Do not drag Ukrainian football back into the Soviet Union
Thursday, July 16, 2026
|
FC Shakhtar CEO Serhii Palkin has issued a statement regarding the foreign player limit for the new season
When the arguments run out, bans usually begin. That is exactly the kind of debate currently unfolding around the future of Ukrainian football.
Over the past year, the Ukrainian Association of Football has done a great deal of work and, more importantly, genuinely valuable work to create opportunities for Ukrainian footballers in European leagues. In return, Ukraine is allowing footballers from European Union countries to play in our league without being considered foreign players. This is a clear example of progress, integration and strategic decision-making capable of changing the status quo.
The UAF Executive Committee has now made a balanced decision to require at least three Ukrainian footballers to be on the pitch at any one time, taking into account the exceptional circumstances in our country. This is because, due to certain restrictions, our players are still unable to fully access employment opportunities in Europe. We support this direction and understand the need for gradual and balanced reform.
However, this approach has its opponents. A number of UPL clubs, led by Dynamo, are in favour of maintaining the current system without any changes or even the slightest hint of reform.
An initiative is currently being discussed to abolish the existing rule under which footballers holding the passport of a European Union country are not considered foreign players in the Ukrainian championship.
Instead of looking for ways to increase the competitiveness of the league, strengthen the position of Ukrainian clubs in European competitions and create better conditions for player development, we are being offered a return to the old model based on administrative restrictions. This would mean reverting to the previous foreign player limit – no more than seven foreign players on the pitch at the same time – and abandoning the current European principle under which players holding EU citizenship do not count towards that limit.
Shakhtar is firmly opposed to such a move.
Today, any decision that preserves the current system and stands in the way of change is a step backwards. It leads nowhere. It is an attempt to take Ukrainian football back to the past by rebuilding a closed system in which artificial restrictions are favoured over open competition.
The main argument put forward by those who support retaining the previous foreign player limit is well known. They argue that such restrictions are necessary for the development of Ukrainian footballers and, consequently, for improving the performance of the national team.
However, any such claim should be supported by practical results.
Ukraine have failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup in each of the last five editions of the tournament, dating back to 2010. Meanwhile, over the same period, 22 different European national teams have qualified for at least one FIFA World Cup. If there were a direct link between the foreign player limit and the success of the national team, it would inevitably have been reflected in the team's results. However, the facts suggest otherwise: the system of restrictions that was in place for many years failed to achieve the intended effect.
Today, Ukraine ranks only 25th in the UEFA association club coefficients. In these circumstances, the key question should not be how to preserve the existing restrictions, but how to find mechanisms that will enable Ukrainian football to return to the top ten associations in Europe. The answer is unlikely to lie in creating new administrative barriers.
The history of world sport clearly shows that competition is the main driver of progress. It raises the standard of the league, accelerates players' development, encourages academies to improve youth training, increases the demands placed on coaches and club management, and makes the competition more attractive to supporters, broadcasters, investors and sponsors. Artificial restrictions, by contrast, only reduce the intensity of competition and rarely become a source of long-term progress.
Significantly, the president of FC Shakhtar, Rinat Akhmetov, has expressed a similar view. Following Paris Saint-Germain's rapid rise through major investment, he was asked in an interview with The Guardian whether European football's regulations should be changed to artificially limit the French club's opportunities. He refused to support such an idea, stressing that progress cannot be achieved by artificially weakening the strongest. The only way to succeed is to become stronger yourself and meet the highest standards of competition. It is this philosophy that is of fundamental importance to Ukrainian football today.
Unfortunately, the approach currently being proposed is based on the opposite logic. Instead of improving the quality of our own work, we are being encouraged to reduce the level of competition. Instead of improving academies, developing coaching methods and increasing the effectiveness of club management, the proposal is to preserve a system of restrictions designed to compensate for our own shortcomings.
Such an approach can hardly be described as modern. It reflects a philosophy of administrative regulation in which progress is achieved not by creating better conditions, but by limiting the opportunities of other participants in the market.
Ukraine has already made its civilisational choice. That choice is European integration, an open economy, fair competition and a constant commitment to raising our own standards. It is only logical that these same principles should also form the foundation of Ukrainian football's development.
Therefore, today's discussion is about more than just the competition regulations. It is about choosing the model for the future development of Ukrainian football. Either we continue along the European path, based on competition and openness, or we return to the philosophy of administrative restrictions, which has repeatedly proved ineffective.
Either we timidly look back, nostalgic for the 1970s and 1980s, or we boldly change the rules and move towards the civilised world, an open and competitive football economy. Rather than trying to become stronger by weakening others, we should compete with the best and raise our own standards.
If the next UPL General Meeting attempts to overturn the previously adopted decisions, which we believe were the right ones, Shakhtar reserves the right to challenge such actions through the courts.
Do not be afraid of competition and do not drag Ukrainian football back into the Soviet Union.
Over the past year, the Ukrainian Association of Football has done a great deal of work and, more importantly, genuinely valuable work to create opportunities for Ukrainian footballers in European leagues. In return, Ukraine is allowing footballers from European Union countries to play in our league without being considered foreign players. This is a clear example of progress, integration and strategic decision-making capable of changing the status quo.
The UAF Executive Committee has now made a balanced decision to require at least three Ukrainian footballers to be on the pitch at any one time, taking into account the exceptional circumstances in our country. This is because, due to certain restrictions, our players are still unable to fully access employment opportunities in Europe. We support this direction and understand the need for gradual and balanced reform.
However, this approach has its opponents. A number of UPL clubs, led by Dynamo, are in favour of maintaining the current system without any changes or even the slightest hint of reform.
An initiative is currently being discussed to abolish the existing rule under which footballers holding the passport of a European Union country are not considered foreign players in the Ukrainian championship.
Instead of looking for ways to increase the competitiveness of the league, strengthen the position of Ukrainian clubs in European competitions and create better conditions for player development, we are being offered a return to the old model based on administrative restrictions. This would mean reverting to the previous foreign player limit – no more than seven foreign players on the pitch at the same time – and abandoning the current European principle under which players holding EU citizenship do not count towards that limit.
Shakhtar is firmly opposed to such a move.
Today, any decision that preserves the current system and stands in the way of change is a step backwards. It leads nowhere. It is an attempt to take Ukrainian football back to the past by rebuilding a closed system in which artificial restrictions are favoured over open competition.
The main argument put forward by those who support retaining the previous foreign player limit is well known. They argue that such restrictions are necessary for the development of Ukrainian footballers and, consequently, for improving the performance of the national team.
However, any such claim should be supported by practical results.
Ukraine have failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup in each of the last five editions of the tournament, dating back to 2010. Meanwhile, over the same period, 22 different European national teams have qualified for at least one FIFA World Cup. If there were a direct link between the foreign player limit and the success of the national team, it would inevitably have been reflected in the team's results. However, the facts suggest otherwise: the system of restrictions that was in place for many years failed to achieve the intended effect.
Today, Ukraine ranks only 25th in the UEFA association club coefficients. In these circumstances, the key question should not be how to preserve the existing restrictions, but how to find mechanisms that will enable Ukrainian football to return to the top ten associations in Europe. The answer is unlikely to lie in creating new administrative barriers.
The history of world sport clearly shows that competition is the main driver of progress. It raises the standard of the league, accelerates players' development, encourages academies to improve youth training, increases the demands placed on coaches and club management, and makes the competition more attractive to supporters, broadcasters, investors and sponsors. Artificial restrictions, by contrast, only reduce the intensity of competition and rarely become a source of long-term progress.
Significantly, the president of FC Shakhtar, Rinat Akhmetov, has expressed a similar view. Following Paris Saint-Germain's rapid rise through major investment, he was asked in an interview with The Guardian whether European football's regulations should be changed to artificially limit the French club's opportunities. He refused to support such an idea, stressing that progress cannot be achieved by artificially weakening the strongest. The only way to succeed is to become stronger yourself and meet the highest standards of competition. It is this philosophy that is of fundamental importance to Ukrainian football today.
Unfortunately, the approach currently being proposed is based on the opposite logic. Instead of improving the quality of our own work, we are being encouraged to reduce the level of competition. Instead of improving academies, developing coaching methods and increasing the effectiveness of club management, the proposal is to preserve a system of restrictions designed to compensate for our own shortcomings.
Such an approach can hardly be described as modern. It reflects a philosophy of administrative regulation in which progress is achieved not by creating better conditions, but by limiting the opportunities of other participants in the market.
Ukraine has already made its civilisational choice. That choice is European integration, an open economy, fair competition and a constant commitment to raising our own standards. It is only logical that these same principles should also form the foundation of Ukrainian football's development.
Therefore, today's discussion is about more than just the competition regulations. It is about choosing the model for the future development of Ukrainian football. Either we continue along the European path, based on competition and openness, or we return to the philosophy of administrative restrictions, which has repeatedly proved ineffective.
Either we timidly look back, nostalgic for the 1970s and 1980s, or we boldly change the rules and move towards the civilised world, an open and competitive football economy. Rather than trying to become stronger by weakening others, we should compete with the best and raise our own standards.
If the next UPL General Meeting attempts to overturn the previously adopted decisions, which we believe were the right ones, Shakhtar reserves the right to challenge such actions through the courts.
Do not be afraid of competition and do not drag Ukrainian football back into the Soviet Union.