UEFA should take the blame for fiasco
LONDON: The identity of the Europa League quarter-finalists was known on Thursday, March 14. By the following evening, UEFA should have been able to announce the venue for the final. Somewhere reachable; somewhere the fans could enjoy. Not Baku. Nowhere remote, or inhospitable. Nowhere prohibitively expensive.
There are 18 countries and 1,725 miles between the points UEFA could choose from. They are lying when they say the woe of Baku and back is not on them. By the time the round of 16 concluded, UEFA knew the area covered by the quarter-finalists. It ranged from Lisbon in the west to Prague in the east, London in the north to Naples in the south. And at that point, UEFA knew too that the nearest Baku would be to any of the possible finalists was 2,227 miles away.
Slavia Prague were then knocked out. Even so, had UEFA already decreed that the final was being held in Vienna, say, 156 miles from the Czech capital, there would be no argument whoever ended up there.
Vienna is approachable. So is most of Germany, Spain, or France — and these are all countries with stadium options. It should not take close to two years to find a venue for a final.
Yet Baku was chosen on September 20, 2017. We already know the venue for the 2020 final: Gdansk in Poland. This month we will discover who hosts in 2021: either Tbilisi in Georgia, or Seville.
And for what? So UEFA can conjure up some branding and a meaningless slogan. ‘Together to Baku,’ is the one for this year. Yet who is together to Baku, considering the limitations of the venue? Together in a car, six hours from Tbilisi maybe. Together via Istanbul. Together watching from the sofa because tickets are so scarce.
The qualifying teams, Arsenal and Chelsea, have been told they will only get 6,000 seats each in a 68,700 capacity stadium, and this is now being blamed on the main airport only being able to handle 15,000 visitors a day. And UEFA found that out now? Of course not.
One of the advantages of a twoyear lead time is the compilation of evaluation reports; detailed analyses of venue logistics, including international transportation. Meaning UEFA knew of Baku’s flaws and the unavoidable restrictions on tickets but ignored it.
The only argument for holding finals in remote locations concern inclusion. Azerbaijan is part of UEFA too. Why shouldn’t it get a little gravy? And that much is true. Yet the final venue should always play sympathetically to the needs of supporters.
This year, Krasnodar and Zenit St Petersburg from Russia were in the Europa League’s last 16. Had either got through, most of eastern Europe could have been considered among the options for a final, even Moscow. And yes, Arsenal and Chelsea to Moscow, would still have been a trek. Yet there would have been more than 6,000 tickets each at the end of it, and flights and entry routes would have been less problematic.
This is a final constructed with the least thought, even for the playing participants, given that it has now been revealed that Henrikh Mkhitaryan of Arsenal might not be able to get a visa, due to Armenia’s war footing with Azerbaijan.
How could UEFA award such a fixture to a city without first establishing that all players would be able to gain access? That alone should have been a red flag in 2017 — or at least sorted out months ago when it was clear that Arsenal’s presence in the final was very possible.
Ask Arsenal or Chelsea’s fans if Baku is no problem. OK, two years too late, but it might inform the decision over Tbilisi in 2021.