The ongoing saga of the clash between Yaroslavl Shinnik and Transcarpathian Minai continued to unfold, with new details surfacing from all sides but often contradicting one another. The mixed reports have made it difficult to form a clear picture of what actually happened during the days in Belek, Turkey.
It is confirmed that on February 15 both teams vacated the Royal Seginus hotel where the incidents had begun. There was earlier talk that Shinnik planned to change its base due to the environment, and that Minai’s training camp was nearing its end. A report from the Championship noted that Shinnik had moved to another Antalya hotel, where the Russian women’s national team was also training at the time.
One Ukrainian source, Bombardier, claimed that Minai initially demanded that no Russian teams stay in the same hotel. Yet, because of the earthquake in Turkey and resulting accommodation issues, some teams faced new lodging arrangements, which led to Shinnik ending up at Royal Seginus. This version clashes with explanations from the Russian club’s general manager, Sergei Kulakov, who described a different sequence of events, noting that the hotel had been booked in November and, at that time, Ukrainian players were not staying there so as to avoid conflict. He indicated that safety, money, and other concerns were recognized and prioritized.
Journalist Ilya Kazakov later reported that Shinnik players in Yaroslavl had faced delayed wage payments, nearly through March of the previous year. Meanwhile, organizers seemed to keep training camps and teams in different hotels across Turkey, including both Russian and Ukrainian sides. It was possible that Minai and Shinnik would intersect during the transition period, which left organizers hoping the two teams would avoid contact. In reality, the two-day window before the Ukrainian team’s evacuation appeared to be a miscalculation, and tensions rose as a result.
opposite versions
Following the incidents, official statements from the hotel and both clubs conflicted. Hotel representatives described the conflict as arising from heavy alcohol consumption by players from both sides, with several bottles of whiskey reportedly emptied in the evening. The Shinnik side later published a statement denying that they initiated the conflict and asserting that their players stood with teammates who were attacked. Health checks showed no serious injuries among Shinnik players, and the club subsequently relocated to another hotel to prevent further clashes. The hotel management cited secure conditions and condemned violence, while law enforcement noted that the incident would be investigated.
The Minai camp offered a different account, accusing the Russian side of provoking the confrontation and asserting that the Russians attacked in the hotel building. Minai’s account challenged claims about how the event unfolded, insisting that the fight occurred in a manner not defined by the media, with equal numbers from both sides involved. Police intervened to restore order, and no one from Minai was reported injured.
Before the clash, Minai’s organizers demanded the absence of Russian teams at the hotel. The organizers later stated that the hotel had agreed to host Shinnik, highlighting tensions around who was allowed to stay in the same premises. Antalya police attended the scene, separated the groups, and prepared a protocol but did not detain anyone. Officers noted that there was no need for criminal charges.
eyewitnesses
By February 15, accounts from those directly involved began to emerge. A Shinnik defender described hearing shouts and a claim of national allegiance as others rushed through the corridor. An incident in an elevator and verbal provocations were mentioned by players who described the scene as chaotic, with teammates reacting to perceived slights toward their country. Some players indicated that the plan for the team was to avoid any Russian presence in hotels to prevent conflicts, a request organizers did not fully satisfy. One defender from Minai stated that the team did not unleash violence but faced confrontation when others crossed lines. Several witnesses emphasized that the event involved a series of tense exchanges rather than a single, straightforward incident.
Concerns about safety and the overall conduct of players remained at the fore as discussions continued, with some participants explaining that emotions ran high and that actions taken were meant to defend teammates and national pride. The broader sentiment was that lines had been crossed, and the situation required careful handling to prevent reprisals or further injury. The conversation around responsibility and accountability grew more intense as more perspectives surfaced.
Who should be removed
Discussions about possible sanctions drew input from several figures in the football world. Some argued that any disciplinary measures should come from national football authorities, not the clubs themselves. In this view, responsibility lay with the governing bodies and their ability to determine measures in line with established rules. Others suggested that sanctions might extend to international competition eligibility, raising questions about the appropriate level of punishment within the broader European football framework. The remarks underscored tensions about how to address incidents that involved players from multiple nations and the role of institutions in safeguarding fair play.
There were also perspectives advocating for stronger action, with voices suggesting that consequences could extend to broader competition participation. The debate touched on the balance between enforcing discipline and maintaining competitive integrity, highlighting how such events can impact both teams and national associations alike.
On the other side, Ukrainian officials voiced support for protective measures and legal backing for Minai’s management. They urged Turkish authorities to isolate offensive players and ensure that teams from other countries were shielded from hostile actions. These positions reflected ongoing discussions about how to respond to provocations and safeguard players and staff in cross-border settings.