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…
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…
No comments:
Post a Comment