From the ‘anti-fascist licence’ to publishers who are too rich: the latest controversy surrounding ‘Più libri più liberi’

Following the ‘anti-fascist’ controversy, another row has erupted over the 25th edition of Più libri più liberi, which is once again causing a stir months before it opens. This time, the focus is back on the financial aspects of the event, which were already the subject of criticism two years ago.

Today, a group of publishers sent a letter to Innocenzo Cipolletta, president of the Italian Publishers’ Association (AIE), to the president and director of Più libri più liberi, Annamaria Malato and Fabio Del Giudice, and to the fair’s steering committee. The signatories criticise the admission to the fair of certain publishers whose turnover exceeds the criteria set out in the regulations for inclusion among the small and medium-sized publishers represented at the event. “This is a situation that has already been highlighted by the press and has, over the years, been the subject of public commentary and controversy amongst industry professionals,” the letter states.

The general regulations of the fair stipulate that only publishing houses whose net turnover for the previous year did not exceed 10 million euros, and whose share capital is not more than 25 per cent owned by publishing houses or publishing groups with net turnover for the same period exceeding 10 million, are eligible to apply.

For this reason, the signatories of the text are publicly calling for clarification regarding the data used to verify the requirement, whether there are any exemptions to the established limit, and how the admission of publishers with a turnover higher than that specified can be reconciled with the exclusion of smaller publishing houses due to limited space availability. In this regard, the text also refers to the recent controversy over the so-called ‘licence’: “In recent months, the debate surrounding the event has rightly focused on compliance with constitutional principles, the rules and institutional integrity. It is precisely for this reason that we believe the same rigour must also be applied to the admission criteria set out in the regulations”.

The exclusion of 34 publishers on capacity grounds has once again become a bone of contention. The organisation’s official statement asserts that “the assessment gave priority to those whose main activity is publishing”, favouring those who had already taken part in previous editions. One of the rejected publishers, Idrovolante Edizioni, has expressed strong doubts regarding the reasons for its exclusion, which it considers excessively vague and ideologically motivated. Manuel Grillo, publisher of Settecolori, has also spoken out in its support; he had recently explained his refusal to sign the anti-fascist declaration in a letter published by Il Foglio. “It is regrettable that Idrovolante has been excluded: the reasons relating to space seem unconvincing, especially when, at the same time, vanity publishers or entities that – according to the same regulations – would not be entitled to participate are being included,” commented the publisher. Other publishing houses whose applications were rejected are reportedly considering legal action, whilst Passaggio al Bosco, at the centre of last year’s controversy, was excluded for submitting its application after the deadline.

The financial side of ‘Più libri più liberi’ had already been the subject of debate in 2024, when a hundred publishing houses issued a statement highlighting the difficulties faced by small publishers in affording the high cost of stands (a minimum of 1,500 euros) against a backdrop of falling sales, accusing the organisers of having designed a fair centred on events featuring superstar guests at the expense of the participating publishers.