At the start of a new football season, the head of the UAF Ethics and Fair Play Committee, Francesco Baranca, spoke about data transmission control. Controlling this process allows for effectively countering organizations involved in fixed matches—the experience of Ukraine in this area is actively being studied by other countries.

At the same time, in an interview with the UAF press service, the Italian expert expressed doubts about the effectiveness of a new data transmission scheme that certain clubs are trying to implement for the new season.

— The new football season is starting in Ukraine. You personally are present in Kyiv these days. How do you feel?

— I won't hide that I'm excited. It's the second championship during wartime, and it's thanks to the heroism of the Armed Forces of Ukraine! We hope everything will go well—first and foremost, we hope this is the last season under these conditions. We are aware that football is only a small part of social life in such dramatic times, but if it can divert attention from the harshness of war for even a moment, then it should be. At the same time, I am very concerned about the situation surrounding the work of the committee I lead.

— It seems to us that last year in Ukraine went well regarding suspicious matches, and there's no reason to worry...

— Last year was indeed successful in this regard. We monitored bets on 1035 matches across all competitions. During the year, we applied the rule of suspending betting data transmission only once and requested not to offer nine other matches for betting before their start. Over the course of the year, we received just one report from UEFA regarding suspicious matches. This was about that match whose data transmission we had asked to stop.

But I am concerned because the new championship in terms of combating fixed matches is starting in a chaotic mode—the rights to football match data are in the hands of teams, and there's still no contract with a provider who will transmit this data safely.

This means that at least in the opening matches, anyone can steal data with great satisfaction for organizers of fixed matches and representatives of companies, including those from the aggressor country.

— Aren't you making the situation more dramatic than it really is?

— Let's talk about the situation with controlled data and the situation that was there for many years before this. In 2020, the UAF became the first sports organization in the world to sell rights on the condition of suspending their transmission if suspicions of match-fixing arise. Until then, clubs did not worry about the lack of control in this area. Moreover, during a certain period, leagues had contracts with individual providers, and the sums of such contracts were extremely low. Why no one was concerned back then is unknown to me.

Despite this, we managed to establish effective cooperation in this direction, which gave us an instrument of influence on betting placement (namely—suspending such possibility if there are risks) and the ability to implement VAR in Ukrainian football.

Over these years, the number of suspicious matches has steadily decreased, and changing the system was very risky for our committee's work. Perhaps not all clubs clearly understood what we had done, but the situation started improving, and clubs felt more secure in this area. Just recall how many scandals there were in the 2017/2018 season compared to last or pre-last seasons. Thanks to this mechanism, we protected clubs from direct responsibility for possible improper influences on match results, focusing on players.

Before the start of this season, we communicated with clubs to keep the system as it is, but they refused and decided to realize rights independently. As a result, the season has already started, data rights have not been transferred yet, and our control mechanism, which was key in our work over recent years, has lost its effectiveness.

— Will signing contracts by clubs with providers for transmitting data bring the situation under control?

— Yes. The absence of this mechanism increases risks for match integrity, and now responsibility lies entirely on the clubs as they try to realize rights. Unlike you, I am not so optimistic. I'm grateful to clubs for listening to our committee's wishes, but they lack neither competence nor, it seems to me, interest in ensuring the operation of our mechanism. In such a situation, everything will go back many years...

Allow me one more remark. The Ukrainian championship has become attractive for provider and betting companies because it is controlled, and the number of fixed matches has significantly decreased over recent years. Ukraine is the only country in the world with such an effective control method. And now they are trying to return us to those times when playing "for the bookmaker" was a norm—this harsh reality.

— Clubs are motivated by the possibility of earning money...

— Of course, clubs, leagues, and federations should have economic returns! I fought for this and will continue to fight, but we cannot forget about the part related to match integrity. We were the first in the world to combine an effective method of fighting with profit generation, now we risk ruining everything.

— Some clubs complain that they did not receive enough in the past and are now confident it will be better.

— Let's remove the veil from the past. As always, numbers speak for themselves. Before we took matters into our hands, the UPL and first league had contracts for laughable sums (we're talking about around $10,000 per year), all providers were unscrupulous, and some had agreements with leagues on everything but data transmission! Ukrainian football was devastated by a huge number of fixed matches.

Not everyone knows how much effort we put into excluding lower leagues from betting and trying to restore order. It seemed that clubs and leagues at the time were not interested in fighting fixed matches and delegated everything to us. Now some are complaining about our work during that period. Did someone think they could easily earn money without putting in any effort? Unfortunately, this is impossible both in life generally and specifically in football. Managing data transmission from football matches tied only to economic ambitions will lead to a resurgence of the phenomenon of fixed matches. And at the same time—great satisfaction for providers working for the aggressor state...

— What do you propose doing if clubs cannot agree on this?

— There are few options. I believe that now the responsibility to preserve our joint achievements of past years lies with the clubs, and they must find a consensus.

At the same time, understanding the inevitability of problems if clubs fail to reach an agreement, I do not see other alternatives except for introducing temporary measures involving accrediting representatives of one provider on a non-fee basis exclusively with the aim of establishing control over data transmission and eliminating actions that start stealing this data without any permission. Inactivity creates high risks.

Our key committees responsible for match conduct and result recording—the referees committee and the ethics and fair play committee—are obligated to ensure control. And we will do it, especially in conditions where some clubs are interested in neutralizing anti-fixing measures. We must act and will definitely ensure control.