Football expert Oleksandr Sopko shared his opinion on the situation around the creation of UPL TV.
It is to be recalled that at the general meeting of the Premier League clubs have not yet been able to agree on a unified broadcasting system. The current pool model was opposed by Dnipro 1, Dynamo and Zorya who have an existing contract with a media podcasting company 1+1. Also, the pool format does not suit Veres.
Alexander Sopko"Unfortunately, our football has long been plagued by such a disease as ambition, the personal gain of club owners, and the authority of the UAF and PFL, unfortunately, is not so great as to be able to unite the clubs with their authority, sometimes, perhaps, pressure, a concrete correct proposal beneficial to all.
Everyone has their own view, their own claims to each other, their own view of profit. There has to be either a strong, authoritative leadership or a tendency to find a compromise among the leaders. As long as these issues are not resolved, as long as we hang around in the old relationships, it is hard to count on a good, high-quality television product.
Plus the current situation, which does not give opportunities, either financially or in terms of personnel, to create a high-quality product. Relying on the basis of one club would also not be right, at this stage there must be an independent television structure under the UAF, which would be under the control of one authority and which would be equidistant from the clubs. But this is not visible in the current situation.
We must give up our interests for the sake of the interests of the country, the fans, but I think our leaders are not ready for that. Yes, the position of the representative of Dnipro 1 that the broadcast of matches during martial law should be free. The idea is certainly good, we should think about the fans, especially since they can`t attend football matches now, so at least let them watch it on TV. But someone has to pay for this pleasure, someone should organize it all - the studio, debriefings, comments, and so on.
Talking about the fans is good, of course, but I think it all stinks of populism. Many clubs in these difficult times simply want to make money by selling their rights, to somehow survive, to patch holes in the budget. And they benefit from the mechanism, the system of commercial relations to which they have adapted.
In order to change something, a long negotiation process is needed, where all the clubs will see a clearly written plan, with specific proposals. And they'll probably have to be prepared for the fact that there won't be any serious profits at first, that the product will pay off after a few years, after which it can be sold abroad to the fans.
And organization of the process. At this point it is very important for it to be some representative of the media business, distant from any particular club, we can say, equally distant from all the clubs, but willing to create a football channel, selecting the staff on that principle.
I will say that in the old days when football was covered by two channels, there was some balance, there was parity of opinion on different channels, there was competition which stabilized our television football to a certain extent. Now I don't think that our former channel owners have the means to create a TV channel on the same scale as before, as Football was not profitable.
Setanta failed, in my opinion, because I personally did not see a specific business project there, there was nothing there apart from the fact that the clubs would receive some money. There was no principle of staff selection and no information policy, hence the rumours, mistrust, suspicion and worries that we would give the company the rights and nothing good would come of it. And the issue is not whether the channel will be paid or free, the viewer is ready to pay, the only issue is the ratio of quality to a reasonable price.
Plus the experience of other countries, not the richest in terms of football media traditions. You can recall the reform of football television in Denmark. In short, the clubs were motivated by giving them all sorts of bonuses, TV rights privileges depending on tournament performances, place in the table. This all triggered global football reform in the country, changing the structure of the championship, improving television coverage of the games and everything around the matches. Yes, there, unlike us, was a different environment, there was no fighting, you could make some long-term plans. But even taking our situation into account, I think we can find something rational.
Perhaps in our situation it is necessary to create conditions for the creation of a quality product in stages. And the first step, in my opinion, should be the approval for fans to attend the matches, even if not in the biggest numbers to begin with. But the same players, support staff, and personnel - they take a risk. It is necessary to make adjustments to the regulations of a competition, with an open access to bomb shelters and people who will control that access. It's much easier to think it over and implement than to tackle a big project at once. Plus, a spectator in the stadium will give extra emotions to the players, and because of this, in turn, the game itself will become more interesting and of higher quality. And with it the potential TV picture, which should be of interest to investors. That's more promising now than starting with a lot of money, after which there might be friction, accusations of working with referees and things like that.
In any case, I am glad that the idea of a single pool is not dead, and it may finally be possible, given the current realities, to create a quality product which will be in demand," said Sopko.
Yevgeniy Savchuk
