The use of San Marino’s name on jerseys and in sporting denominations has become a flashpoint in the Council chamber.
At the heart of the dispute is a decree aimed at protecting the image of the Republic, ratified by majority vote on the afternoon of Thursday, 29 October, following a series of amendments.
San Marino Calcio is at the centre of the debate, with the liquidation of the association holding the club’s registration to compete in Italian league championships, alongside objections over the powers granted to the San Marino National Olympic Committee (Cons).
The question running through the debate is a practical one: how can the name of the state be protected without creating problems for clubs operating correctly? And how can a team be asked to change its name while the season is already underway?
Gian Matteo Zeppa, of Rete, begins by questioning the government’s decision to resort to emergency decree powers.
He links the measure to the case of San Marino Calcio’s president and raises the risk of a rule drafted against a specific individual. He also challenges the Cons regulation, which in its original version extended the rules to foreign sports clubs as well, and points to the practical difficulties of changing a name once the championship has already begun.
Criticism also came from Luca Della Balda, a councillor for Libera and former president of San Marino Calcio. Della Balda questioned both the urgency and certain aspects of the liquidation procedure affecting the sporting association linked to the team competing in Italy’s Eccellenza league.
“We are councillors of the Republic, and legislative power belongs to the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale), not to the Congress of State,” he said, announcing his vote against ratification.
Secretary of State Rossano Fabbri rejected the interpretation that the measure was aimed at Montanari.
He explained that the urgency stemmed from the compulsory liquidation of the association holding the registration required to compete in Italian league championships, a situation confirmed by an appeals court ruling.
Fabbri drew a distinction between the association and the joint-stock company, two entities that, in his account to the chamber, must be kept separate.
These clarifications shifted the tone of the debate. “The reasoning changes. It changes completely,” Zeppa acknowledged, though he continued to call for guarantees on how the rules would be applied.
On the broader goal of protecting the Republic’s name, the positions proved closer together.
Oscar Mina, of the PDCS, defended the measure but warned that protecting the state must go hand in hand with protecting sports associations. “Protecting the Republic’s name and protecting the associative sector are not conflicting goals,” he observed, calling for amateur clubs and organisations operating properly not to be penalised.
Paolo Crescentini, of the PSD, supported the thrust of the decree, while asking for clarity on what circumstances had made urgent action necessary. He reiterated that “laws should never be made against individuals,” distinguishing this principle from the legitimate protection of the state’s name.
The key issue thus became how to make the rules workable. Giovanni Maria Zonzini, of Rete, proposed limiting their scope to clubs incorporated under San Marino law and safeguarding sporting seasons already underway. He asked lawmakers to “reconcile the spirit of the decree with a legislative wording that is sensible and, above all, enforceable.”
An opening came from Andrea Ugolini, of the PDCS, who supported the measure while remaining open to amending it. “Protecting the name and image of the Republic is an important goal, but we must pursue it through rules consistent with sporting regulations,” he said.
During the examination of the articles, the government accepted a clarification limiting the rules to associations, federations and sports clubs incorporated under San Marino law. Fabbri also confirmed that the Cons regulation had already been amended with regard to foreign clubs. This was the turning point that brought the positions closer together and led Rete to withdraw its amendments seeking to strike down the measure.
Doubts remained, however, over the thirty-day deadline set for changing a club’s name and over the system of penalties. The issue raised concerned above all the relationship between the obligations introduced in San Marino and the rules of the competitions in which the teams take part.
Part of the Council also called for a broader approach. Nicola Renzi, of RF, criticised the frequent recourse to emergency decrees, describing it as a “decree-law fair,” and called for comprehensive legislation on the name and symbols of the Republic. Iro Belluzzi, of Libera, agreed on the need for a wider-ranging intervention, not limited to sport.
Emanuele Santi, of Rete, instead drew attention to entry-level checks — the requirements for individuals acquiring stakes in sports companies. “If we want to build effective protection, we need to act upstream,” he argued, calling for stricter preventive vetting.
The decree was ultimately ratified by majority vote with amendments to several articles, following the clarification of its scope and the withdrawal of Rete’s amendments seeking to strike it down.
