Alexander Mostovoy, a former footballer who played for Celta and the Russian national team, criticized the recent ranking that claimed to list the most influential people in Russian football. He spoke about the matter with Sports24, expressing his disbelief and strong opinions about the methodology used to shape such a list.
Mostovoy described the ranking as a misrepresentation of influence within the sport. He noted that Spartak Abaskal, a figure who had never played professional football, was placed at the top of the list. The ex-player argued that legendary contributors and long-time financiers should be recognized for their real impact, questioning why names with storied careers and significant financial backing were not given corresponding prominence. According to Mostovoy, the inclusion of Abaskal undermines the credibility of any ranking meant to reflect influence within Spartak or within Russian football as a whole.
He went further, calling the ranking meaningless and comparing it to a miscast list from a less informed institution. Mostovoy pointed out that the people who have shaped Spartak through decades of involvement and investment should be acknowledged for their real, tangible influence, which goes far beyond a single season or a single appointment. The criticism highlighted the tension between current leadership roles and the long-standing figures who have built the club’s foundation over many years.
Sports Express, which compiles the ranking based on insider information and conversations within the football community, included Guillermo Abascal, the head coach of Spartak Moscow, in the list of the most influential individuals. The publication described his rising influence as he led the team through the early part of the 2022/23 season, with contract negotiations and a salary increase accompanying the team’s progress. Under his guidance, Spartak finished in third place in the Russian Championship in the previous season, a record that added to the perception of rising influence around his role.
At the time the ranking was published, Spartak Moscow found itself mid-table in the ongoing Russian Premier League campaign, holding fifth place with a total in the low thirties in points. The team had competed for weeks in a tightly contested league, with the standings reflecting a mix of consistent performances and the occasional setback. This context contributed to the debate over who truly holds influence within the club and the league as a whole, a discussion that several analysts and former players continued to weigh in on after the list appeared in the media.
Historically, the discussion around influence in Russian football has often centered on a blend of on-field success, financial power, and leadership longevity. Figures who contributed to the sport’s growth, whether through governance, sponsorship, or strategic investment, have repeatedly been cited as the true architects of long-term impact. The controversy surrounding the latest ranking underscores the ongoing challenge of measuring influence in a sport where power and prestige are distributed across a range of roles, from executives and coaches to former players who continue to shape the game off the pitch.
Observers note that credibility in such rankings depends on transparent criteria and a clear definition of influence. Without these, lists can appear capricious and risk alienating fans and insiders who recognize the value of established contributors. The debate also reflects a broader discussion about how clubs like Spartak Moscow balance tradition with modern management, a dynamic that often drives disputes about who should be considered the most influential within a club or league. In the end, the controversy appears to be less about a single name and more about the standards used to assess influence in a rapidly evolving football landscape.