President of the UPL commented on the situation with the discussion of the foreign players limit

President of UPL Yevhen Dyky commented on various opinions of clubs regarding the issue of the limit on foreign players.

– Recently, the annual general meetings of UPL clubs took place to sum up the season. What key decisions did the participants make?

– They approved the results of the competitions and financial report. They excluded clubs that lost the right to participate in UPL competitions and included new teams. They adopted a financial plan for the new season.

They made an important decision to establish the UPL Foundation. The foundation is needed so that we can apply for international grants and attract large investments for the development of the Ukrainian Premier League in all directions. Ukrainian football should not only survive but also fulfill its social mission. We focus on three main vectors: bringing our victory closer through support for the Armed Forces, rebuilding sports infrastructure, and developing youth football.

We also made proposals for cooperation with representatives of data companies. Work in this direction is ongoing as clubs have expressed certain wishes. We need to discuss them and later return with feedback from our potential future partners.

We also heard the interim results of the working group on improving the arbitration system in Ukraine. We have slightly changed our approach: initially, we thought of basing it on the model of the German Bundesliga, but now we are focusing on improving the current model. I have already had meetings with the current head of the Arbitration Committee, there is some progress in improving to address all the acute issues that arose in the previous season.

– At the peak of the refereeing issue during the season, there was talk of creating an advisory board at the Arbitration Committee. What stage is this issue at today?

– Not quite. The Arbitration Committee is an independent structure. Yes, it is part of the UAF, but by its nature and all UEFA and FIFA regulatory documents, including the FIFA Convention, it is independent. Therefore, creating any body from clubs that would influence the committee's activities would contradict this system.

We have a working group within the UPL where we can gather, discuss any issues of interest, and bring them up for general discussion. We gather with clubs, discuss problems, bring them up for discussion, and receive the necessary responses [from the UAF]. Currently, the work is proceeding in this format.

– You mentioned rejecting the German model, which actually involves some external influence on the Arbitration Committee. Why did we ultimately decide against it?

– The German model involves creating a separate structure that includes representatives of the national association and representatives of the League. These are not club representatives. They jointly oversee arbitration issues. However, even in such a structure, the majority of representatives are still from the national association.

– And we decided to abandon this?

– At this stage, yes. We decided to proceed within the current model. Initially, there was an idea to create a new legal structure for organizing football arbitration in UPL competitions. After analyzing European models in detail and understanding how everything works for us, clubs received answers to questions they previously did not have information about.

Representatives of the UPL working group concluded that it is more expedient to focus on improving the current football arbitration system. Perhaps in the future, the issue of creating a separate structure may be a subject of discussion, but it is not relevant for the 2026/27 season.

– So, globally, nothing has changed in terms of refereeing. It was just a conversation where both sides heard each other: the Arbitration Committee listened to the clubs' comments, and the clubs heard the committee's position.

– It was open, frank, and not superficial. This allowed to reduce tension. There was an open and frank dialogue that was lacking. Clubs received information they did not have before.

– The next issue that often divides clubs, and our readers want to hear the answer to. Match postponements – especially in the context of teams participating in European competitions. What did UPL agree on before the new season?

– The previous season was held under strict rules, where matches could only be postponed in case of force majeure circumstances. This season, we took into account the complex logistics and the condition of clubs after European competitions and found a compromise: to create more favorable conditions for our representatives in European competitions during the qualification stage.

Clubs can apply for the postponement of a maximum of two out of three matches from the first three rounds. Reserve days are already included in the calendar before the start of the season.

– Is it only about the first three rounds?

– Yes. This was done to provide the most favorable conditions for our clubs to advance to the group stage of European competitions.

– Is this bonus only for those participating in European competitions?

– Yes.

– For all others – only in case of force majeure?

– In other cases, postponement is possible either due to force majeure or due to a security situation: air alerts, etc.

– What if the national team head coach requests match postponements?

– Our regulations already provided for the possibility that at the request of the national team, matches of a particular round could be played earlier or postponed to a date agreed upon by the participants. This norm remains.

– As far as I understand, in the new calendar, you have already included slots for match postponements.

– We have included slots specifically for matches from the first rounds (two out of three) that can be postponed for participants in European competitions. If a request comes from the national team, we will discuss it separately, as there are no automatic reserve dates for such matches.

– What specific reserve dates have you already set?

– In December. If we take a calendar for six months, all other free dates are occupied either by the Ukrainian Cup matches or European competition matches.

– What were the clubs' wishes when forming the calendar for the next season?

– For clubs participating in European competitions, we always try to plan games closer to the border to reduce travel time and avoid match postponements if possible.

Also, at the general meetings, some teams expressed a request to play the first rounds away due to the reconstruction and renovation of football pitches or infrastructure. For example, "Obolon" is currently renovating the field, while "Bukovyna" and "Epicenter" are installing lighting.

- Readers are also interested in whether there was a possibility to release the participants of the Eurocups from the first three rounds and immediately reschedule the matches for December so that they would not play on the indoor arena during the qualification period.

- We discussed this and left the clubs participating in the Eurocups the right to choose. Perhaps they need a certain match as part of their preparation, and it's better for them to play. Or the calendar may align in a way that makes it convenient to play. After all, if everything is moved to December, then in case of advancing to the main stage of the Eurocups, they would have to play every two days in the third round or every three days in the fourth round. Moreover, the weather conditions are significantly better now than in December.

If there is an opportunity to hold the match now, no one will cancel it in advance.

- The audience is also interested in the logic of scheduling matches on weekdays. Because it negatively affects stadium attendance and TV viewership.

- We understand that matches on weekdays are less popular among viewers. However, we operate under strict constraints related to logistics, security, and curfew. We have a clear limit on the number of matches that we can technically and organizationally provide in one competitive day. Therefore, the round is usually spread over four days: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

This is done to avoid overlapping match broadcasts. We can smoothly broadcast three matches in one day (time slots: 13:00, 15:30, and 18:00). There are emergency situations when more broadcasts need to be organized in one day and time. For example, in the final rounds when many matches are supposed to start simultaneously due to the fight for tournament places. Overlaps happen. But these are emergency situations.

We cannot schedule matches for later due to security recommendations. In some regions, we deliberately schedule matches at 13:00 to have the maximum guarantee that even in case of prolonged air alarm, the match can be completed on that day before evening.

We had numerous examples of this in the past season. Especially in the calmer western regions. For example, during the match "Shakhtar" - "Obolon" in Lviv, the start of the match was postponed several times: the teams went for warm-up, the alarm started, they went back to shelter. And in Rivne, the match had to be postponed to the next day because the air alarm lasted for over six hours in a row.

We must factor risks into the calendar, so we cannot completely abandon matches on Fridays, Mondays, or other weekdays at the moment.

- The next topic is the expansion or reduction of the championship. Readers ask about both. Some want expansion, while others lobby for reducing the number of teams. What did the clubs agree on when they last discussed this?

- There is a need to change the competition format overall. A group has been formed to start working on discussing the future format. We have already studied the experience of other countries where after the main stage, there are playoff stages: for survival (which we also have) or for a spot in the Eurocups, when teams play additional matches against each other. During the upcoming season, we will actively work on this issue because we need to increase the attractiveness of the championship.

- What are the downsides of the current format that you want to address in this way?

- I wouldn't call them downsides. Since in the UPL, there are many competitors from other entertainment industries, we need to offer something unique to keep the intrigue until the last match.

We need to avoid situations where a club loses tournament motivation two or three rounds before the end of the season and just plays out the matches. We want to create conditions for maximum competition until the final round.

- And in the process of searching for a better format, will there be an understanding of where to move in terms of the number of teams in the League, right?

- Yes, but all questions must be agreed with the clubs in accordance with the Statute. The League cannot make such a decision independently; the participants must vote.

- It's no secret that there is a pool of clubs lobbying for a reduction of the UPL - like "Shakhtar." At the same time, there was information that the majority voted against the reduction at the last vote on this issue. Is this true?

- This issue was not discussed at those meetings (referring to the meeting on June 16). It periodically arises, but at the time when it was discussed, the idea of reduction did not find the support of the majority.

- The question of softening the limit on foreign players was also discussed, against which the majority of clubs voted. How divisive is this issue for the League?

- Each club has its own philosophy, structure, and development system. There are clubs that focus on their own youth players, and there are those who actively involve foreign players. Therefore, the question is individual for each participant (the conversation took place before the decision of the UAF Executive Committee to change the limit and not consider players from the EU as foreigners in Ukraine).

- In this context, it's interesting: does the Premier League study the viewers' interest in foreigners? For example, is there a trend that the number of foreign players in a team affects the viewership of their matches?

- We have not conducted such measurements, but statistics show that the number of foreigners in the League has increased and is approaching pre-war levels. Two to three seasons ago, there were almost no foreigners, and now they are returning. It's a complex issue. Foreigners come here despite the shelling.

- Let's move on to the commercial activities of the UPL and UPL.TV. How would you describe the last season in terms of key financial indicators of the league?

- If we consider the plans and the financial model that we agreed upon with the clubs at the beginning of the season, unfortunately, due to external circumstances - including the situation around the company Favbet - we have a shortfall.

For the upcoming season, we considered several development models: selling the broadcasting rights entirely to an exclusive broadcaster or continuing on the chosen path. The clubs supported the decision to move forward independently because there is currently no commercial proposal that would financially satisfy the clubs and make them give up their own project.

To sell the rights, we need a buyer willing to offer serious money.

- So, will the broadcasts continue on UPL.TV?

- Yes, we have analyzed the current model on which UPL.TV is built. Everything was done in close cooperation with the clubs. We presented all the developments to them, the clubs approved them, and we are moving forward.

- Are there no interested broadcasters at all? Or are they just offering less than clubs want?

- There is definitely interest from broadcasters, but we have not received offers that would satisfy the clubs and the channel's management. They offer significantly less money.

- In the long run, is this a problem of the commercial attractiveness of the UPL or just a consequence of the current realities of the war?

- There are a complex of factors at play here. We all understand the times we live in. TV companies usually buy the rights to broadcast the entire league, and then have to recoup the costs through viewers or advertisers. However, the advertising market in Ukraine has significantly shrunk compared to pre-war years - a substantial decline. Hence the lack of funds in the market. For example, according to the UAC (Ukrainian Advertising Coalition - ed.), in 2022 the market fell by 63% compared to 2021, and specifically TV advertising lost up to 80% of budgets.

We understand that today we are not talking about pre-war budgets. At the same time, costs for production and servicing of television infrastructure are increasing.

- Where does the UPL plan to raise funds for the next season? Partnerships with Favbet are no longer in place, as I understand.

- Our marketing team is actively working with potential partners. Yes, the lion's share of the budget comes from bookmakers. But we are actively communicating with others as well. Work is being done to increase financial offers for the next season.

Regarding Favbet, they were one of the partners of the UPL. We are sincerely grateful to our long-standing title sponsor VBET, and we are moving forward separately. Soon we will present a new pool of partners.

- So the broadcast of the next season is not under threat? Because there were rumors in the media space from some bloggers almost about the bankruptcy of UPL.TV.

- We are definitely not bankrupt. Such rumors should not be taken seriously. The broadcast of the next season is 100% guaranteed.

- What income did the clubs receive from the activities of UPL.TV last season? What is the overall value of the project for them?

- The value is that clubs do not pay for signal production. The total budget for its production and broadcast support for the season is about $2.8 million, which the League provides. This includes quality signal, studio work, commentators, logistics.

- So clubs are not currently receiving money from UPL.TV activities?

- Currently, clubs have the opportunity to showcase themselves, their sponsors, and players in high quality. We have created a single high standard for showing all UPL matches, which has potential in the market.

At the same time, the distribution of the UPL.TV channel on various networks generates income, and we receive money for this. For the next season, revenues are projected to increase.

Furthermore, when UPL.TV was just being created, it was a subsidized project where clubs only invested. And by the end of the 2024/25 season, after covering all expenses, each club received an average profit of $70,000. Yes, the money is not astronomical, but clubs have the opportunity to maximize the promotion of their partners and are not required to independently organize broadcasts, search for and hire specialists.

Last year was profitable, but now we have difficulties in the bookmaker market and a generally complex situation in Ukraine. The final figures for the last season are still being calculated, as there is a pending payment that we are supposed to receive. We are working in conditions where financial factors can change abruptly, but the channel is definitely not unprofitable.

- Many fans are concerned about the quality of broadcasts on UPL.TV. What will change in the new season?

- For us, the quality of the broadcast image is a matter of the project's reputation. We constantly analyze feedback from viewers and strive to improve the broadcasts.

It is worth understanding that each additional camera at the stadium is a significant cost. At the same time, we have requests, including from the Arbitration Committee, to install these additional cameras to improve the VAR system. We are budgeting for this.

Clubs are also interested in improving the quality of the broadcast. We work together with the teams and plan to add additional cameras and upgrade equipment as much as possible.

High-level television production is a serious investment, but we see it as a necessary step for the League's capitalization.

- Readers also ask why some stadiums (such as "Obolon Arena" or Lobanovsky Stadium) do not require clubs to place the main camera on the opposite stand - so that a larger, more beautiful stand, usually filled with people, is in the frame, rather than empty rows? "Polissya" in Zhytomyr, for example, took a similar step.

- We will work on this issue with our broadcasters, broadcast directors, and directly with the clubs. If experts confirm that such a change makes sense, there are no technical obstacles, and the picture only improves, we will gladly implement it.

- What will happen with UPL.TV's own production programs in the new season - such as "Football News Center" and "Football 360"? As I understand, they were put on hold mid-season precisely due to issues with Favbet.

- Of course, we plan to bring back the large analytical studio and the "Football 360" program after the central matches. Currently, the creative team is working on updating the content part, and marketing is in talks with potential partners. Everything depends on having a sponsor for this media product.

We will separately develop the digital video direction, aiming to attract a young and progressive audience to Ukrainian football.

- Where will the UPL.TV studios be based in the new season? Last year, studio broadcasts were mostly from Lviv. Is this option still on the table?

- I am not ready to speak definitively yet, as we are in the process of consultations and negotiations. Several factors will influence the final decision: economic, picture quality, the level of invited guests and experts.

- What about creating your own independent OTT platform for UPL.TV, since the League currently independently broadcasts all matches?

- We have thoroughly studied the issue and presented implementation options and calculations to the clubs. Creating our own OTT platform is not currently a priority in the current circumstances. It requires colossal initial investments.

Currently, UPL.TV is watched by over 32 million viewers on top OTT platforms and on a network of over 140 IPTV platforms and three foreign broadcasters. We are choosing to focus on the viewer and the wide availability of content - not only broadcasts but also entertainment shows.

- I understand the difficulties that the UPL project faces.TV, but it was launched during a full-scale war, when the crisis in the market was obvious. What was the main vision and what went wrong?

– The main idea was to finally unite all clubs into a single TV pool. And we have achieved this historic result - now the media rights of all clubs are collected in one package. We renew contracts with each club annually for one season. This is a great individual work.

Therefore, UPL.TV is a unique phenomenon in the niche of sports broadcasting. The project is self-sustaining, does not require investments from clubs. The team creates quality content and rating shows. In certain slots, we leave national channels far behind.

– Are contracts with media rights for the next season signed with all clubs?

– Yes.

– Will "Dynamo" continue to cooperate in their special status, when their home matches are broadcast simultaneously on other platforms?

– Yes, there are no changes in our cooperation with "Dynamo". Their home matches will be broadcast simultaneously on the platforms with which they have contracts.

– Many questions from readers were raised about the certification of clubs. Fans are outraged when teams that clearly lag behind in infrastructure parameters enter the UPL: they do not have appropriate stadiums, bases, etc. I know that last season you and the President of the PFL, Oleksandr Kadenko, were involved in the Certification Committee of the UAF. What influence do you have there and how do you feel about the appearance of such clubs in the top division?

– The certification procedure is a clearly regulated set of criteria (financial, infrastructural, personnel) that a football club must meet. If the club meets these requirements, and the relevant UAF committee, after reviewing the documents, satisfies the application and issues a certificate, then de jure the club has every right to play in the UPL.

Our [with Oleksandr Kadenko] involvement in the committee allows us to provide our recommendations, express clubs' wishes.

As for my attitude, it is much easier for the League to work with clubs that have developed their own infrastructure. New teams entering the UPL often have to learn, they have to explain many organizational nuances. But they listen and try to promptly correct deficiencies.

For example, "Poltava" was very focused on being constructive: we were in constant dialogue and if necessary, they improved what was required. This experience of performances in the Premier League will definitely stimulate their further development.

– We are talking to you in the new UPL office, where the League's apparatus has recently moved. Why did the League decide to move from the House of Football, where it was based for years?

– It is worth noting that from the first day, the UPL was located separately from the UAF. At a certain stage, circumstances led us to move to the House of Football, where we were based on partnership terms and did not pay rent. But the clubs' position was that the League should have its own office, for which they voted at the meetings.

Anticipating an additional question, I will say that our move is not related to any conflicts. The number of UPL employees is increasing, the UPL.TV structure has appeared. We simply outgrew the space.

We have done a lot of work, found a suitable premises within a reasonable budget. The clubs agreed to take on additional expenses, for which we are very grateful. There is more space here and, perhaps, a certain symbolic positioning for the clubs themselves. We are finishing the renovation, setting up our own conference room, where all offline meetings of club leaders will take place in the future. This will be our full-fledged headquarters.

– Perhaps there are plans to set up the same UPL.TV TV studio here?

– Creating our own stationary studio requires serious initial capital investments. We will work on this issue with our technical partners and broadcasters, calculate the feasibility. If the business plan shows that the League financially and organizationally benefits in the long run, we will move in that direction.

– How will the creation of U-21 club teams increase the workload on the UPL?

– This will not be an additional burden for us. Previously, we held the U-19 championship, and now this tournament comes under the auspices of the Ukrainian Football Association. Instead, the UPL will take care of the newly created U-21 championship. So the amount of work for the League remains approximately the same.

– Are there plans to broadcast U-21 championship matches on UPL TV?

– For now, we plan to broadcast matches following the example of past U-19 seasons - they will be broadcast on YouTube. Since this is a new tournament, we will first assess its level and commercial interest. If there are really top matches at good stadiums with quality production, why not consider broadcasting them on the TV channel.