Shakhtar's London base shows UEFA needs a rule for exiled clubs

Key takeaways

• The Guardian reports that Shakhtar Donetsk are using Chelsea's Stamford Bridge as the venue for their Champions League home fixtures this season.
• The club cannot stage European matches in Ukraine, so every "home" game in the competition is in practice an away trip.
• Shakhtar have been displaced since well before the full-scale Russian invasion, after they were forced out of Donetsk during the earlier war in the east of the country.
• Clubs in exile currently depend on case-by-case deals with host clubs, host associations and UEFA, and those deals have to be renegotiated over and over.
• A permanent framework for displaced clubs would cut that uncertainty and protect fair competition, but it would raise hard questions about cost, precedent and sporting identity.

What is happening with Shakhtar in London?

The Guardian reports that Shakhtar Donetsk, coached by Arda Turan with Darijo Srna as director of football, have set up a base in London for their Champions League campaign. Their home fixtures in the competition will be played at Stamford Bridge. The piece describes a squad that trains, travels and recovers around domestic games in Ukraine and European fixtures in England. It reports a light session for players who had not started against Veres Rivne the previous day.

The line the club chose for the story, that it is in London to show the world it is alive, explains why it bothers. For a club with no city, staying in Europe's top competition is a sporting ambition and also proof that it still exists.

My argument is simple. The London arrangement is a sensible, even admirable piece of improvisation. But improvisation is the wrong long-term answer. European football has no settled, published framework for clubs that cannot play in their own country, and it should have one.

Why is this in the news now?

The Champions League league phase has brought Shakhtar's home fixtures back onto the calendar, and with them a new venue. Moving to a major London ground is new, and it puts the club's situation in front of an audience that may have lost track of it.

Each season Shakhtar are in Europe, the same set of problems returns. They need a stadium, a host association willing to sanction matches, police and stewarding arrangements, a training base, accommodation and a way to keep a domestic league programme running in Ukraine alongside it. The London base is this season's answer to those problems. It is not known how long the arrangement is meant to last beyond this campaign, and the source does not set out its financial terms.

What background does a newcomer need?

UEFA does not allow Ukrainian clubs to host European matches in Ukraine because of the war. So qualifying for European competition means finding a neutral venue in another country. In recent seasons Ukrainian clubs have played their European home games in a range of countries, and they have done it through deals made one at a time.

Shakhtar's displacement is older than that. The club left Donetsk during the earlier conflict in the east of the country, long before the full-scale invasion. Since then it has played domestic football in other Ukrainian cities. For many supporters who grew up with the club, a home match in Donetsk is a memory, not a routine.

The mechanism that matters here is how competition rules interact with venue approval. UEFA's regulations require clubs to name a stadium that meets its infrastructure criteria. Playing outside a club's own association needs consent from the host association and from UEFA. None of this was designed with a permanently exiled club in mind. It was built for one-off problems such as stadium closures, not for a club that has no stadium to return to.

Who is affected, and how?

The players and staff carry most of the load. A squad playing domestic football in Ukraine and European football in western Europe spends far more time travelling than a normal top-flight squad. It also has to plan training and recovery around journeys most rivals never make. The Guardian's description of sessions split between starters and non-starters shows the routine is being managed carefully. Even so, the routine exists only because the club has to keep moving.

Supporters are affected differently. Fans living in Ukraine cannot easily reach a game in London, so the crowd at a Shakhtar "home" match is shaped by diaspora communities, neutral spectators and visiting fans. That changes the atmosphere and also how much of a home advantage the club really gets.

Opponents are affected too. A side drawn against Shakhtar does not face the usual home-and-away pattern. It faces two neutral-leaning trips, one of them in a major European city that may be easier to reach than the Donbas ever was. That does not decide any result, but it changes the conditions in a way the competition's format quietly accepts.

Host clubs and host cities take on the policing, scheduling and pitch-management work. Their goodwill is what makes the system run, and goodwill is not a governance model.

Where do informed people disagree?

Some argue that the current flexible approach is right. Every season brings different circumstances: different venues are available, different security conditions apply and different clubs qualify. A rigid rule could end up less useful than the freedom to make deals. On this view, Shakhtar and UEFA have shown the system can cope, and writing the arrangement into regulations would only add paperwork.

Others, and I am among them, think that flexibility hides a fairness problem. When every arrangement is bespoke, nobody outside the deal can easily see whether a displaced club gets reasonable financial support, whether its opponents face comparable conditions or whether a smaller Ukrainian club that qualifies would get the same treatment as a club with Shakhtar's resources and connections. A published framework would make the answers visible.

There is a third view to take seriously. It holds that formalising exile risks making it normal. A permanent rule for displaced clubs could be read as accepting that they will not go home. That concern is real, and it means any framework should be explicitly temporary and reviewed often, not presented as a new status quo.

There is also an honest disagreement about money. Hosting matches abroad costs a lot, and it is not clear from public reporting who carries which costs in any given arrangement. Some would want UEFA to share the burden. Others would argue that a club's commercial decisions about venues should stay its own.

What are the practical implications?

A workable framework would not need to be complicated. It could cover four things. First, a standing list of pre-approved neutral venues, agreed with host associations before each season, so that displaced clubs are not negotiating at short notice. Second, a clear statement of who pays for policing and venue costs, and in what share. Third, priority in fixture scheduling, so that the extra travel between domestic and European matches is considered when dates are set. Fourth, equal access, so that any displaced club that qualifies gets the same basic support whatever its size.

None of this would fix the underlying problem, which lies far beyond football's reach. It would, though, remove an avoidable layer of uncertainty from clubs already working in very hard conditions. It would also give the clubs that accept these teams a defined role rather than an informal favour.

For Shakhtar in particular, the London base already does much of what a framework would require: a fixed venue, a stable training environment and a clear plan for the season. That is the strongest case for codifying it. The club has shown what a good arrangement looks like. The governing body should make sure the next displaced club does not have to build one from scratch.

What should readers watch next?

Watch whether the London base proves sustainable across the whole league phase, and whether any knockout fixtures would stay at the same venue. It is not known whether the arrangement extends that far.

Watch whether other Ukrainian clubs in European competition adopt similar fixed-base models or keep moving between venues.

Watch for any sign that UEFA is reviewing its approach to displaced clubs in a more structured way. Nothing in the source reporting suggests that a formal review is under way.

And watch how the arrangement is talked about. If it is described only as a heart-warming story, the structural question will be lost. If it is treated as a test case, it could leave something lasting for clubs well beyond Ukraine.

Frequently asked questions

Why does Shakhtar Donetsk play home games in London?

Shakhtar cannot host European fixtures in Ukraine because of the war, so the club needs a venue abroad for Champions League home matches. The Guardian reports that Chelsea's Stamford Bridge is hosting those fixtures this season, with the squad based in London for its European campaign. The arrangement lets Shakhtar keep competing at the top level, although every "home" match in Europe is in practice played away from its own supporters and city.

Is Stamford Bridge Shakhtar's home ground for the whole season?

According to the Guardian's reporting, Stamford Bridge is hosting Shakhtar's Champions League campaign. Domestic league matches in Ukraine are a separate matter and are not played in London. It is not publicly known from the source how long the arrangement lasts, whether it would cover any knockout fixtures, or what the financial terms between the clubs are. Readers should treat any claims about those details with caution unless they are officially confirmed.

How long has Shakhtar been away from Donetsk?

Shakhtar left Donetsk during the earlier conflict in eastern Ukraine, well before Russia's full-scale invasion. Since then the club has played domestic football in other Ukrainian cities and, more recently, has had to stage European home matches outside the country altogether. That makes Shakhtar's displacement unusually long for a top-level European club. It is one reason why the club's continued presence in the Champions League carries meaning beyond sport.

Who coaches Shakhtar Donetsk?

The Guardian reports that Arda Turan is Shakhtar's head coach and that Darijo Srna is the club's director of football. Both are well-known former players. Their roles matter to the London arrangement because coaching staff and sporting leadership have to manage training, travel and squad rotation across two countries. That is a planning problem few other Champions League clubs face in the same form during a season.

Does playing in London give Shakhtar a home advantage?

Not in the usual sense. A home advantage normally comes from familiar surroundings, local support and short travel. Shakhtar's matches in London will draw on diaspora communities and neutral spectators rather than a home crowd from Donetsk. Familiarity with a fixed venue and training base may help over a season, but the club still carries far heavier travel demands than most rivals, so any advantage is limited and hard to measure.

Does UEFA have a rule for clubs that cannot play at home?

UEFA's regulations require clubs to name an approved stadium and allow matches to be moved to another country with the right consent. There is no widely published, standing framework designed specifically for clubs displaced for long periods by conflict. Arrangements for Ukrainian clubs have generally been made case by case. This article argues that a clear, temporary and regularly reviewed framework would improve fairness and predictability.

Sources and further reading

• The Guardian: reporting from Shakhtar Donetsk's London base, covering the Stamford Bridge arrangement and the club's daily routine.
• UEFA: published competition regulations on stadium approval and the staging of matches outside a club's own association.
• Ukrainian Association of Football: official information on how domestic competition is organised during the war.
• Academic and policy writing on sport during armed conflict and on governing bodies' responses to displaced teams.