Slovak media after Hajduk and Žilina: Poljud impressed them with its atmosphere, but also raised the question of stadium standards
Hajduk Split made a calm start to the European season in terms of the result with a 2:0 victory against MŠK Žilina at Poljud, but the echo of the match did not remain tied only to the pitch. The Slovak outlet Šport, whose journalist followed the match in Split, published an extensive report in which he described the atmosphere at the stadium as a rare European football experience, but at the same time made a series of sharp remarks about the condition of the stadium and the organization of the match. At the center of the Slovak text were Poljud’s roof, the athletics track, the behavior of part of the crowd, the sale of alcohol, the treatment of visiting supporters and the working conditions for journalists after the end of the match.
According to UEFA data, the match Hajduk Split - Žilina was played on 9 July 2026 in the first qualifying round of the Europa League at Poljud Stadium. Specialized match databases state that the match began at 20:00 local time and that Roko Brajković gave the home side the lead in the 22nd minute, while Dali made it the final 2:0 in the 49th minute. UEFA statistics show that Hajduk had 13 attempts on goal and Žilina five, while the home team took six corners and the visitors three. That result gives Hajduk an important advantage ahead of the return leg in Slovakia, which according to UEFA’s schedule is planned for 16 July in Žilina.
Still, the day after the match, part of the attention shifted from the result to the broader impression of the visit. On Friday, 10 July 2026, Šport published a text with a headline built around “holes in the roof”, a “well-known politician” and “forbidden things”, along with the claim that Slovak journalists were removed from the press center too early. Croatian media, including tportal and Sportske novosti, carried the key parts of that report, especially emphasizing that the Slovak journalists simultaneously acknowledged the strength of Poljud’s atmosphere and very directly criticized organizational details. In this way, the match, in addition to its sporting significance, once again opened a discussion about how historic stadiums in European football can preserve their identity while at the same time meeting modern infrastructural and organizational standards.
The result was clear, but the visitors’ impression was layered
On the pitch, Hajduk achieved exactly what is most sought after in the first European qualifying matches: a victory without conceding a goal. According to Šport’s reports, Žilina did not start fearfully and in the early phase of the match had a chance that could have changed the tone of the encounter, especially through Timotej Hranica. After the match, Žilina coach Pavol Staňo, according to Šport, stressed that the first twenty minutes or so had not been bad from his team’s perspective, but admitted that the goal conceded in the 22nd minute shook the visitors. In his assessment, Žilina lost the ball too easily and did not come out of pressure with enough quality.
Hajduk punished such mistakes effectively. Brajković’s first goal came at a moment when the home side was taking control, and the second goal immediately after the break further changed the psychological balance of power. Šport conveyed Staňo’s assessment that the second goal was “curious” and that the team must analyze it in detail, while goalkeeper Jakub Badžgoň summed up the message by saying that football is not played for only 25 minutes, but for all 90. In that framework, the Slovak side did not deny Hajduk’s quality, but interpreted the defeat as a combination of its own mistakes, the intensity of the home team and the pressure from the stands.
That pressure was one of the rare points on which praise and criticism in the Slovak report completely overlapped. Šport described Torcida’s support as strong, organized and a color rarely seen anymore in modern European football. According to the report, songs, choreographies, banners and noise created an environment that was already having an effect before the start of the match, while the home supporters’ rhythm occasionally overshadowed even the game itself. In that sense, for the visitors Poljud was more than a stadium: it was a stage on which Split’s football identity became part of the sporting pressure itself.
Poljud as an architectural icon and a stadium showing its age
The largest part of the Slovak criticism concerned the stadium. Poljud is not an ordinary sports facility, but one of the most recognizable stadiums on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. On its official website, HNK Hajduk states that the stadium was built in 1979 for the VIII Mediterranean Games, that it was designed by Boris Magaš and that it has a capacity of 33,987 seats. The club describes it as a shell-shaped structure, with a roof construction covering the eastern and western stands, and as one of the symbols of Split’s sporting identity.
It was precisely this duality that also marked the Slovak report. Šport described Poljud as an architecturally impressive “shell”, but also as a stadium where the years and the lack of modernization cannot be hidden. The roof was especially highlighted, with the report stating that it has visible holes, along with the claim that in the event of a stronger storm some spectators could get wet. The old athletics track around the pitch was also criticized, with the Slovak author writing that it distances the stands from the field and that such a solution no longer corresponds to the modern football experience.
These assessments should be read in the broader context of the long-running debate about Poljud’s future. The Ministry of Tourism and Sport of the Republic of Croatia announced back in 2024 that the City of Split was being awarded 597,586.25 euros for study and project-technical documentation for the renovation of the City Stadium Poljud. After a severe storm in July 2025, Hina reported that the Croatian government had adopted a conclusion on allocating two million euros for the urgent repair of damage to the stadium, and the then Minister of Tourism and Sport Tonči Glavina said that, if the damage was not repaired in the short term, the stadium would not meet the conditions for holding national and international matches. This shows that the Poljud problem is not reduced to the impression of one visiting journalist, but to an infrastructural issue that has been seeking a solution for quite some time.
Alcohol, smoking and UEFA rules in the focus of the report
The second block of criticism concerned the organization of the match itself. Šport stated that people smoked at Poljud, according to the author’s claims not only among supporters but also among certain persons responsible for order. This part of the report is not official inspection documentation, but a journalistic observation from the scene, so it should be interpreted as a claim by the Slovak media outlet, not as an established violation. Still, the fact that such a detail ended up in the headline and subheadings shows how striking the organizational picture was to the visitors.
The same applies to the sale of alcohol. Šport wrote that classic Karlovačko beer was being sold at the stadium and presented this as inconsistent with practices at many European matches. UEFA’s safety regulations in Article 36 do not introduce a simple general ban on alcohol for all stadiums and all matches, but prescribe that the organizer may sell or distribute alcohol only within the restrictions of national and local law and that all alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks must be poured into paper or open plastic containers that cannot be used dangerously. In other words, the mere existence of alcohol sales does not necessarily automatically mean a breach of UEFA rules, but the organizer must comply with local regulations, safety assessments and competition conditions.
The Slovak report therefore has two levels. The first is the journalist’s concrete claim that he saw a more relaxed application of the rules at the stadium than is expected at UEFA matches. The second is the broader impression that visiting supporters and the home crowd were not treated equally. Namely, Šport stated that Žilina supporters were checked in detail and that some had their shoes removed, while in their impression the attitude toward home spectators was milder. Such claims, if the competent bodies wished to verify them, would fall within the domain of official reports by delegates, security services and possible UEFA proceedings, but by 11 July 2026 publicly available information does not indicate any published official decision on this matter.
The press center and standards for media work
A particularly sensitive part of the report concerns the treatment of journalists after the match. Šport stated that after the end of the match the local organizer told Slovak journalists that they had another ten minutes and that the press center was closing. The author of the report presented such a move as a violation of usual UEFA media standards, stating that working spaces for journalists must remain available much longer after the match. The same objection was carried in Croatian media, with emphasis that this very episode further sharpened the Slovak impression of the organization.
UEFA’s 2025 infrastructure regulations provide that stadiums must have at least one room equipped with tables, electrical outlets and an internet connection for the work of media representatives. The regulations in Article 29 also state the minimum number of workstations according to stadium category. The Europa League regulations for the 2026/27 season, in the section on media access, confirm that accredited media representatives have access to post-match press conferences and the mixed zone, with restrictions relating to the pitch, tunnel and dressing rooms. The claim itself that the press center was closed too early remains, for now, Šport’s allegation, but the problem it raises is practical: European matches require media logistics that continue even after the referee’s final whistle.
Such a detail may seem less important than the result, but in international club competitions the organization of the match is part of the reputation of the club and the host city. Journalists who travel to European matches do not report only on the game, but also on the availability of working space, security treatment, communication by the organizers and the overall standard of the event. That is why Šport’s remarks gained additional weight: they did not come from a supporter’s comment, but from a journalistic experience at a match that was under UEFA’s framework.
The Slovaks acknowledged the strength of Poljud, but warned about contrasts
Interestingly, the report was not a one-sided condemnation. Šport very clearly emphasized that Poljud provided an atmosphere that is seen ever less often in modern football. The text states that Split in the days of the match did not live only for sport, but also for major summer events, including the Ultra Europe music festival near Park mladeži. Such a combination of tourist crowds, high temperatures, supporter charge and a European match created the impression of a sporting spectacle that the Slovak author considered worth the trip.
But precisely this contrast between the energy of the stands and the age of the infrastructure forms the core of the whole story. Poljud can simultaneously be a stadium of exceptional atmosphere and a facility in need of serious work. It can be an architectural asset and an organizational challenge. It can impress visiting journalists with supporter culture and at the same time disappoint them with details that are increasingly less tolerated in a UEFA environment. The Slovak report actually described both faces of the same place: a football stage with great emotional capital and a stadium that is finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the demands of modern sport.
For Hajduk, the sporting part of the story is favorable for now. Gonzalo García’s team, according to reports from the match, controlled the key moments, kept a clean sheet and gained a two-goal advantage before the trip to Žilina. For Žilina the defeat is difficult, but coach Staňo in his statements to Šport did not give up on the return leg, emphasizing that the result is unfavorable, but that his team still considers it playable. The return match in Slovakia will therefore have a double dimension: the sporting question of progression to the second qualifying round and the additional context of the first encounter, which because of the Slovak report went beyond the framework of an ordinary result report.
Ahead of the second match, the most important thing for Hajduk will be to preserve the advantage, and for Žilina to quickly find a goal that would restore uncertainty. But for Poljud and the organizers of European matches, a broader message remains. The atmosphere created by supporters can be a great advantage and part of the club’s international appeal, but European standards increasingly demand that such an experience be accompanied by equally convincing infrastructure, clear safety rules and professional conditions for all participants. Slovak criticism therefore does not change Hajduk’s victory, but it shows that the impression of a European match is measured much more broadly than by the scoreboard.
Sources:
- Šport.sk – report and statements after the Hajduk Split - MŠK Žilina match, including remarks about the stadium, organization and atmosphere (link)
- Šport.sk – statement by coach Pavol Staňo after Žilina’s defeat in Split (link)
- UEFA – official page of the Hajduk Split - Žilina match in the 2026/27 Europa League (link)
- Global Sports Archive – data on the result, scorers, time and venue of the match (link)
- HNK Hajduk Split – official description of Poljud Stadium, capacity, year of construction and architect (link)
- UEFA – Safety and Security Regulations, Article 36 on the distribution of alcohol in stadiums (link)
- UEFA – Stadium Infrastructure Regulations, Article 29 on working space for the media (link)
- Ministry of Tourism and Sport of the Republic of Croatia – decision on financing project documentation for the renovation of Poljud Stadium (link)
- Portal.hr / Hina – report on the allocation of two million euros for the repair of damage to Poljud Stadium after the 2025 storm (link)