In the summer of 2022, Artem Dzyuba left Zenit Saint Petersburg as a free agent and headed to Turkey, where he appeared in a handful of matches for Adana Demirspor. He then returned to Russia for several months without joining a club, before moving to Lokomotiv Moscow. Dzyuba explained in a lengthy interview the circumstances surrounding his exit from the St. Petersburg club, offering sharp comments about Zenit’s development path and his concern over the club’s growing Brazilian influence on the squad.
Zenit extended a contract offer that left him feeling undervalued. He made it clear that he bore no grudges and maintained cordial relations with everyone involved. He praised a productive conversation with the club’s president and publicly wished mutual success, expressing gratitude for the time he spent there. Still, he admitted that staying there wasn’t in his plans. Zenit, in his view, had shifted into a Brazilian-dominated lineup, which he believed undermined the core identity of the team. He stressed that the Russian backbone should anchor the club, with homegrown players forming the core of the squad in any country. His remarks touched on a broader theme he perceived in Zenit’s recruitment strategy.
At the time, Zenit’s roster included seven Brazilian players: Douglas Santos, Rodrigao, Robert Renan, Gustavo Mantuan, Wendel, Claudinho and Malcolm. Notably, the last two had recently acquired Russian citizenship, a detail he highlighted in discussing the team’s evolving composition. Other voices in Russian football weighed in as well. Maxim Demenko, a well-known former Zenit and Spartak player, suggested that Dzyuba’s stance carried emotional weight. He explained that the striker was expressing a personal frustration about limited opportunities for Russian players, while acknowledging that decisions ultimately rest with the club and the coaching staff, and that emotions can color such assessments.
As Demenko put it, Dzyuba’s comments carried an emotional undertone. He suggested that the statements reflected a broader tension within the Russian game, where the club’s leadership sets a course that may appear controversial to fans and ex-players alike. Yet the choice to include foreign players, especially those from Brazil, had become a hallmark of Zenit’s strategy, one that many believed contributed to the club’s domestic success, including multiple Russian championships in a row. A veteran observer from Spartak, Valery Gladilin, argued that Zenit’s policy had yielded tangible results and viewed Dzyuba’s critique as jealousy born of not fitting into such a winning environment. He highlighted that Brazilian players, along with other foreigners, could push national teams to a higher standard by competing at the peak of European football, where the best players from Brazil often excel. This, he argued, enhanced the overall quality of Russian football by creating a pipeline of talent and experience that benefits the national team when players return home or gain visibility on the world stage.
According to Gladilin, the presence of strong foreign players in top clubs would never hinder a nation’s program. He noted that players from Brazil or other footballing nations often become contenders for the national squad, demonstrating that the infusion of foreign talent could elevate the game domestically. The conversation then shifted to Dzyuba’s possible next steps, with suggestions that a return to the top tier would hinge on demonstrating his value at Lokomotiv. The veteran argued that a move to a club where the squad is competitive could offer a platform to prove his capabilities, potentially helping his team stay in the top league, including possible playoff runs. The debate also touched on the emotional price of a player trying to navigate a club that has embraced a different path than the one he imagined for his career.
Gladilin added a broader perspective on Dzyuba’s public stance, suggesting that the striker’s discontent might stem from personal grievances tied to multiple clubs over the years, including Spartak and Zenit. He described Dzyuba as a principled, candid individual whose pride might have been wounded by not fitting into the evolving setup at Zenit. He cautioned against quick judgments, emphasizing that the player was simply voicing his opinion in a moment of reflection. Whether this would lead to a continued career with Lokomotiv or another move remained to be seen, with Gladilin hinting that the next six months could reveal the trajectory more clearly than any immediate assessment.
Throughout the discussion, a central point persisted: Zenit’s leadership was pursuing a model that leaned on foreign reinforcements, including players with proven experience and the reliability to perform without sudden contractual disruptions. This approach, in the view of Gladilin, had proven effective and would continue to be a defining feature of the club’s strategy. In his eyes, the emphasis on bringing robust players from diverse footballing cultures created a system that could sustain domestic success while offering a platform for players to showcase their skills on a broader stage. The dialogue underscored the tension between a club’s proven formula and a player’s personal sense of belonging in a changing lineup. The discussion also touched on the lack of direct contact with Zenit’s leadership in recent times, with Dzyuba noting that communication with the club’s general manager, Alexander Medvedev, had ceased before his departure. He asserted that the decision to move away was not driven by football reasons alone but by a sense that the club had lost its backbone among victorious players who had helped shape Zenit’s championship run. He suggested that his exit did not stem from a clash with the management but rather from a feeling that the team had shifted away from what he believed kept it successful.
In reflecting on the relationship with Sergei Semak, Dzyuba indicated that no active disagreement existed, though he and Semak had not spoken recently. He described a situation in which direct, face-to-face conversations were limited, and he suggested that certain players might have preferred different outcomes or decisions without pressing for explicit yes-or-no confirmations. He also addressed the reception from fans, acknowledging the mixed reactions he had faced and commenting on the intensity of fan sentiment. While some supporters expressed disapproval, he candidly admitted that the emotional response from fans could be harsh and outspoken, even if the message behind the criticism did not necessarily reflect his on-field contributions. This personal toll was a reminder that public perception can complicate a player’s career as he navigates transitions between clubs and leagues. In sum, Dzyuba’s account painted a picture of a veteran striker weighing loyalty to a club against the reality of a shifting football landscape, where the balance between national identity and international talent continues to shape the sport’s evolving narrative.