Alessandro Romano's performance against Parma has reignited debate over Roma's decision to sell the academy-grown midfielder this summer. One impressive display cannot define a career, but it sharpens a legitimate question: did Roma truly need to part with a 2006-born centrocampist who had grown through Trigoria and showed sufficient maturity for Serie A football?
Romano need not have started regularly. He could have remained behind Koné, Neil El Aynaoui, Cristante and Pisilli, developing daily alongside more experienced players and serving as a cultivated alternative. With Champions League, the league and the Coppa Italia to contest, opportunities would not have been scarce. Roma will face the season with only four central midfielders. In that context, Romano would not have been a decorative addition but a genuine rotational resource, allowing Gasperini to manage the energy of senior players while offering quality in build-up play, insertion runs and long-range shooting—precisely what he demonstrated so impressively at the Tardini. As an academy product, he would also have been a valuable solution for European competition without consuming slots reserved for foreign purchases, a material advantage given UEFA's annual compliance constraints.
The sale was primarily financial. Romano had virtually no book value, and the approximately €5 million plus bonuses from Cagliari represented nearly pure profit. Roma needed revenue by 30 June and the young midfielder was among the most readily monetisable players available. Yet this creates a contradiction: the club invests millions acquiring young talent from other leagues while repeatedly using Trigoria's finest products to balance the books. The immediate economic gain risks becoming technical and financial damage over the medium term. The names Calafiori and Frattesi return inevitably to memory—different paths, but united by the same principle: talents formed by Roma, sold before full maturity, later becoming too expensive to reclaim.
No one can guarantee Romano will reach their level. But by selling him outright, without publicly reported buyback or resale percentage clauses, Roma has surrendered the right to guide and control his development. His Parma goal does not confirm a fresh historical error, yet it sounds an alarm. Romano could have failed, learned and improved wearing Roma's shirt. Instead the club chose immediate income—substantial but not decisive. The risk is having deprived itself once again not only of a promising young player but of the chance to discover how far he might have gone.
Testo Originale / Source Text
“La prodezza realizzata contro il Parma non basta per stabilire quale sarà la carriera di Alessandro Romano. Una partita, per quanto sontuosa, non può trasformarsi in una sentenza definitiva. Può però alimentare una domanda legittima: la Roma aveva davvero bisogno di privarsi di un centrocampista…”
Read the full article in Italian at TeleRadioStereo.