Four years for Anatolii Konkov

The result of the election of the new FFU head was quite predictable. After Hryhorii Surkis who had been heading FFU for the last twelve years had declared that he would not run for the next term, there were no other candidates but Anatolii Konkov. Why was he chosen and what will it bring to the Ukrainian football?

There is no tradition of electing highest football officials. The current high-ranking officials of the European and world football make a good example. The FIFA president Joseph Blatter has never been a footballer, however, he has spent all his life in sports first as a judge, then as an official. Instead, the UEFA president Michel Platini was an outstanding footballer, one of the best in the world. After that he tried to work as a coach and then he chose the administrative work.

Can we compare Surkis and Konkov to Blatter and Platini? It looks like we can: Surkis who was elected an honorary president of the FFU last Sunday, had come to football as an administrator, whereas Konkov who used to be one of the best footballers in the USSR, did not succeed either as a coach or in administrative work. But why have they chosen Konkov?

It is not a secret that all the power in our country is concentrated in the hands of the Donbas representatives. The change of the football authorities was delayed because of Euro-2012 since Europe took Surkis as a personal guarantee of a successful championship. Without it the power in the FFU would have been given to Donetsk a year and a half ago when the attempt of the football conspiracy was stopped thanks to UEFA.

Almost two years have gone by since then. The dust has settled. Even the most critical opponents of Surkis had to acknowledge his historical merit in the successful organization of the European football championship. All the more so that Surkis decided to avoid the confrontation and informed well in advance that he would not run for the next presidential term in FFU.

Thus there was no need to struggle for the election of the needed candidate. Instead there was a necessity to choose a person whose name would correspond to the high title of the president of the Football Federation of Ukraine. Then they remembered about Konkov who came to the USSR team from the Donetsk Shakhtar but won his real fame and awards in the Kyiv Dynamo headed by Valerii Lobanovsky. Regarding that after he had finished his football career, Konkov did not succeed anywhere and was employed in a first league team from Alchevsk when nominated the candidate for FFU presidency, he does not seem absolutely independent.

It is clear that the new team who came to power in FFU needed the well-known name of Konkov to have more authority. Konkov’s skills as an administrator or leader are still unknown. Does it mean that the new head of FFU will be a puppet and the policy of the federation will be decided behind his back?

To answer this question I can only refer to the information about Konkov that used to be well-known when he played football. Even the spectators could see that Konkov was a leader on the pitch able to assume responsibility in critical moments. I will never forget the match when Dynamo played with Bavaria in the spring 1977 when at the last minutes of the match not Blokhin, Onyschenko or Buriak attacked, but the fullback Konkov who broke through to the rivals’ net and “earned” the decisive penalty kick.

That is why, in my opinion, those who think that the new FFU president is not very persuasive are so wrong. I am sure that in the near future we will see Konkov as a very energetic and determined leader able to defend his positions. I hope that his abovementioned energy and willpower will avail the Ukrainian football and the four years Konkov will head FFU will bring no less progress to our football than the previous years.