelona stated that Juve had agreed to pay an initial €72m (£63m/$78m) for Arthur, while Pjanic had been acquired for €60m (£53m/$65m). Both clubs were, thus, in a position to post a capital gain on their outgoing player, while Juve only had to hand over €12m (£10.5m/$13m) in cash.

It was an agreement that suited both parties, but especially cash-strapped Barca as they edged closer to posting a profit before the end of the financial year.

This exchange was more about finances than football, and it was openly written about at the time.

Neither player appeared worth his respective fee, particularly in the Covid-19 affected economic climate of the time, but that was considered unimportant.

There was no threat of investigation, let alone punishment. At least, not initially. Things changed dramatically in 2021.