Torpedo and its fans should not suffer because of individuals."
This offseason, Russian football is rocked by an unprecedented number of scandals. Following the epic with the bankruptcy of Khimki and the determination of who would replace them in the RPL, there was a conflict with the exchange of teams between the first and second leagues, as a result of which the previously unknown transitional matches between FC Chelyabinsk and Astrakhan Volgar were scheduled, which ended in a victory for Chelyabinsk (1:1; 0:0, 4:2 on penalties).
In addition, a scandal broke out with Torpedo Moscow, which joined the RPL. The club's owner Leonid Sobolev and CEO Valery Skorodumov were detained on suspicion of attempting to bribe the referee of one of the First League spring matches. And Sochi football player Vladimir Pisarsky is suspected of betting with bookmakers through an intermediary on the defeat of his team in the transition match against Paris NN, which was actually lost, while Pisarsky himself was removed from the field at the end of the first half. In an interview with Izvestia, RFU Secretary General Maxim Mitrofanov commented on these scandals, spoke about their possible consequences, and also responded to Dynamo Moscow's statement about the lack of transparency of the Russian Cup draw procedure.
"I attribute this, among other things, to my own shortcomings and the shortcomings of my team."
— Shamil Gazizov, General Director of Dynamo Makhachkala, raised the issue of expanding the number of participants in the Premier League competition to 18 teams at the last meeting of the RPL general meeting. How did you react to this?
— It wasn't like that. The question was raised whether the league's development strategy should include separately the need to discuss the expansion of the league to 18 teams. To which the colleagues said: every line in life does not need to be written into a strategy. Therefore, if there is a need and a reason, of course, everyone is ready to discuss it. Shamil Kamilevich says that this is a comma, not a period in this question. Of course, yes.
— Doesn't it bother you that such initiatives are being proposed at a time when the RPL lost Khimki due to bankruptcy, and Novorossiysk Chernomorets lost its chances of rising from the first league in advance due to the lack of the necessary stadium, although it was supposed to play in transition matches for entry into the Premier League?
— No, it doesn't bother us, because we are discussing a strategic approach to the development of the league, how many teams there should be, and how the football economy should be developed.
— In June, the Bureau of the RFU Executive Committee decided to appoint transitional matches between Chelyabinsk and Astrakhan Volgar for the exit from the second league to the first. Initially, after Mashuk Pyatigorsk did not receive a license for the first league, Chelyabinsk thought that it would automatically go up as the winner of the autumn part of the season, and Volgar as the runner—up in the spring after Mashuk. How did you react to this situation, when there is a possibility for double interpretations in the regulations?
— In this case, there is a violation of logic in the regulations. Which, on the one hand, contained a complete list of grounds for not holding play-off matches. At the same time, the club, which took the third place in the spring part of the second league season, did not receive a license to play in the first league. And at the same time, the regulations contain a large number of cases of replacing the third-place team with the fourth-place team. For other reasons. For example, if the team that finished in the top three is a farm club of a team playing in the first league.
Now, the Rodina club is playing in the first league. And Rodina-2 plays in the second league. If she had taken one of the first three places, then the fourth team would have risen to the first league — this is immediately envisaged. And in the case when the third-placed team cannot play in the first league due to lack of a license, this is not provided in advance. Therefore, based on the logic and analogies of the rules of the regulations, the majority of the members of the Bureau of the Executive Committee came to the conclusion that the regulations are clearly unregulated.
If there was a clear rule that the team that took third place in the spring would play the joints with the first place in the autumn, then after the decision not to issue a license to Mashuk, the joints would be canceled, and Chelyabinsk would enter the first league without them. It would be a clear logic that does not imply any other options. But since this was not fully spelled out, it has now been decided that it is fair to change Mashuk at the joints to Volgar, which became the fourth, so that they and Chelyabinsk will play for entry into the first league. And then the regulations for the next season should be more clearly defined.
— Isn't it disappointing that the responsible staff of the RFU and the FNL make up the regulations in this way, and the members of the RFU Executive committee vote for it, sometimes without reading it?
— And what questions do you have for the members of the executive committee? They proceed primarily from the integrity of the league and the RFU staff, which must take into account all the nuances. I attribute this, among other things, to my own shortcomings and the shortcomings of my team. Another thing is that regulations are being unified. In principle, we are trying to define the RFU as a single regulatory approval center. Because in previous practice, each league developed its own rules independently. And I sent it to the RFU the day before the vote. As a result, it was physically impossible to process all the documents.
But now I have a proposal, and the leagues support it, to approve regulations for several seasons. Some amendments and adjustments can be made before each season, but the basic document itself will be valid for several years. Including the exchange of teams between the leagues. This will allow us to build long-term planning and eliminate such surprises when someone says, "Oh, we didn't know we had such regulations!"
— Will the issue of the exchange of teams between the first and second league be settled now?
— Let me comment on this on July 4, after the FNL general meeting.
"What motivates a person to immediately organize a polygraph test himself?"
— Is the scandal with Vladimir Pisarsky somehow threatening FC Sochi?
— We are investigating. Based on the materials that my colleagues provided me with when reporting on the investigation, there is not even any hint of Sochi's involvement in this matter. It doesn't exist, even if you really want to and try to come up with something. All Sochi fans don't have to worry about the word "at all."
"And the Clerk?"
— This needs to be reviewed by the ethics committee. There is a certain material, there is his testimony. Let colleagues investigate and evaluate.
— Is it true that Pisarsky declared his readiness to undergo a polygraph test, but the RFU did not consider it necessary?
— A polygraph test should be carried out when there are grounds for this. As far as I understand, in this case, the testimony given by Pisarsky was sufficient for the RFU Ethics committee and the RFU Game Protection department, which is conducting a preliminary investigation. At the same time, for the first time we came across the fact that a person called for a survey immediately comes to it with the results of a polygraph test, limited by himself. What motivates a person who does not know what questions they will be asked to immediately organize a polygraph test himself?
— Maybe it's a desire to create the right mood, to indicate that he has nothing to hide?
"Maybe." I don't know.
"If what they are accused of is proven after the start of the competition, are you suggesting that we ignore it?"
— Is there a possibility that Torpedo will be removed from the RPL competition following the outcome of the proceedings on charges of attempting to influence the referee?
— There are regulations, and there are different sanctions. First, you need to determine the factor and the amount of guilt. Accordingly, this will be done by the Control and Disciplinary Committee (KDK RFU). Only then will he decide on the application or non-application of a particular sanction.
All of us, all of football, including Torpedo, as a club and brand, have become hostages of this situation. The people who are the club's leaders are now suspected of criminal offenses, among other things. These are serious accusations. But Torpedo, as a legendary brand and the club's fans, should not automatically suffer for the actions of individuals. However, if certain circumstances are proven, then the consequences of these actions should also occur.
— On June 29, information appeared on the Telegram channel of insider Ivan Karpov that the RFU advised the Torpedo management not to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne (CAS) in the event of the club's withdrawal from the RPL competition, threatening in this case to send them not to the first league, but to exclude them from professional football altogether.
— We spoke with the current CEO of Torpedo, Sergey Sinyaev, for the first time at a meeting of the general meeting of the RPL (July 1. — Izvestia). I understand that there are other higher-level managers besides him.
— Are you talking about the other co-founders of Torpedo, Nikolai Storozhuk and Vladimir Kozhaev?
— Yes, but we didn't have that kind of communication with them either. Accordingly, we have never discussed it with the CEO. Moreover, we have no reason to discuss anything yet. We are continuing the investigation, we are in contact with law enforcement agencies, and as soon as we receive the necessary information, the case will be referred to the CDC.
— Does the approval of the results of last season's competitions in the RFU mean that the topic of Torpedo's entry into the RPL cannot be turned back?
— We are inside a case related to the possible commission of an offense or a crime. Therefore, a decision can happen after the start of the competition in the new season.
— And who will you put in the RPL instead of Torpedo?
"Nobody."
— So there will be 15 teams in this RPL season if Torpedo is eliminated during it?
- yes.
— It turns out that the removal of Torpedo from the competition is possible already during the season?
— Well, if what they are accused of is proven after the start of the competition, do you suggest ignoring it?
— Look what to ignore. After all, even if we analyze the Torpedo matches, which were judged by the referee Maxim Perezva, whose name appears in the case of Sobolev and Skorodumov, his decisions in favor of Avtozavodets were not found there. And did the club as a whole participate in this?
— Look, it doesn't matter if you participated here... This is important, but for a separate qualification in relation to judges. What matters here is what people have done. And, accordingly, they just tried something there, committed or failed to commit some actions. Based on what circumstances will be established, we will make decisions.
"If someone wants to watch the ambassadors make up for three hours, we have no secrets"
— Dynamo Moscow reacted quite sharply to the Russian Cup draw procedure. In this regard, would you like to specify in more detail the degree of openness of the event?
— In terms of openness, everything was at a very high level there. The entire draw was cancelled. And the cuts from it were made for news releases and everything else. Once it seemed that the draw as a separate event would attract the attention of both clubs and the public. But it didn't generate any interest during the previous seasons.
— Are you judging by television ratings?
— By them, as well as by the number of views. This year, for the first time, we held the draw for the entire Russian Cup competition. That is, there will be no more draws during the season. Therefore, it was all the more difficult to organize everything. But now the whole grid is already painted before the Superfinal. Therefore, it was a slightly different situation than when we showed the 10-minute draw only for the group stage of the RPL Path, which did not arouse any interest even then.
In addition, I would not like to give statistics on which clubs came to the draw and which never came. I don't want to analyze it and continue the controversy. As the organizer of all the tournaments that take place in Russian football, we have proven the high commercial effectiveness of each of these competitions. With the participation of colleagues, and we do everything with the participation of clubs, largely thanks to the leadership of the RFU, all tournaments have seriously increased in value.
—How much?"
— For example, the Russian Super Cup has increased more than tenfold.
— Compared to what period? Starting in 2022?
— Now the budget is over 650 million rubles per match, and it was 20 when the RFU first started dealing with it. In 2022, when the Russian Super Cup was held in St. Petersburg between Zenit and Spartak, there was a budget of 20 million rubles, but we also earned money from third-party sources of income, and we distributed more funds as a result. And in 2019-2021, it was 20 million rubles each. Since then, the growth has been obvious. The Russian Cup has grown in revenue in the same way, and other competitions are growing. We understand how to make competitions interesting, which parts of them become commercially attractive, which do not. There was a hypothesis that the draw was a separate commercial product. It has not been confirmed.
— Accordingly, do you reject the claims that there was no full broadcast of the draw, that representatives of the clubs were not present at it?
— Technically, the whole draw is completely transparent. The ambassadors of the tournament, representatives of the RFU attended it. There is a full record of the draw, I did not really understand this reaction, but we discussed the issue with the Dynamo management, with Dmitry Gafin (chairman of the Dynamo Board of Directors. — Izvestia) we talked, we don't have any misunderstanding. Maybe, for future periods, we will post the actual, technical, and parallel shooting somewhere. If someone wants to sit for three hours, watch the ambassadors make up, and so on, then we have no secrets. We will exclude the sound at this moment.
"Now we are experimenting with the audience"
— At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), you participated in one of the sessions when Valery Karpin criticized the work of Match TV and entered into a controversy with its leadership, calling for the national team's games to be broadcast on Channel One. What is your position on this?
— In my opinion, such a demand for matches and various sports competitions on Match TV, as it is now, simply means that it is impossible to put all the events there. And this suggests that Match TV needs to think about having a second federal button, and preferably the first multiplex. Then all the requests of the various federations of sports competitions will be satisfied.
And where and how is it more convenient to show matches? There is the position of UEFA, there is the position of the RFU, there is the position of the market, which votes for who does what, who specializes in what, who earns and makes high-quality sports content, who makes some general political broadcasts, and who makes entertainment broadcasts. Therefore, the niches on our television have been distributed for a long time.
We have experience showing matches on Channel One, including in the recent past. But there is no comparison here. Match TV is a high—quality sports channel that shows sports events at the highest level. The First channel has a different specificity. Therefore, when it becomes interesting for both us and them, we are always ready to consider broadcasting matches on different platforms. Now, you know that we are experimenting with the audience, some of the matches are shown on Match, on its federal channel, some go to VK Video, for example. And it is shown in digital. Therefore, the search for formats is underway. Thus, the audience, including Match TV, is expanding. It is important here that our cooperation is mutually beneficial for all parties.
— Didn't the RFU ask Karpin to speak harshly about Match TV in order to improve your negotiating positions on the topic of a new TV contract that will need to be signed in 2026?
—No, not really. Valery Georgievich has his own long-standing, including friendly, relations with Alexander Tashchin (general producer of Match TV, with whom Karpin entered into a controversy at the SPIEF. — Izvestia). They had a nice chat after the event.
— Friendly without quotes?
— In the truest sense of the word, good friendly relations.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
