quotas unlikely to change the landscape

There is a truism that says ‘rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are’. This could hardly be more pertinent than in the case of the Football League who, after many years of deliberation, has announced plans to implement a quota on the number of home-grown players competing in English football. Club members voted in favour of the proposal, which will be effective as of the beginning of next season, 2009/10. Under the new rule, at least four of the 16 players named in a matchday squad will need to have been registered domestically for a minimum of three seasons before their 21st birthday.

In principle, the aim of the proposal is to create a platform in which to safeguard academies and to reward clubs who invest heavily in youth development. But what does this really mean for the future of English football?

Well, certainly in the short-term, it means very little; not least because, on its inception, the quota will only apply to the Football League. This refers to the three divisions that sit below the Premier League and, so, does not include the Premier League itself, despite the fact that this is the only 'place' where the issue of clubs having too many foreign players is considered a problem. Current research suggests that only 2 of the current 72 clubs in the Football League would need to even consider making a change to their current team selection in order to meet the new rules. To put this into perspective, consider the whole issue sort of like a union of local greengrocers being encouraged to vote in favour of a law that all produce must be harvested locally, except that the rule is not applicable to supermarket chains.

In this respect, I would question the motives of the Football League, in the sense that I think this is more of a political move than it is about finding a genuine and sustainable solution to a problem. Even the Chairman of the Football League, Lord Mawhinney hinted that this whole process was little more than a proclamation, saying: “We believe it is time for the Football League to make an unequivocal statement”, followed by some other unspecific spiel.

Not that I entirely blame him. Whilst I unreservedly believe it is up to these governing bodies and authorities to work with integrity and in the very best interests of the societies in which they are responsible for, it is also true that The FA and the Football League have been put under immense pressure by both the public and the media to address such issues. In this sense, it is hardly surprising that they would have felt coerced into responding as they have. Considered from this point of view, the voting system behind the proposal essentially allows the Football League to emphasize its democratic stance at the same time as ensuring that the issue has been dealt with. It says: “You voted for this, guys. We are doing what you’ve asked of us”, even though there were no other options in which to vote for and you were hardly given a choice.

Indeed, I think the majority of Football League Club Chairmen would acknowledge that they voted in favour of the quotas because it would have been bad PR not to. Few have a vested interest in the long-term future of the game; not that I’m not saying they are bad people, just that the vote is as good as pointless to them. Dick Knight, Chairman of Brighton and Hove Albion – who, incidentally, is the only club member who voted against the proposal – supports this viewpoint, suggesting that “the measure does not address the real issue, I’m sure every Football League club already meets the criteria. This just adds an unnecessary level of paperwork for all clubs”. Knight certainly seems to have a point.

Yet, in fairness to Lord Mawhinney, he has stressed that the proposal is just the first step and that it could pave the way for tougher laws in the future – presumably this means an introduction to the Premier League at some stage?

If this does turn out to be the case, then it certainly makes for stronger long-term implications with respect to the future of English football, although I still don’t think it will take us any closer to finding a solution to the supposed problems with foreign players.

This is largely due to the fact that the majority of people seem to be somewhat misinformed as to what the real problem is. It is clear to me that there is a fundamental myth surrounding the issue of foreign players in England, which surrounds the belief that young players are not getting their chance because these foreign players are taking their place. This is not altogether true or, at least, it certainly is not as simple as this. What is happening is that big clubs are signing prospective talents from other (smaller) clubs and these players are not getting their chance once they have been bought. This happens because the big clubs tend to already have very good players. In some cases these better players are foreign, but the trend would be the same even if these players were English. ‘Poaching’, as it is otherwise known, exists more as a consequence of the large amounts of money that have come into football in the past few decades than it does because of players’ nationalities. Football is big business nowadays, largely controlled by rich people who desire more money and quick-fix success. Needless to say, this has led to a competitive and ruthless environment which, in turn, has led to reduced opportunites for young English players.

Obviously, Globalisation has played its part – in the sense that there is a larger pool of young and inexpensive talent in which to choose from – but this is a political issue beyond that of football. One of the reasons the Football League did not consider adopting the ‘6+5’ proposal put forward by Sepp Blatter, the FIFA President – that would limit the number of foreigners in an English team to five – was because it is illegal on the grounds that it breaches European Union rules on freedom of movement for workers. The point is that the Government cannot advocate a common European market and then make exceptions for football. It is for this exact reason that Starbucks, for example, does not have a policy that says it must have a certain amount of English people working for them. On the grounds of consistency, the same principles must apply to football and, unlike in the case of the ‘6+5’ concept, the Football League’s quota satisfies EU regulations on the grounds that it is not based on players’ nationality, but on registration.

This is an important detail yet, I’m afraid, one that only further endorses a trend which is already happening far too much now anyway: the purchasing of very young players (16, 17 and 18... if not younger) by big clubs from either smaller English clubs or, more specifically, European-Union-based clubs, so as to 'naturalise' foreign players. If the quota rule is introduced to the Premier League, it will lead to a surge in this trend as big clubs will continue to buy (as opposed to develop from scratch) young players. Consider it a significant loophole in the finer points of the proposal.

There are, in this respect, loopholes in nearly all these types of rules, which is fundamentally why the issue will never be solved by regulation. Consider, if you will, a situation where Manchester United, for example, want to buy a 13yr old Brazilian boy who is tipped as a star in the making. Clearly it is illegal for the club to just ship him over to England, or even offer him money, but there is little anyone can do about pre-contracts ‘in kind’. This might exist in the form of looking out for the family, fulfilling certain promises and things like that. The club may even find a way for the boy’s father to get a job in England, fast-tracking the work-permit process on the way. This is not an issue of nationality, it is an issue of power and money.

It is also worth mentioning what the affect of the proposal might be on transfers, generally. I would suggest that any significant quota introduction is likely to further inflate the already-inflated price of English players. Foreign players tend to be less expensive than English players so, in terms of opportunity cost, it is often preferable for a club to buy a non-English player. However, as supply and demand levels change as a result of the quota demands, the value of an English player will increase exponentially against the fall in value of a foreign player.

On a similar note, I expect this will lead to an increase in the amount of loan transfers from the Premier League to the Championship, and below. It is likely that transfer fees will cool amongst smaller clubs as a result of higher levels of demand and supply for loan-contract players. Hypothetical increases in poaching trends should, in theory, mean the evolution of larger squads which would, thereby, mean more players being considered surplus to requirements at their registered club. This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, although there is a risk that – at least from a financial perspective – it will further develop the disparity between the rich and the poor (i.e. the Premier League and the rest).

It’s certainly an interesting subject to think about. The many whys and wherefores of such an issue provoke a plethora of eventualities of which, it must be said, none are by any means guaranteed. Whatever the eventual implications, I think it is fair to say this matter says a lot about how football reflects the wider contexts of society.

My personal opinion is that too many rules and regulations can often only perpetuate problems which may, otherwise, have a better chance of sorting themselves out by means of a well-directed code of social education. ‘Nature’s Law’, as it were. Certainly I would suggest that an overall and harmonious focus on principles offers a flexibility that rules alone cannot.

In the specific case of English football, I wonder if a change of attitude is needed. We have become a nation so arrogant that we now stand as victims of our own, sometimes impossibly high, demands. We cannot have our cake and eat it, as the saying goes: Maybe the first step – at least with regard to quotas – should be to understand that it is not feasible to have the very best national team at the same time as having the very best and most cosmopolitan league in the World, for the simple reason that one comes at the expense of the other. Think about it…

beckham can succeed, if he stays for a while

Not yet content to call time on his career, David Beckham is proving quite the combatant in his old age. The England midfielder has agreed a three-month loan deal with AC Milan in a bid to win back his place in the England team ahead of the 2010 World Cup.

It had been expected that Beckham would spend the winter months training with Arsenal, having spent an extended period at their London Colney base at the beginning of last year. However, these plans were abandoned when it emerged that AC Milan were interested in signing him on a unique short-term deal. Crucially, this meant that Beckham would not just train, but play competitively as a full-term member of the first-team squad.

In principle, this looks like a very good move for both Beckham and Milan. Winter in England coincides with the close-season in America’s MLS (Major League Soccer), allowing Beckham to benefit from playing with and against top level footballers, thus, maintaining his competitiveness in the process. In return, Milan will benefit from having another world-class player available for selection, as well as the inevitable commercial advantages that association with Beckham brings.

In this sense, one might be cynical about Milan’s commercial motives: Beckham’s long-standing sponsor, Adidas, just happens to be Milan’s kit supplier and the club’s recent transfer policy under (President) Silvio Berlusconi has seen a large number of high-profile players join the club. Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Shevchenko and now Beckham have all moved to the San Siro in the past year – resembling something similar to that of Florentino Perez’s Galactico era at Real Madrid.

That said, one can have little doubt about the genuine sporting motivation on the part of the player. It is widely accepted that Beckham should never have moved to America in the first place given the low standard of football in the MLS and – although publicly declaring himself happy – Beckham has conceded that his move to LA was, in part, decided by the fact that he believed his England career was over. With the 2010 World Cup in South Africa approaching – and Beckham a genuine contender to win back his place in the England team – a move to AC Milan represents one final opportunity to prove himself at the highest level.

In terms of style of football, it is clear to see how Beckham might be a success at an Italian club – so much so that I wonder if it was a mistake not to come to Italy sooner. The speed of the Italian game is certainly suited to him (tactical focus, patient and possession-orientated passing etc.) However, in Ronaldinho, Pirlo, Gattuso, Ambrosini, Kaka, Seedorf and Emerson the Italian club already have many good midfielders, to the extent that is hard to imagine where Beckham might fit in…

My personal belief is that Beckham could use his time in Italy to reinvent himself as a deep-lying playmaker in a role similar to that of his new team-mate, Andrea Pirlo. In this ‘quarterback’ role, his primary responsibility would be to take the ball off the defence to initiate attacks, operating just in front of the defenders and distributing from deep in his own territory. He would then have a second defensive midfielder next to him whose role would be more focused on off-the-ball duties. In theory, the role would be less physically demanding than right-midfield but would still allow Beckham to express himself creatively and dominate games as he does – he would also, typically, be granted more time on the ball which would suit a player of his passing style and ability.

Such a system is, of course, already in operation at Milan (with Andrea Pirlo playing alongside either Gattuso, Amrosini or both) but what is intriguing is the fact that the England manager, Fabio Capello, seems to intend for the national team to play this way. Capello actually tried Beckham in this position for Real Madrid and, although it was not considered a particular success, I think it worked well and has the potential to work well in the future.

Another aspect of the Italian game that may prove beneficial to Beckham – this time specifically relating to AC Milan – is that the club have a history of building a successful team around older players. The club’s captain, Paolo Maldini, is 40 and a large proportion of Milan’s squad are well into their thirties. But what is the secret to Milan’s high level of success amongst an older group of players? To many, the answer lies in the club’s state-of-the-art Milanello facilities and a scientific approach to training known as the ‘Milan Lab’. Based just outside of Milan, Milanelllo is a highly technologically-advanced centre for sport where attention to detail means that there are such facilities as a caged pitch – built with the intention to never let the ball go out of play, thus, improving the speed of passing and execution – and even a specially-designed high-altitude path which intends to aid player recovery at a superior rate than normal.

There is a good summary of the set-up at Milanello by a man called Mike Forde, who worked alongside Sam Allardyce as Bolton Wanderers' performance director a number of years ago. Forde describes the philosophy at Milanello in the following way: “The biggest element is a belief in treating the players individually – not just physically but mentally and emotionally. They've invested well in their facilities, obviously, but there's a cerebral process going on there. The key to it is that each player undergoes a screening process on a daily basis – biomechanically, neurologically, and so on”. Clearly such an approach would favour a player like Beckham, especially considering his age.

With a structure such as this in place, it is clear to see how Beckham might have been tempted to join Milan. However, it is worth noting that, from a political perspective, there were a number of complications which had put the transfer in doubt. Most notably was the happiness of the third-party, LA Galaxy. When Beckham joined LA Galaxy, he entered into more than just a financial or contractual commitment with a club. For a start, unlike in Europe, where clubs are run independently, the MLS franchise owns and largely controls all of its club members. This essentially means Beckham is owned by MLS (the equivalent of Cristiano Ronaldo being owned by the Premier League, as opposed to being owned by Manchester United). Needless to say, the league made a huge investment in Beckham – his contract at Galaxy reportedly costs $1m a week, consisting of a basic wage, club sponsorship and image rights (but still not including personal endorsements) – they even named a new law after him (entitled the ‘Beckham rule’) which essentially stated that one-off exceptions to the existing salary-cap can be made so long as the league sees it feasible and beneficial to the long-term state of soccer in America. In this respect, a key part of his agreement to join the league was that he works, not just as a player, but as an ambassador for MLS and as part of a project to increase public interest in the sport. As a result, Beckham needed to be diplomatic in the way he engineered a move to Milan so as not to negatively endorse MLS – this has, at least so far, been handled well.

Having chosen Milan, it is interesting to consider what other options were open to Beckham. Most intriguingly, I wonder whether it would have been possible for Beckham to engineer a short-term move to Arsenal instead. Arsene Wenger has often spoken of his respect for Beckham – he once even suggested Beckham fund his own move to Arsenal, albeit half-jokingly – and I think it is fair to assume that Beckham’s presence and experience amongst Wenger’s young squad would prove comparatively more beneficial to Arsenal than it would be to Milan. In this sense, I think the only question here would have been about money.

Indeed, one clear and fundamental difference between Milan and Arsenal exists in their transfer policy and relative budget. In his time in charge of Arsenal, Wenger has introduced and developed a bracketed wage structure that limits the amount the club will spend on its players’ salaries. Part of this structure means Arsenal refuse to offer long-term deals to players over the age of 30, and Wenger has typically proved reluctant to buy older players. This has much to do with Wenger’s commitment to buying and developing younger players. In contrast, the aristocracy at Milan have a history of buying established and often high-profile names, as mentioned earlier.

There would also be a number of personal benefits for Beckham in joining Arsenal, such as the language barrier and the fact that being in London would allow him the flexibility to fulfil other commitments (from his academy in Greenwich, to his sponsors, to leveraging his role in the London 2012 Olympic programme, to being near his family home etc.) That said, I would not be surprised if Beckham has become so cynical of the English press and public that he considered a move back to the Premier League too much of a risk to his reputation (plus there is the risk of alienating Manchester United fans etc.)

Nevertheless, Beckham has made his decision and there is little point in pondering what might have been. Time will tell if he succeeds at Milan – at very least he will benefit from the training, although I think it would be wasteful for the club not to make use of such a unique player. My perception is that Italy is a very good choice for Beckham, but I believe he needs to engineer a permanent move if he is to fully benefit from the set-up at Milan – something I fear may prove impossible given his extensive commitments in LA.