Super Cup in a hotspot: instructive or reckless?

In the final of the Uefa Super Cup, FC Bayern defeated FC Sevilla 2-1 on Thursday. Although the host city Budapest has recently recorded more than 100 coronavirus cases per 100,000 inhabitants within seven days, Uefa went ahead with the match, which was meant to serve as a test run for the return of spectators to stadiums. Commentators discuss the pros and cons of this experiment.

Open/close all quotes
Népszava (HU) /

A dangerous mass experiment

Népszava sharply criticises the event:

“Uefa is calling the European Super Cup a test run. But it's more like a mass human experiment in which the Hungarian government is assisting. ... If the Uefa representatives are satisfied with the Super Cup experience, they will make other games available to the public. It's not clear where the limits are: will the experiment be considered successful if none of the spectators at the Puskás Ferenc stadium are infected? How will Uefa know how many football fans have been infected? And what if a few hundred bring home a coronavirus infection and the virus continues to spread among families, killing older family members?”

444 (HU) /

Uefa showcasing football in the pandemic

444, on the other hand, says the event was exemplary:

“The Super Cup was an instructive experiment, especially for the Hungarian Football Association. ... On the weekend, during the next round of the Hungarian championship, there will be no empty seats in the stadium. There will be no obligation to wear masks, there will be no limit to the number of people in the toilets, and at the food stands there will be no disinfectants or coordination of queues, because the Hungarian Football Association, unlike Uefa, does not require this. Those in charge have now seen what the alternative approach is.”