Akhmat General Director Akhmed Aidamirov spoke out against the idea of taxing foreign players in Russia, weighing in with blunt, practical concerns about fairness and the sports ecosystem. His stance reflects a broader tension in Russian football between sustaining competitive balance and enforcing fiscal rules that might disproportionately affect clubs, talent, and the fans who follow them closely.
Aidamirov argued that a tax on foreign talents would hit the wealthier clubs less than the teams with tighter budgets. He pointed to the financial reality on the ground: while affluent sides could absorb small levies, smaller clubs would feel the sting much more acutely. He questioned the logic behind such a levy, asking why the sport’s governing body would assume the role of the state in collecting taxes rather than keeping the league’s focus on performance, development, and competitive integrity. The implication, he suggested, is that the federation should not replace the state’s fiscal responsibilities or crowd out the vitality that foreign players bring to domestic leagues.
According to Aidamirov, this approach could set a dangerous precedent. He noted that many colleagues share the concern that a tax framework aimed at foreign players might alter the professional calculus for clubs at every level. The debate, he observed, risks turning football into a numbers game rather than a showcase of strategic plan, recruitment, and on-field excellence. He asked whether the league should instead emphasize transparent rules, fair compensation, and clear pathways for youth development, ensuring the sport remains accessible and exciting for fans across Russia and beyond.
Speculation in the media suggests a model where clubs would pay a set amount per minute a foreign player spends on the pitch, with the fee varying by age. Aidamirov noted that such a scheme could create perverse incentives, encouraging clubs to limit playing time for certain players or to reshuffle rosters around taxation rather than tactical needs and performance. He stressed that any financial framework should align with sporting merit and the long-term health of the competition, not simply serve as a revenue source. The current rule—allowing 13 foreign players in the squad with up to eight on the field at once—already creates a delicate balance between talent import and domestic development. A sudden shift toward punitive taxation could destabilize this balance and diminish the authenticity of the league’s competitive story.
As the Russian Premier League progressed through the season, results continued to shape public conversation about the impact of foreign players. In recent fixtures, Zenit asserted leadership by securing a decisive victory over Ural, signaling continued strength at the top of the table. Krasnodar faced a setback against Rostov, slipping to a position just behind the leaders. Dinamo Moscow remained a consistent presence in the top tier, illustrating that the competition remains rich with talent and strategic depth. These developments highlighted how international talent contributes to the league’s overall quality, drawing attention from scouts, fans, and media across the country and around Europe.
Amid these developments, some former players and analysts publicly criticized the over-reliance on foreign players in certain clubs, calling into question the long-term plan for local player development. The critique touched on whether teams should diversify though the inclusion of international stars or prioritize homegrown graduates who carry long-term value for the national team. The discussion reflected broader questions about the league’s identity, its role in nurturing national talent, and how clubs balance short-term success with sustainable growth. Ultimately, the debate underscored the need for a coherent policy framework that supports both competitive excellence and the orderly development of domestic football culture, while avoiding measures that could undermine the league’s appeal to fans and sponsors alike.