The head of the Control and Disciplinary Committee of the Russian Football Union (CDC RFU), Artur Grigoryants, explained the reasoning behind the decision to award FC Ufa a technical loss.
According to earlier reports from TASS, FC Ufa was handed a 0-3 technical defeat for failing to appear at their 32nd-round First League match against SKA-Khabarovsk. Ufa’s sporting director, Anzor Sanaya, told TASS that the club would decide on whether to appeal the decision after receiving a motivational explanation.
“The reference to the airport closure due to a drone threat does not refute the CDC’s decision, because the committee did not examine whether there was a flight delay. That fact was taken into account. The key issue was different: why did a professional football club, traveling to an official match in Khabarovsk, organize its route in such a way that a single flight delay and a missed connection effectively made it impossible for the team to play,” Grigoryants said. “The departure from the airport in Ufa and the connection with a flight from Novosibirsk to Khabarovsk was only 47 minutes. That’s how the route was planned. However, Ufa was flying with the same airline, and that connecting flight, which was supposed to meet them, waited for two and a half hours in Khabarovsk so that Ufa could arrive. But when the airline was informed that Ufa had canceled its tickets for that flight—which was not canceled but only delayed by several hours—the Novosibirsk flight then departed for Khabarovsk. Ufa was supposed to fly to Novosibirsk because there are other options for traveling to Khabarovsk with different airlines.”
“Secondly, according to the First League regulations, teams must arrive at the stadium no later than 75 minutes before the match starts. Failure to take the field within 60 minutes from the start of the match is considered a no-show. Therefore, the argument that the airport was closed due to a drone threat is legally incomplete. It explains the flight delay but does not address the club’s own actions. Was a reasonable route chosen? Was a time buffer included? Was a contingency plan in place? Were all measures taken to ensure the team’s participation in the match? None of this was done by FC Ufa. That is precisely what distinguishes an objective transportation difficulty from a valid reason for non-appearance,” the committee head added.
Grigoryants also noted that Ufa has the right to appeal the decision.
“Moreover, a valid reason is not just the presence of a few conditions, but a situation that the club could not have prevented with due diligence. If a team plans to arrive on match day via such a short connection, it assumes the risk that any disruption along the route will derail the match. This was a serious mistake on Ufa’s part. Therefore, the committee’s decision is not a punishment for the emergency plan that was implemented; it is an assessment that the club did not ensure the team’s participation in the match and did not take all necessary measures. FC Ufa has the right to appeal, and if the full text of the decision is requested, it will be provided in accordance with the regulations,” Grigoryants concluded.