«Let football players play, and let others manage football» is a thesis that has no right to exist

Alisher Aminov

In mid-September, Tashkent hosted the FIFPro Asia/Oceania General Assembly for the first time in history, with representatives from 13 associations: Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Thailand, New Zealand, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Saudi Arabia. Uzbekistan was represented at the Assembly by the First Vice President of the Football Association (FAU) Ravshan Irmatov, FAU Vice President Odil Akhmedov, President of the Footballers' Union (PFU) Kamolidin Murzoev, General Director of the Professional Football League (PFL) Diyor Imamkhojaev, and national women's team player Mahliya Sarikova.

FIFPro is the International Federation of Professional Footballers' Associations. It was founded on December 15, 1965, by delegates from the French, Scottish, English, Italian, and Dutch football unions. Currently, the federation's members include representatives from 66 national unions. Unions from four countries (Uzbekistan, Canada, Iceland, and Kyrgyzstan) are candidates for membership. Thirty-four associations represent Europe, 11 Africa, 10 Asia, 8 South America, and 7 Central and North America.

The Tashkent forum provided an opportunity to resume discussions on the quality of the work of football federations, leagues, and unions, to raise crucial systemic issues for the development of the game to a high level, and to take serious steps for the future of football in Uzbekistan. Fergana discussed the event with the former head of the Committee for the Development of the Russian Football Union, twice a candidate for the presidency of the RFU, author of football development programs for Russia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, FIFA expert, and PhD in Economics Alisher Aminov.

— Please explain in simple terms, Alisher Anatolievich, what exactly footballers' unions do? What are they needed for?

— Football is a field where human strength, knowledge, and skills are applied, and a footballer's career is a way of earning a living. That's all there is to it. Replace the word «football» with, say, «culture» or «transport,» and the essence of the issue becomes much clearer. That is, a professional footballer, like any reasonable person, wants to be sure that there are laws that protect him and structures that guarantee this protection.

The football industry has undergone profound changes over the last 20-25 years, fundamentally impacting both the game itself and the conditions for the existence and development of players. But in this industry, which impresses us ordinary mortals with its scale, sums, and bright billboards, believe me, things are far from as festive as they appear from the outside. Delays in contract payments, crime, medical problems, numerous legal collisions, and so on – footballers in many countries, leagues, and clubs live in conditions of total insecurity.

— Can you give an example for clarity?

— Not so long ago, FIFPro sued FIFA itself. The reason was the expansion of the Club World Cup format in the context of a flood of unilateral decisions regarding the international calendar. Together with the Professional Footballers' Association of England and the National Union of Professional Footballers of France, FIFPro approached the Brussels Commercial Court, asking to refer the case to the European Court.

— Overloading the calendar?

— Absolutely. Professional footballers and coaches constantly emphasize how overloaded the football calendar is. Critically overloaded! However, FIFA has its own reasons – primarily financial ones, which are cleverly masked by theses about «global development.» FIFA, in this regard, is not ready for constructive dialogue and continues to push forward its «expansion program."

Twenty-four participants in the final stage of the European Championship, 48 in the World Cup, 32 in the Club World Cup, a new system of European Cup tournaments with 36 teams in each, maximally intense and competitive national tournaments. Footballers playing at a high professional level will be forced to play 80-90 matches a year, which poses a direct threat to their health – both physical and mental. Chronic abnormal stress leads to exhaustion, provokes injuries, reduces the quality of the spectacle, and shortens or often destroys careers.

The new format of the Club World Cup without additional safety measures was the last straw. And FIFPro decided to go all-in.

In the 21st century, FIFPro has sharply expanded its influence, transforming into a global network. The key task of the federation is to improve the welfare of footballers and their working conditions. FIFPro provides basic protection for players in all institutions and mechanisms related to the football industry.

— A war with FIFA – that's not a promising story from the perspective of prospects…

— Possibly. But the fact is that FIFA has monopolized all the levers of football management and influence. Legislative, executive, and judicial powers are the exclusive prerogatives of the Big Office. Absolute monopoly!

However, as far back as 2006, FIFPro signed an agreement with FIFA for joint participation in developing regulations governing player-club relations, the international calendar, and the dispute resolution system at the international and national levels. In fact, for example, the issue of FIFPro receiving a share from players' participation in World Cups was not only not reflected in the agreement but has not been raised even once since. Meanwhile, revenues from the World Cup now amount to about $10 billion, and the footballers, its main heroes, receive no more than 5% of these astronomical sums.

Worse still, in the nearly two decades that have passed, an independent dispute resolution system has not been established in the overwhelming majority of FIFA member countries. Ninety percent of footballers still have no opportunity to defend their rights.

Thus, unfortunately, FIFPro's role in the global football management system remains small. This is a legacy of the initially weak, conciliatory policies pursued by the former leadership of the union under the Dutchman Theo van Seggelen.

— What was that policy?

— FIFPro is an organization that should protect players' rights, but under the Dutchman's leadership, it turned out to be loyal to FIFA, for example, in many cases of clubs' late salary payments. A similar situation arose with the agreement between the FIFPro Europe division and UEFA, the European clubs and leagues associations, signed in 2013, and in 2015, an appeal was filed with the European Commission to revise the transfer system. However, without discussion or coordination with its members, the FIFPro leadership withdrew this appeal in 2017 in exchange for a new agreement with FIFA. The new agreement fully repeated the 2006 agreement, except for a clause prohibiting unions and their members (players) from organizing and participating in competitions not under FIFA's auspices.

It is noteworthy that at about the same time, the European Commission ruled in favor of Dutch speed skaters who participated in independent commercial competitions.

Obviously, the concluded agreement did not significantly improve the situation with players' rights on either the global or national level. Moreover, it is aimed at maintaining FIFA's monopoly, which not only unilaterally determines all the rules of relationships between football subjects but also violates them itself, as it does not oblige national football federations to strictly follow them. It must be acknowledged that over the past 20 years, FIFA has often not adhered to and continues not to adhere to its norms in the selective football system in Confederations and national associations. Football outside politics, or vice versa?

But in recent years, under new management, the situation has begun to change. The international footballers' union now takes a principled, tough stance on key issues, regardless of who opposes it.

— What problems do footballers in the former USSR countries face? And does FIFPro have a well-defined line for solving them?

— I am deeply immersed in the problems to have an opinion on this. Wherever I work, I try to support the creation and activities of local unions as much as possible. And I am ready to assert that the level of protection for professional footballers in all former USSR countries is a very weak point.

First, the football models of many former USSR and Eastern European countries copy FIFA's hierarchical orders – from the election system to the adoption of regulatory norms. Second, clubs are mostly funded by state companies and regional budgets, with most of the money going to players' and coaches' salaries and transfers. Third, as analysis shows, clubs do not even recoup a small fraction of the state's invested funds. So there's no point in even talking about «income."

— For example?

— In the last three years, during the development and implementation of the football development program, I advised paying attention to the former Tajikistan national team player Iskandar Dzhalilov as a potential head of the local union and try to assist in certain matters. But the lack of qualified lawyers in the football field (there is no corresponding educational program in Tajikistan) does not yet allow for quality assistance to players and coaches. Iskandar Dzhalilov is still not in the federation's governing body – the executive committee, and union representatives are not in the local Football Federation's dispute resolution chamber.

I hope that at the upcoming annual conference of the Football Federation of Tajikistan in December, the union chairman will become a full member of the FFT, and the players' voice will be significant in the management system. Only Iskandar Dzhalilov's principled position and assistance to all players and the FFT leadership's understanding of the importance of footballers' role will allow for qualitatively improving both the federation's work and addressing the problems footballers face.

Finally, few of the «former ours» are FIFPro members. Accordingly, the interests of football

ers and coaches – the main subjects of football – are almost entirely ignored by national associations and leagues.

— What can you say about the FIFPro Asia/Oceania division?

— Japanese Takuya Yamazaki, the division's head, has made significant progress in the interests of professional players. Important, effective measures have been introduced to protect players' health and safety, as well as their financial well-being, and strong relationships have been established between the federations of Asian and Oceanian countries. I am confident that the creation of regional dispute resolution chambers will be an important milestone for developing professional football in the region.

— Did the Tashkent forum help advance these areas?

— Of course. The work of the FIFPro Asia/Oceania General Assembly in Tashkent allowed division members to exchange the most advanced experiences. For example, the Koreans and Australians' fascinating thematic research on the comparative analysis of players' workplaces was in the spotlight. In a broader sense, many presentations focused on how, in anticipation of the Women's Asian Cup-2026, to strengthen FIFPro's influence in the region. That is, to increase the effectiveness of the international union's work.

World football is developing at a very fast pace. Therefore, to catch up with the leading football nations, we must move even faster. And this is impossible without the main participants in the process. Meanwhile, tens, hundreds, and thousands of footballers, whose play millions of viewers enjoy, continue to face the downsides of the existing system – from the youth level to national teams.

«Let footballers play football, and others will decide how to manage it» – this thesis has no right to exist. The global trend is that more and more representatives of the main football profession are involved in solving the most important management issues. We have neither the right nor the opportunity to ignore this trend.

— How are things going in the Uzbekistan footballers' union?

— As far as I can judge, based on available information, the PFU is developing quite dynamically, with the right algorithms. In 2018, the Uzbekistan Footballers' Union (at that time – for footballers and coaches) was registered with the Ministry of Justice and began its work, in 2021, it received observer status from FIFPro, and in November 2024, at the World Congress, there is hope it will become a full member of the organization. The fact that Uzbekistan was granted the right to host the FIFPro Asia/Oceania General Assembly speaks volumes. The language of political gestures in this sense is very specific.

— What has been done in these years?

— A lot has been achieved in six years. Two key memorandums of understanding have been signed and are being implemented – with the FAU and the PFL, which has sharply increased trust in the union within the football community. With the support of FIFPro, many relevant projects have been implemented – such as the Red Button project to combat match-fixing. The PFU actively works in the FAU Committee on Status and Transfers: as far as I know, PFU lawyers have won more than 90% of cases.

Another crucial point: the PFU has the ability to defend the rights of Uzbek footballers playing in foreign clubs. Bahodir Pardaev, who was once attempted to be deceived and intimidated in Korea, can vouch for this. When the player had problems in his relationship with «Bucheon,» the PFU turned to its Korean colleagues. Baha was immediately taken under protection, reassured, supported – and in the end, the case was successfully closed. And the head of the union himself, Kamolidin Murzoev, once faced serious contract issues while playing for Karagandy's «Shakhtyor.» But since FIFPro was already operating in Kazakhstan at that time, the issue was fairly resolved.

— How many footballers are members of the union?

— If judged formally, on paper, PFU members today include 700 to 800 active footballers (the data is being clarified because an online platform for submitting applications recently started working). But in essence – the understanding of the necessity and importance of this institution is close to 100 percent. Regarding further cooperation with leagues and clubs, the PFU, in my opinion, should be interested in raising the level of competitions.

The formula here is simple: strong clubs + strong leagues = protected players.

The current model of professional football is not focused on producing and exporting footballers and coaches. Therefore, it is necessary to build a new model focused on creating conditions for the financial independence of professional football in the absence of an effective economic model, when the fan is not an independent economic unit in club budgets, when there is no income from TV rights, and the main and only asset of Uzbek football remains the footballer.

— Everything we're talking about now is directly related to legal regulation in sports.

— Absolutely. And here, as they say, is a vast field of questions and problems – to the horizon. Let's start, for example, with the fact that nowadays issues of compensation upon termination of an employment contract, issues of transfers, and many others are usually resolved through arbitration. I believe it is necessary to standardize the status of the jurisdictional bodies of sports federations and leagues for resolving sports disputes and to legally establish the status of arbitration sports courts.

Establishing mandatory pre-trial consideration of sports disputes in labor law will be a very precise step toward reforming the current labor legislation. This approach will avoid duplicating the functions of state courts and non-judicial bodies for resolving sports disputes, ensuring timely protection of the parties' rights in a dispute by entities with specialized knowledge.

The result of the proposed changes will be more sustainable development of physical culture and sports in Uzbekistan, improved regulatory and legal regulation of labor, and a balanced consideration of the interests of the main subjects of professional sports.

— So the status of a professional athlete as an employee will entail granting footballers the full range of social security benefits?

— Modern sports inevitably produce conflicts, disagreements, and disputes because huge money is concentrated here, and therefore the interests of various entities: athletes, coaches, referees, clubs, and leagues, media, sponsors, corporations, and even entire states.

Over the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in sports disputes resolved by quasi-jurisdictional bodies (committees, chambers, commissions under sports federations and leagues) as well as specialized arbitration courts. The overall growth of interest in sports and its rapid commercialization has greatly complicated the regulation of the sports sphere – both at the state level and at the level of, so to speak, self-regulation by international and national sports organizations. Many countries adopt special sports laws and create specialized executive authorities. The volumes of regulatory norms in some sports exceed thousands of pages!

— What is the specificity of disputes in sports?

— It is more correct to distinguish between «disputes in sports» and «sports disputes.» The first includes almost any dispute related to the activities of any subject of physical culture and sports – for example, a dispute over stadium rent, payment for charter flights, protection of business reputation, and so on. Sports disputes are disputes between sports subjects, and their subject matter is directly related to competitive activity. The resolution of such disputes can affect the very fact of holding a competition, the composition of its participants, the conditions of the competition, and its outcomes. For such categories of disputes, the dominance or significant influence of regulatory norms, the so-called «soft» corporate law, is characteristic.

The advantage of arbitration in sports disputes is quite obvious. The international sports community has long accepted this legal format. Evidence is the work of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, which serves as the arbitration center for the vast majority of sports.

— There seem to be no visible obstacles to applying arbitration in Uzbekistan, yet there is no progress. What is this related to?

— The first factor is the fragmentation of potential jurisdiction over sports disputes. Labor disputes in Uzbekistan simply cannot be considered by arbitration courts. However, in my opinion, there are not only sound arguments but also legal grounds for legislatively introducing such an option. Specialized arbitration courts in the field of physical culture and sports around the world resolve any disputes in this area at the highest professional level, as quickly as possible, and considering the specifics of the relevant regulatory norms of international and national sports organizations.

The existing artificial separation of disputes is ineffective. It complicates the full protection of the rights and interests of athletes and clubs, leads to unjustified jurisdictional fragmentation, and potentially conflicting decisions. That is, the status of an athlete as an employee and as a competitor is monolithic, indivisible, and the «extraction» of individual jurisdictional issues leads to negative consequences, including the violation of the athlete's rights and legitimate interests.

The activities of specialized arbitration courts that consider sports disputes comprehensively will allow forming a sustainable and uniform practice of resolving such conflicts.

— In a word, the practice of arbitration in our reality can be implemented.

— That's exactly what we're talking about. At the same time, it is necessary to eliminate the risk of so-called «pocket» arbitration courts, dependent on employers (e.g., clubs) and capable of delivering obviously unfair decisions. To do this, it is proposed to clarify that the arbitration agreement on referring an individual labor dispute of an athlete to a specialized arbitration court can only be contained in the norms of public sports federations or professional sports leagues recognized by employers.

The second factor in the underdevelopment of arbitration in sports disputes in Uzbekistan is the need to concentrate the process in one center. There is a solution: the creation of a national sports arbitration court as a dispute resolution center – following the example of Canada or, say, Japan.

A problem might arise in whether to oblige accredited public sports federations to recognize such a court or to make the acquisition of national sports status by the relevant arbitration court contingent on its voluntary recognition or establishment by certain sports entities… However, this is already very delicate legal matter.

— What exactly are you ready to propose to the leadership of the Ministry of Sports of Uzbekistan, sports federations, and deputies of the Oliy Majlis (Parliament)?

— Not so long ago, in June, we met with the Minister of Sports of Uzbekistan Adkham Ikramov together with the First Vice President of the FAU Ravshan Irmatov. The conversation was substantive and meaningful. A large block of issues was raised related to changes in the management system of federations and issues of legal regulation.

— What is the minister's position following the meeting?

— It's hard to say. So far, the problems have not been fundamentally raised at the level of the administration of the President of Uzbekistan, nor at the levels of the government, Ministry of Sports, and the National Olympic Committee, nor have they been discussed in the federations. Reforms always encounter resistance; not everyone is ready to change the long-established sports management system, and this is logical. But in any case, if we want to raise the level of management, to achieve entirely different performance indicators, if society and the state are oriented towards the law and not concepts, then the initiative must come from the Ministry of Sports. Through the creation of a working group with the invitation of representatives of the relevant committee of the Oliy Majlis, federation leaders, lawyers, and the leadership of the NOC.

The primary task, in my opinion, is to form a common, well-balanced position through the exchange of views, through open discussions.

The development of sports, including in the area of management, as world practice shows, is only possible on the principles of transparency, with the involvement of a wide range of sports public. But this is not a quick process. Systematic work is needed here.

I want to wish the leadership of the Ministry of Sports, and the heads of federations success in achieving their goals – so that the high results shown by Uzbekistan's athletes in international competitions and at the Paris Olympic Games become systemic. This especially applies to team sports, where the organizational system is much more complex than in individual sports.

— What problems characteristic of the sports management system in Uzbekistan can be called the most pressing? And what legal regulation mechanisms are the most effective?

— Let's start with the fact that Uzbekistan has a «Law on Physical Culture and Sports» that regulates the legal relations between the main subjects. But it regulates, so to speak, insufficiently – due to the lack of direct, exhaustively complete answers about the specifics of distinguishing between professional and amateur sports, the status of a professional athlete, sports coach, and sports referee. These shortcomings are precisely due to a deficit of understanding and, accordingly, reflection in regulatory legal acts and program documents of the sports regulation model.

There are many variants of classifications of sports regulation models presented in the scientific literature, and numerous scientific publications are devoted to this topic. But as is known, quantity does not always translate into quality. Almost all classifications are, to some extent, one-sided, superficial, and fragmented. For the simple reason that relations in the field of sports cannot be reduced to single-order models based on single-criterion unified grounds – due to their extreme heterogeneity, non-linearity, and susceptibility to multifactorial influences. What can we talk about when even the content of basic concepts such as «sports,» «professional sports,» «amateur sports,» «autonomy of sports» causes scientific discussions!

— Who does the «Law on Sports» give the decisive vote in the highest governing bodies of sports federations?

— At the moment, professional leagues and clubs have a minority of votes, and associations of sports subjects and athletes' unions do not have voting rights at all. A problem, an absurdity, a paradox – call it what you want, but the fact remains.

One possible option for improving legislation to balance the interests of public federations, sports leagues, and athletes' unions, as well as improving the quality of sports management, may be changing the voting system to grant at least one-third of the votes to regional federations, at least one-third to professional leagues, and at least one-third to professional unions of athletes or coaches in the relevant sport. In addition, to maintain balance, it is necessary to give federations and leagues the authority to adopt norms regulating social and labor relations – provided that these norms are agreed upon with representative bodies of workers, i.e., unions.

— What other steps, in your opinion, should be taken?

— Develop and approve legislation applicable to the employment relations of athletes and coaches, and amend the relevant chapter of the Labor Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. This will be a huge step forward for the differentiated regulation of labor for such unique categories of workers as athletes and coaches. The chapter should contain a number of benefits and guarantees for athletes and coaches – for example, additional leave, medical examinations, provision of equipment, retention of average earnings when sent to national teams, and so on. And reasonable restrictions on rights, of course: moonlighting, for example, or dismissal without cause.

Such a flexible approach will, I am sure, allow us to take pride in the presence in the Labor Code of Uzbekistan of a system of norms-benefits and norms-exceptions adapted for such a complex area of socio-economic relations as professional sports.

— It is generally accepted that athletes have far more rights than responsibilities.

— The question is precisely that the specifics of regulating their labor should be determined by law. Only then will the legal fog dissipate, and contradictions between rights and obligations will be removed. Relations in professional sports urgently need improvement.