At Euro-2012 Fronts
Western Front
At the Western front the situation is more or less stable and clear, at least for the upcoming six months: the fate of Euro-2012 depends on its Ukrainian and Polish organizers. Before the latest meeting of the UEFA Executive Committee there had been certain apprehensions about possible sanctions against Ukraine and Poland – up to their disqualification.
Well-informed sources knew that the committee was very serious about the co-hosts but hoped for business-like talks on the division of responsibilities and optimization of work. UEFA did confirm its plan to hold Euro-2012 in Ukraine and Poland but laid down a number of conditions that looked like ultimatums.
In its official letter to the co-organizers, UEFA noted “steady progress at the organizational level” and in fulfilling the infrastructural tasks but pointed to a number of urgent problems. The UEFA warned the Ukrainian and Polish governments and national football associations that their failure to solve at least one problem would result in cancellation of the championships in the two countries.
At its next meeting in May 2009 the UEFA Executive Committee is going to make the final decision on the host cities and the number of stadiums in both countries (six, seven, or eight and not necessarily on a parity basis).
UEFA reserves the right to choose the venues for matches at each stage of the championship out of “technical considerations” and depending on the co-hosts’ readiness to meet the relevant needs and demands. In other words, the infrastructure of the host cities (stadiums, airports, urban and inter-urban communications, and hotels) must be up to UEFA standards. At the same time, UEFA assumes no obligations whatsoever regarding the expenses which the owners of stadiums and airports as well as central and local authorities might bear as a result of the final choice.
The deadline for commissioning the stadiums in Kyiv and Warsaw is June 30, 2011. So far, only Kyiv and Warsaw have the official status of host cities. As for the rest, it is unclear which of them are the host or reserve cities.
UEFA insists on the strict implementation of Action Plans III (October 2008 – May 2009) and warns that any delays are unacceptable and may jeopardize the organization of the championships in Ukraine and Poland.
What does this mean? On one hand, the UEFA has become more demanding and the most it is ready to do for the co-hosts is reduce the number of host stadiums. On the other hand, everything is up to the organizers. Both have sent letters to Michel Platini to say that they agree with the terms and demands laid down by the UEFA.
Hence the first conclusion: the UEFA holds a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other.
Second Front
The stick works and has already helped to solve one of the problems. In late September Poland’s National Ministry of Sport suspended the head and senior officials of the National Football Association on charges of corruption. They may have deserved it, but the international football authorities tolerate no interference of governments. Any country, regardless of its past record or future merits, may be automatically expelled from UEFA or FIFA for such violations.
One may speculate on the priority of law over game rules, but in this case Poland would have become an “outcast.”
The instinct of self-preservation and common sense prevailed: the Polish government agreed to wait until the October 30 congress of the National Football Association. The congress changed the status of NFA President Michal Listkiewicz to “honorary president” and vested the practical functions in Grzegorz Lato, ex-MP and former striker of the national team in the 1970s. The decision solved the problem of self-isolation but was not ideal, because there was another candidate – Zbigniew Boniek – the Polish football star of the 1980s and Michel Platini’s partner-striker in Juventus. They are still close friends.
Ukraine’s Football Federation President Grigoriy Surkis, delegated to the congress by the UEFA Executive Committee, insistently called on his Polish partners to “consider the interests of the Euro-2012,” but only one-sixth of the delegates voted for Boniek. Lato collected more than half of the votes.
Shortly after he took office, the new NFA president made a loud statement in a TV talk show. In reply to the hostess’s insistent questions about Poland’s possible steps in case Ukraine failed to prepare for the Euro-2012 he suggested co-hosting it with Germany. Boniek, who was present at the show, said that Lato’s words might be misinterpreted, but the bitter aftertaste remained. After all, Poland gained the right to host the Euro-2012 on Ukraine’s shoulders…
Regrettably, Ukrainian officials make ill-considered statements as well. Yevhen Vilinsky, deputy head of the National Euro-2012 Agency, told reporters on the eve of the National Football Association’s conference that “works on eighty percent of the construction and reconstruction sites in the prospect host cities were suspended.” It was actually Vilinsky’s irresponsible statement (which he disavowed later) that prompted the questions to Lato.
There is a far more serious problem than the quality of information coming from Ukraine and Poland: it is still unclear who is authorized to make official statements or comment on the preparations for Euro-2012. So far, the multitude of utterances and commentaries with doubts, apprehensions, disclosures, accusations, and suggestions blur the real picture.
Hence another conclusion: there are too many spokesmen for the Euro-2012 project. Their rash and reckless utterances are detrimental to the project that is supposed to improve the country and help it cope with the impacts of the global crisis.
First Ukrainian Front
Meanwhile, preparations are underway, though not everywhere and not up to the task. Importantly, the construction of stadiums is now almost off the “risk list.” The only exception is Lviv, where yet another tender for stadium construction was announced on November 5 and the start of construction was postponed indefinitely.
The other candidate cities are racing against time and one another: a brand-new 30,000-seat stadium has been commissioned in Dnipropetrovsk and the spectacular Donbas Arena is taking shape in Donetsk. Over the past few weeks the Donbas Arena has been visited by the Presidents of Ukraine and Poland, UEFA Secretary General David Taylor, and other brass hats. In early December, structure assembly works are expected to start at the Olimpiysky stadium in Kyiv, which has been under the UEFA’s watchful eye as a “problem facility” because of a shopping mall being constructed right in the immediate vicinity. The unfinished shopping mall was torn down in October and this problem was settled. The Metallist stadium in Kharkiv is being modernized, and active ground works are underway at the Chernomorets stadium in Odessa. However, UEFA experts and Ukraine’s Euro-2012 Executive Directorate have questions to the owners of the stadiums in terms of technical standards (which are higher than those set for UEFA Cup or Champions League matches). Besides, they have no experience in hosting such tournaments.
The rich and influential owners of Ukrainian clubs know how to “come to terms” with controlling agencies, but their “methods” do not work with the UEFA and they readily agree to any concessions just to stay in the Euro-2012 project. This is one of the positive effects on Ukrainian top managers: they are learning to do business by civilized standards.
Even the new stadium in Dnipropetrovsk – the pride of billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyy, who owns FC Dnipro – does not fully meet the standards of European championships. One of the problems is the insufficient seating capacity. The upgrade may cost the owner a pretty penny.
UEFA supervises the planning and quality of works, expenditure, the schedule, and the risks involved. While updating the information on the readiness status of the stadiums, UEFA experts visualize the preparation process and thus help to correct it if necessary.
In the coming weeks, UEFA experts led by Marc Timmer are going to conduct a detailed audit of the Warsaw and Kyiv stadiums and will present their findings to the Executive Committee on December 12. They are very likely to recommend that the Olimpiysky management improve their customer service – the link between the designer and the builder – in order to prevent delays and budget revisions. The same concerns all the other Euro-2012 stadiums.
As far as the airports are concerned, the host cities are to present airport development programs to UEFA experts by December 15. The programs are to include definite schedules of construction works and plans of financing and commissioning new terminals, auxiliary facilities, parking areas, runways, and taxiways. The absence of updated information on any of these would render the whole project unfeasible. Ukraine and Poland have no choice but to keep pace.
December 15 is also the deadline for presenting updated information on the accommodation infrastructure which should be complemented with a two-star hotel development program, including owners’ authorized guarantees, the starting dates and dates of the completion of construction works, and the date of turnkey commissioning. It is a huge deal of work, but the game is worth the candle.
UEFA is no less interested in the co-hosts’ plans for accommodating the teams. Fortunately, there should be no big problems here: the Premier League clubs have very good and functional bases and investors are ready to build new suburban training centers. In the times of crisis it is profitable to invest in such government-guaranteed projects. The same concerns the modernization of transport networks.
In late November, the co-hosts are expected to report on their technological readiness – particularly in the telecommunications. Here Ukraine is lagging behind Poland, but it is going to catch up as soon as Rinat Akhmetov’s serious plans to create a powerful broadcasting empire -including a large network of sport channels - materialize.
Home Front
It is far more difficult for Ukraine to put its own information space in order, ridding it of bad taste, vulgarity, pretentiousness, irresponsibility, and unprofessional management. So far, the Ukrainian mass media has been defenseless against the pressure of external irritants. In this connection the approaching European championships can be an invaluable positive factor. Martin Cullen, who managed the two previous finals and is the main candidate for the managing directorship in 2012, demands that Ukraine and Poland develop a common information policy by March 1, 2009.
There should be no divergence in comments on the country’s preparations for this unique event, which is truly a national priority. Public opinion should be formed by official spokesmen with competence and corporate weight rather than by casual image consultants or volunteers. Then the public would take “revelations” by such rear-front generals as Vilinsky or Lato as their personal opinions.
The mass media may as well have alternative viewpoints ranging from hysteria to facile optimism, but the organizers must furnish verified facts and data. While the public is waiting for the latter, all sorts of competitors hire mass media outlets for brainwashing campaigns. Real estate, corporate assets, or banks are not enough for them: now they are after global projects like European or World Cup finals in which the stakes are incredibly high.
Attentive observers must have noticed how systematically and persistently Ukrainians are led to believe that this country is unable to host the Euro-2012 finals. As each report deadline approaches, electronic media get alive with screaming headlines like “UEFA to Revise Its Wrong Choice,” “Stadium far from Ready,” “Authorities Incapable and Inert,” etc. The sources are different, but these efforts have one thing in common: the defamation campaign is almost completely concentrated on Ukraine while Poland remains outside the context. As a rule, news agencies and periodicals refer to unofficial sources or skillfully “dressed” howlers heard from local “spokesmen.” Then such yellow headliners are reprinted by other media.
Ukraine always has to plead innocent and fight off accusations. Being dependent on the agenda formulated by foreign decision makers, Ukraine cannot take the initiative in its hands. The UEFA will surely try to help, but Martin Cullen can not do our job for us. Hence the most important conclusion: the Euro-2012 project needs patronage and positive messages.
