From sports to public buildings, a single step has ignited debate in the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale). On the morning of Wednesday, 23 September, the Chamber began examining a bill on measures and incentives to support sporting activity. The text was originally drafted to promote major sporting events, but along the way it was broadened to include interventions on state-owned property. That is where the real clash lies: everyone agrees on the possibility of involving private contributors, but the opposition is demanding stronger guarantees on who decides which works get funded.
In the majority report, Paolo Crescentini (PSD) noted that the bill left committee with no votes against, only abstentions from the opposition. Sport, he stressed, is also “education, inclusion, wellbeing, territorial promotion and an opportunity for economic and social development.” In the majority’s view, the law can help both in organizing events and in restoring public assets.
Secretary of State Rossano Fabbri acknowledged that extending the scope beyond sports facilities “is certainly the most significant change compared with the original bill.” He nonetheless defended the mechanism set out in the text: projects are identified each year by the State Congress and then go before the Council together with the budget law. “A private individual may choose to contribute to a project that the State has already identified; it is not up to private parties to determine the State’s priorities,” he explained. Fabbri also drew a distinction between donations and sponsorships: those who contribute funds for a public purpose may receive only institutional, informational or communicative forms of recognition.
Matteo Casali (RF) acknowledged the Secretary’s willingness to engage in dialogue and the amendments made regarding recognition for donors, now defined in purely symbolic terms. He remains opposed, however, to the broadening of the provision, which he believes came too late in the process to properly assess its consequences. His concern is a concrete one: a private donor could offer money for a particular project and push it ahead of more urgent works. “Interventions funded by private parties could end up taking priority over those that are actually necessary,” he warned, also calling for controls to prevent a sponsorship from being disguised as a donation.
Nicola Berti (AR) defended the bill and criticized the opposition, arguing that it struggles to acknowledge “even the commendable initiatives put forward by the majority and the Government.” The State, he noted, invests little in sports federations and must contend with competing demands for resources from healthcare, education and other sectors. “Necessity, then, becomes virtue,” he said: private contributions can support events and improvements to public buildings, including sports facilities, allowing works to move forward that might otherwise wait for years.
Dalibor Riccardi (Libera) admitted that placing this amendment within a sports law might raise eyebrows, but urged colleagues to focus on evaluating the actual rules. Incentives, he argued, could help renovate even a theatre or a school, provided the interventions are deemed strategic and are reviewed by the Council. Barbara Bollini (PDCS) highlighted the educational, social and touristic value of sport, recalling that each federation may submit a proposal to the National Olympic Committee (CONS) by 30 September for an event the following year, with a maximum of five events authorized annually. Even so, she maintained, “the choice of which events and works to fund must remain in the hands of public institutions, of the State.”
Fabio Righi (D-ML) took a harder line. While he shares the bill’s original goal of supporting sport, he objected to how the amendment on public property was introduced and proposed restoring the law to its original scope. As currently drafted, he warned, the measure risks becoming “almost a legalization — indeed an incentive — for favours.” Gaetano Troina (D-ML) clarified that public-private collaboration is not itself the issue: the real concern is an extension that, “if not adequately limited and controlled,” could open the door “to abuse or to possible do ut des arrangements.” Emanuele Santi (Rete) announced his group’s vote against the bill, summing up the risk he sees in the provision: a project “becomes a priority simply because someone has already put money into it.”
Examination of the bill remains open and will continue in the next Council session. At 12:20 p.m., proceedings were suspended for the greeting address of the Captains Regent.
