Andriy Pavelko: "In the" Mariupol case "it is necessary to put a stop, make the right conclusions, unite and direct joint efforts on the development of Ukrainian football"

The President of the Football Federation of Ukraine Andriy Pavelko in an interview with the official website of the FFU spoke about the course of the trial over the "Mariupol case" in Lausanne and commented on the verdict of the Sports Arbitration Court. 

What significance will the decision of the Lausanne Sports Arbitration Court in the "Mariupol case" have for Ukrainian football?

- The most important thing in the CAS verdict is a clear signal to the management of all domestic clubs and their patrons that they are provided with equal opportunities in the Ukrainian championship. No team will have a privileged position, and despite the names of the leaders, the names of the clubs or their old merits, no one will be able to dictate their terms to other teams, the leadership of the UPL and FFU, violating the rules of the competition. This applies to both the Premier League and other leagues.

Such a signal is very important for all Ukrainian football, especially now that our sport and the state as a whole are going through very difficult times. Soccer players, coaches, club management need confidence that Ukraine has a level playing field. This is the only way to concentrate on the development of football, improving the game and succeeding, justifying the expectations of their fans. That is why I am proud that we have succeeded in upholding the position of the Control and Disciplinary Committee, the Appeal Committee and the position of the Football Federation as a whole in Lausanne. After all, the main task of the FFU is to ensure equal sports opportunities for all teams.

- Will FC Dynamo (Kyiv) support such a position?

- Like millions of domestic football fans, I support this club, I enjoy watching matches with the participation of the grand and sincerely support the team, especially when it plays in the international arena. I am very grateful to Igor Surkis for making efforts for the development of the club, and the pupils of the Dynamo school are joining our national teams. But, unfortunately, there are decisions of the club's management, which deprive the players of the opportunity to compete for such important points for them, and the fans - the opportunity to see the game of their idols. It is very bad when the actions of the club's management are harmful to wrestling, and the court of Lausanne confirmed it. Everyone can make mistakes, but it is important not to repeat the same mistakes, and the CAS decision is a kind of vaccination against violations of competition rules in the future.

The law is one for all?

- Yes, I emphasized this as soon as the first threats regarding the possible non-appearance of FC Dynamo (Kyiv) for the match in Mariupol were heard. At that time, it was still possible to prevent this unpleasant story for all of us. In fact, when we brought a team of legends (the national team of Ukraine among veterans) to Mariupol on the day of the planned match, everyone could see how wonderful, hospitable the city is.

Mariupol was well prepared for the match of the 7th round of UPL, and the fans to the last believed that they would see the game of the legendary club with their own eyes. Later, the leadership of Kiev went to the world and agreed to play in Mariupol. But it was too late: the CCC and the FFU Appeals Committee had spoken their word for flagrant violation of the regulations. We could not ignore the decisions of the football judiciary, this would have set a dangerous precedent, and tomorrow other UPL members would start refusing to attend guest matches, arguing that they had received an anonymous call about a terrorist attack in the city for a duel and had some letters from the right bodies.

Myrova was proposed by the management of FC Dynamo during the trial in Lausanne. However, the announced two versions of the "compromise" did not suit another team - FC Mariupol, so the FFU could not support them.

According to one of the options, the match that did not take place and the two possible matches between Dynamo and Mariupol during the second stage of the championship were to take place on a neutral field. According to another, Dynamo agreed to replay the match in Mariupol.

I repeat, FC Mariupol did not agree to such options. In addition, making such a decision is not the prerogative of the FFU, but is within the competence of the UPL Directorate. Which, incidentally, was directly pointed out by CAS judges. So we could not agree to this in Lausanne. After all, in this case, the principle of equality for all UPL participants would be violated - a key point advocated by the FFU.

The UPL management is also responsible for approving the option that Dynamo offered back in the summer - to swap matches in Mariupol and Kyiv. However, as it turned out in Lausanne, Kyiv residents did not apply to the UPL with such a proposal. Probably, this happened because Dynamo could not explain why in August they were ready to go to Mariupol only after receiving very serious security guarantees, and in December - on general terms…

Much depended on Lausanne's decision, including the authority and credibility of the Stadiums and Competitions Safety Committee, as well as the SCC and the FFU Appeals Committee, which were formed by the FFU Congress in accordance with democratic procedures prescribed by law and decisions in the "Mariupol case" were guided exclusively by regulatory and statutory rules.

— Could the resonance surrounding the consideration of the "Mariupol issue" in the Court of Arbitration for Sport have hampered the preparations for the UEFA Champions League finals, which will take place in Kyiv in May?

"Of course." The main threat is the possible doubts of our European partners about the safety of matches in Ukraine, which was speculated by some representatives of FC Dynamo (Kyiv). Fortunately, this was avoided. However, we spent a lot of time preparing for the trial in Lausanne. This distracted from preparing for the UEFA Champions League final. However, this did not prevent us from fulfilling all our current commitments on time, as confirmed by a recent inspection by the UEFA delegation.

Fortunately, the "horrors of Ukrainian reality" reported by witnesses from FC Dynamo (Kyiv) in Lausanne did not impress the judges. FFU managed to defend the image of the country, to prove that we are making all necessary efforts for the development of football and quality preparation for the upcoming football holiday. 

- One of the main accusations of Dynamo concerned the level of security of the organization of matches…

- FFU did not intend to hold a match in Mariupol at any cost. We have maintained and maintain constant and direct contact with all law enforcement agencies, and if there was a real threat to the lives or health of fans and players, the match would not have taken place.

There is a clearly defined procedure for assessing the safety of the organization of fights. Each individual match and preparation for it is discussed at a meeting with the participation of representatives of law enforcement agencies, who, among other things, put their signatures under the relevant act. In case of preparation for the match in Mariupol, taking into account the possible risks, it was decided to hold two such meetings before each match in this city - three days before the match, and, as in other cases, on the day of the match. That is, two levels of security were formed. If at least one responsible person does not put his signature under one of the documents, the match is not held. There was a multi-level security control mechanism that allows a conditional "stopcock" to be used at any stage if there is a real threat to spectators or teams.

In fact, the letter of one of the FFU representatives already mentioned in the domestic media, which was sent to the SBU in May, ie three months before the match, indicates that in this case it was a pre-planned action, not real security concerns. holding matches in Mariupol. This is proved by the fact that the management of FC Dynamo (Kyiv) did not ask the UPL management to confirm the existence of force majeure in Mariupol, due to which the match should have been postponed.

— Some media outlets have reported the decision CAS in the "Mariupol case" under the headlines that you defeated the management of FC "Dynamo" (Kyiv) in Lausanne, thus hinting at the personal nature of the conflict over this issue…

- Yes, at some points from the outside it might seem that there is a confrontation of specific individuals. Moreover, the president of FC Dynamo (Kyiv) Ihor Surkis personally represented the interests of the club in court, Hryhoriy Surkis was also in Switzerland, and I defended the position of the Football Federation of Ukraine in Lausanne.

But it is not. It was important for me to prevent football separatism in our country. After all, today someone decided that the conditional border of football Ukraine lay in Mariupol, and tomorrow it could be Kramatorsk, Zaporozhye, Kharkiv, Dnipro and other cities. And this is after the Federation made a lot of efforts to bring back big football, including official international matches, to Odessa, Kharkiv and Dnipro. I could not allow someone to artificially cut out the entire city and the fans who live there from the football map of the country.

We have done a great job, for which I am grateful to our lawyers, the Swiss partners who assisted in this matter, and the entire team of FFU specialists who upheld the law and equal conditions for all UPL participants. I am also very grateful to the CAS arbitrators for their excellent work, although it was not easy for them to make a decision, in particular following the testimony of former SBU Deputy Chairman Mikhail Glugovsky, who said very unpleasant things that could have hurt the preparation for the UEFA Champions League Finals. It was an outright anti-state stance.

Immediately, three FFU representatives came to the meeting CAS to appeal the legality of the decisions of the SCC and AK FFU…

- This is a very unpleasant episode that needs a separate analysis and evaluation. The position and testimony of these FFU representatives were especially surprising. In particular, a letter of appeal to the head of the SBU, dated May 23, 2017, which calls into question the safety of UPL matches in Mariupol. The very idea of ​​this document was to convince the public and the court of Lausanne that the "Mariupol issue" was initiated by the FFU and not by FC Dynamo (Kyiv). Although the author of the letter did not have the right to correspond with the authorities on behalf of the FFU, as the reorganization of the federation continued during this period, and all relevant powers were transferred to the reorganization commission.

Moreover, it is illogical that the issue raised by the FFU representative in his letter to the SBU had not previously been discussed either at the stadium and competition committee meeting or at the executive committee, which is a serious violation. Of course, such actions have already been evaluated by the FFU Ethics and Fair Play Committee. Although it would be fair if these people themselves made the relevant statements before deciding to publicly oppose the position of the FFU.

I will give my own example. When I was the vice-president of the FFU, and there was a situation when my position contradicted the position of the rest of the organization's leadership, I wrote a statement requesting the suspension of my powers until the next congress, which was to consider my continued tenure. Everyone has the right to express their position, and for this purpose meetings of committees and the FFU Executive Committee are held, but if a collegial decision has already been made, everyone is obliged to implement it. In order to ensure the most democratic procedure for making such decisions, at one time it was initiated to expand the composition of the FFU Executive Committee, which now represents all regional organizations and FFU members, to 44 people.

These three representatives of the federation had the opportunity to express their opinion and influence the decisions of the organization during the discussion of the "Mariupol issue". But after the decision is made, they are obliged to adhere to it, and not to shame the FFU and the whole country in the international arena, which we observed in Lausanne.

— How do you see the relationship between FFU and FC Dynamo (Kyiv) after the end of this trial?

- In this story, we finally need to put an end, analyze all the mistakes, draw the right conclusions and, uniting, direct joint efforts to the development of Ukrainian football. I have many friends among the management and players of the club, for which we all support in the Europa League and which we sincerely wish success. We now really need new victories and new trophies of domestic clubs in the international arena, but they will be unattainable if personal likes or dislikes become decisive in Ukrainian football. A living and very painful example for me is FC Dnipro. As the president of FFU and a fan, it was extremely painful for me to watch the club from my native Dnipro lose 29 points according to the decisions of disciplinary bodies and go down to the second league, but the law is the same for everyone.

I hope that soon together with the management of FC Dynamo (Kyiv) we will remember the "Mariupol history" without insults. The main thing is that the simple truth works: there are rules - and there are judicial bodies that control compliance with these rules. Only such an approach will allow to win the championship in the future, say, "Zorya", "Vorskla", "Alexandria", "Mariupol", "Carpathians" »And other clubs, and in the end all Ukrainian football will win.

We all remember the sensational success of English "Leicester", which proved that every team can become a champion, regardless of the size of the club's budget and the level of stardom of players. But this requires an iron will to win and equal conditions for all participants in the competition.

I really hope that in the future we will not have serious disagreements with FC Dynamo (Kyiv). Ukraine now has enough external enemies, so we are obliged to find a common language and together make every effort to develop domestic football and the country as a whole. We need to unite and be above all sorts of small misunderstandings. I am ready to work with Igor and Grigory Surkis, as well as the presidents of all other clubs, for the future of our football. 

TOPIC NEWS
07.10.2023 09:00

Congratulations to Andriy Pavel on his birthday!

We wish good health, the most important thing for every Ukrainian &m...

11.07.2023 17:04

Officially. The court decision on Andrii Pavelko dismissal as UAF president has been canceled

The court did not extend the decision on the removal of Andrii Pavelek from the position of...

28.06.2023 13:00

The lawyers talked about the progress of the pre-trial investigation and the essence of the case against the UAF management

A press conference was held in the capital's House of Football regarding the...

Subscribe to news