"Talab". About the signal in "Pakhtakor", steps towards professionalism
**"Talab": About the signal and steps towards professionalism in "Pakhtakor"**
We have always heard about the licensing requirements set by the AFC and PFL. These requirements are mainly focused on the form and conditions, and include aspects such as the pitch, lighting equipment, the presence of different age and women's teams, and the conditions at the club's base. It would seem that such requirements should develop football, but they are mainly about conditions, like showing off the beautiful kitchen, toilets or gyms of an expensive private school. In fact, the true professionalism of a club is not measured by these conditions, the conditions only show how much money is spent. The professionalism of the club should be assessed in other aspects, and the licensing conditions should focus on another direction. What innovations does the club offer fans and what income does it receive from tickets? To what extent does the club's marketing system work, how does it work with sponsors? What is the salary policy at the club? How much of the club's expenses is covered by football income?
Naturally, such demands are more difficult to fulfill, they cannot be solved with the governor's money, they require a lot of work. How can one ask, after all, the PFL itself, instead of earning money for the Super League broadcast for so many years and distributing it to the clubs, collects contributions from the clubs itself?
Jahongir Ortiqhojayev's abandonment of Pakhtakor, which has been considered a private club, that is, his announcement that he intends to stop financing the club, should be taken as a serious signal for our football. That constantly repeated thesis is correct - the privatization of clubs can be a step to the maximum next stage, but it should not be the last stop we strive for. In any case, the main goal must be the emergence of a football economy, the existence of a balance between football income and expenses, there is no other way. As with Artikhojaev or Turon, redirecting income from other businesses to football is always temporary, because not only is it a voluntary abandonment, as was the case with Pakhtakor, but also football is left without financial flow as a result of the crisis of that other business and a decrease in profits. As long as the budget and expenses of a football club are not oriented specifically towards football-related income, and there is no direct connection between income and expenses, I repeat, our football will not develop.
Of course, all this is just beautiful words, in reality football cannot develop in isolation from society as a whole, first of all, the lifestyle of the population must grow, the ability to buy and pay for football must appear, and only then can football be sold as a product - this is also a valid objection. I am actually writing about this, since football is not a product that anyone pays for, or our people are not enough to pay for football, what is the point of increasing its costs? Since Pakhtakor brings in an Iraqi striker with a salary of one billion per month, according to one source, and 300-400 million according to other sources, the question naturally arises - how justified is this expense?
A month ago, there were objections to such ideas, after all, Pakhtakor is a private club, the state budget is not affected, so can't its owner spend as much as he wants on his club? Now that the club is left without a wealthy sponsor, how will the terms of the contract with the Iraqi player be fulfilled, and in general, won't the contract of this legionnaire be redundant for a financially constrained club? Yes, doesn't this situation remind us of a mini-version of Rivaldo?
No, I don't want to end every paragraph with a question, of course. It doesn't matter whether it's private or regional football-loving hokims, but since there's not much income from football, it's necessary to limit spending on football. There's no basis for the idea that the more money you spend on football, the more it will develop. On the contrary, these spurious expenses will drag football further back. Unjustified expenses will indirectly affect other clubs, making their privatization more expensive. As a result of the increase in prices, the circle of applicants for ownership of football clubs will shrink.
If an enterprise's business is very profitable, buying this enterprise will be expensive. On the contrary, if the income is small, if it's at a loss, they will make its price cheap. A simple rule. So, since our football clubs are all about expenses, aren't we making these expenses even more expensive by artificially and unjustifiably increasing salaries?
Of course, there are some controversial points in this reform, incorrect timing (it should not have happened after the season started and contracts were signed), other issues, new problems are emerging. But don't the UFA and PFL seem to be looking from the sidelines, saying, "Here are new conditions for you, this is how you live"? Somewhere, a club is on the verge of a crisis, unable to find money for the trip, somewhere the sponsor has refused, another is collecting money from the budget, another from entrepreneurs, and in another, players have not received their salaries for months. Believe me, it's not about "Bunyodkor" or "Pakhtakor", each club has faced problems of different levels and is finding solutions to different degrees. Among these solutions, it is difficult to find one that is taking steps towards the reforms we dream of. After all, in such a situation, shouldn't all of our football, from clubs to functionaries, gather in one place and develop common solutions and guidelines? So far, I don’t see it.
The simplest step should start with the requirements for Super League clubs.
1) **Stadiums and sports facilities should be fully transferred to the balance of local authorities.** Although we give each club an equal amount of money from the budget, some clubs have their own stadium, while others play on a rental basis. In our conditions, maintaining both the club and the stadium requires significant expenses. These expenses should be fully transferred to the authorities, that is, to the budget. And to support the club, the authorities offer a reduced, subsidized rent. In many European countries, for example, Norway, Belgium, Scotland, and others, the state provides financial assistance to clubs in a similar form.
Many people say that it is always necessary to give money to the Super League, considering that it is also in the interests of the state to raise a healthy generation in sports, including football, and to attract young people to sports. Yes, the state should spend money on sports, it is everywhere. But it would be more appropriate to spend this money not on Super League clubs, but on local sports infrastructure, academies, children's football, including the promotion of various types of football clubs.
Stadiums also fall into the category of infrastructure. Local authorities are obliged to maintain the quality of the stadium in the city, prepare it for various competitions held at this stadium, and if there is a football club in that city, for the games of this club. This can also be seen as indirect financial support from the state to the clubs.
2) **Academies should become independent of the clubs and become state-owned.** When the issue of 35 billion soums was raised, this was the most incomprehensible and unfair point. Let's say that 35 billion soums is not enough for clubs that have their own academies, and financial problems arise. Since the club cannot not only earn money on its own to maintain both the team and the academy, but also with the money provided by the state, we will have to postpone the need for clubs to have their own academies. Academies, like specialized schools or universities, are partly funded by the state, partly by the economy. Clubs can conclude various types of contracts with academies, take some players under their care, and generally cooperate in various areas. The Academy in Kashkadarya does not have to serve only Nasaf, and the one in Tashkent serves Pakhtakor, clubs can build relationships with academies in the form of competition.
3) **There should be no obligations such as creating a U-19 or women's team.** We have increased the costs of our clubs, thinking that we will make them look more "professional". The main expenses of a club participating in the Super League should be limited to the expenses directly related to participation in this competition (salaries, travel, food). The organization of a youth team should become a voluntary, naturally arising need. If a club creates its own youth team, a farm club, and aims to develop by ensuring participation in lower leagues, giving young people game practice there, it is fine. But there is no logic in replenishing the squad with players who move every year and keeping teams of different ages for the sake of "checking".
The state, the UFA or the Ministry of Sports can organize leagues and tournaments in different age categories between independent academies operating in the regions, as well as teams of various small sports clubs. It is in such tournaments that candidates for national teams of different ages appear, and clubs can look for new players in such tournaments through their scouts.
4) **Introducing a separate paid subscription for the Super League by linking the "Football" channel.** Our Super League games should be broadcast on different platforms, just like Setanta TV, through a separate subscription fee. Bringing games to our attention on free channels and YouTube will not increase interest, even small steps are needed. Yes, some key games can be broadcast on free channels, yes, it will cost a very small amount to start, but the problem that has not been solved for several years should be solved - let the clubs earn money from broadcasts, even if it is a penny. If a fan does not pay a subscription of 50 thousand soums to watch their team's matches at least twice a month, the same paradox will arise again, why are we spending large sums on such a product?
5) **Controlling salary limits.** It is advisable to control the salaries paid to players in clubs based on adequate limits. Keeping governors who compete with each other with budget money as far away from football as possible will prevent these clubs from being on the verge of crisis in the future. Of course, this situation will lead to the departure of a number of quality legionnaires, as well as good local players, from our football, and this will also lead to a decrease in the quality of the games, but as we have always said, when building a healthy football environment, there must be expenses related to income. Only then will football management emerge that creates a real football product, believe me. Then you will say thank you.
The player, who also played successfully for Tottenham at one time, said that the English club had offered him for several years. However, at first, Pavlyuchenko did not want to go to England. He thought that my salary in Moscow was higher, the fans loved me, I was scoring goals, was there any point in putting myself through hardship and testing? But in the end, he went to Tottenham, and now the whole world remembers him for the time he played for this club and the goals he scored. The footballer himself is probably proud of his games in England, not his time at Spartak or Lokomotiv. It's a different feeling for an athlete to show himself under the quality label that everyone recognizes.
Some say that the decrease in money in the Super League will prevent us from having new Khusanovs and Shomurodovs. On the contrary, maybe adequate salaries will make our young people even stronger and more determined to see their future in proven championships? Will the Super League become a stop for them, not a goal to live well, but a real destination?
The main problem we have is probably our fear of nature. Because we don't know where natural processes might take us, and we are afraid.