So was there a penalty?

The start of the Ukrainian soccer championship was marred by some unpleasant incidents connected with refereeing. The question of arbitration at soccer matches was high on the agenda of a recent press conference in Kyiv. In addition to the very well-known Ukrainian referees Serhiy Tatulian and Kostiantyn Vikhrov, now holding executive posts in our soccer domain, President of the Professional Soccer League of Ukraine (PSL) Hrihory SURKIS also addressed media representatives.

It is Dynamo Kyiv, of which Mr. Surkis is honorary president, that was involved in the scandals of the first rounds of the championship. According to many fans, as well as some publications, referees of the matches Kryvbas vs. Dynamo and Dynamo vs. Metallist unfairly awarded penalties against the Kyivans' rivals. What happened in reality?

Undoubtedly, today's Dynamo Kyiv does not play in a harmonious and team-spirited way, so typical of Valery Lobanovsky's team in all times. The Kyivans are evidently going through a crisis. But do referees “play up” to them? During the press conference, journalists were shown the episodes which resulted in the award of penalties. The mass media people were persuaded to believe that foul play was obvious. However, representatives of the Ukrainian soccer Themis are pulling the wool over our eyes a bit here. The episode from the Kryvy Rih match (Kryvbas vs. Dynamo) was shown as filmed with one camera, while that of the Kyiv game (Dynamo vs. Metallist) with two cameras. But, as Mr. Surkis said, international soccer organizations do not recommend in general to use videorecording as evidence in disputable questions if a given episode is not shown as filmed with five or six cameras. As to the episodes viewed at the press conference, the visual impressions they made might have been deceptive. However, the leaders of our soccer gathered journalists only on that day not to discuss refereeing and disputable points in soccer.

As the participants spoke, the conference was taking a more and more pronounced tilt toward the relationship between the press and this country's soccer executives. In particular, Mr. Surkis made an unequivocally negative assessment of the harsh comments in some newspapers about refereeing in Ukrainian soccer. His colleagues were more specific. PSL Executive Secretary Valery Myrsky, who has worked for dozens of years in sports journalism, said a phrase which I think became the leitmotif of this press conference: “The newspaper Ukrainsky futbol should be closed with a bang.”

So what happened? The only point is that this publication, very popular and respected in this country, by the way, allowed a harsh criticism of referees and a supposition that somebody “pulls” Dynamo Kyiv up the tournament charts. The UF's categorical judgment was in fact the reason for saying from the rostrum: “You are applying the methods of 1937.”

Sorry, but 1999 seems to differ from 1937 by the existence of diametrically opposed opinions and judgments. Every person is free to express his opinion the way he pleases, and his skill (if he/she is a journalist) and correctness of judgment will be assessed by the interest of readers in the newspaper (its print- run). What is also rather alarming, the leaders of Ukrainian soccer more and more often meddle in press affairs. Worthy of note, in this connection, is the opinion of Valentyn SHCHERBACHEV , one of the leading sports journalists in this country:

“To my mind, people who have big money and power in Ukrainian soccer transgress all the conceivable and inconceivable boundaries of ethics. They are most likely unfamiliar with the rules of good style. To put it roughly, they simply try to teach us to write about soccer. Fortunately, not all mass media chose to kowtow in this situation. The problem is different: we are all separated from each other, we lack unity, and we are unable to stand up for ourselves. This is why PSL executives allow themselves such statements. However, I think the developments of the past few days will make some of our sports journalists think it over, and we will at last take a clear-cut stand over the arbitrariness of the leaders of Ukraine's soccer organizations. I once tried to tackle this, but I failed, of course, because I acted alone. I hope I won't be alone from now on.”

By all accounts, there is no point in putting emphasis again on the publication that, for some reason, does not wish to defend itself. At any rate, when we turned for comments to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Ukrainsky futbol Mykola Motorny, we only heard one phrase in reply: “No comment.”

Mr. Myrsky's statement immediately made us recall the events of the winter of 1997/98, when the then very popular newspaper Vseukrainskiye vedomosti literally paid with its life for reporting that... Andriy Shevchenko was being sold to Milan for $25 million (!!!). At that time, leaders of FC Dynamo Kyiv Ltd. successfully sued the newspaper, which carried information really capable of undermining the moral and psychological climate in the team. But, as it became clear later, the information was not a “canard” but material that ran ahead of the event. Now Mr. Surkis is not happy with the way the press analyzes the performance of his team, and with the attitude of soccer referees to Dynamo. The precedent took place in early 1998. Is history repeating itself now? In any case, the threats are unambiguous. I think Mr. Surkis undermines, first of all, his own authority by such actions. And, cracking down on publications working for enhancing the popularity of soccer, he will hardly help Ukraine's “No 1 sport.” So why not specify the term “the year 1937?”

In one of his appearances, Mr. Surkis also remembered to mention The Day. The gentleman did not like, in particular, our initiative: the debate over Ukrainian soccer.

According to the PSL leader, this debate is in no way connected with the problems of our soccer, for it “serves the political interests” of Yevhen Marchuk. And it is “mean and petty” on the part of The Day, in Mr. Surkis' opinion, to print readers' letters. It is difficult to imagine that a European-educated person, Army General, candidate for president of Ukraine Yevhen Marchuk should be working in the sports section of The Day. Indeed, it is not so today. We do not think that, launching a new headline in the newspaper, some of the sports section writers intended to “bite Mr. Surkis as painfully as possible.”

I admit that when editors came up with the idea of this action, politics was the last thing they were thinking about, if at all. What the sports section journalists desired was to involve people in discussing, of all things, the problems of soccer. And in the very first issue, where we began this debate, the floor was given to no one else but Mr. Surkis. We wanted, and still want, to know the opinion of the common people — fans — about what is going on in Ukrainian soccer. In the long run, soccer itself exists for them only. Nor did we shun the opinion of experts, which our newspaper did and will cover on its pages. In my opinion, when people show interest in the debate and actively participate in it on a par with journalists and experts, this enhances, above all, the prestige of soccer itself.

However, Mr. Surkis does not think so: “The dogs are barking, but the caravan is going on.” Frankly speaking, I do not know who Mr. Surkis meant — journalists, experts or fans — when he said this phrase, but I felt sorry. For OUR soccer.

The Dayeditors continue the debate on Ukrainian soccer. We ask our readers to express your views of the processes underway in this sport. Write and ring us, voice your opinion on the way our teams play, and on the actions of referees, coaches and Ukrainian soccer executives. Send all mail to: The Day(with a note “Soccer”), 2L, Marshal Tymoshenko Street, Kyiv, 254212. Or ring us (044) 414-90-00 Sports section