ProposalsLast month the FA Premier League announced that it was to introduce a new home grown player and squad size ruling, to be brought in for the start of next season (2010/11). The league's Chief Executive Richard Scudamore confirmed that "as of next season clubs will be required to have a squad named of up to 25 players, of which no more than 17 can be over the age of 21 and not home grown. The definition of 'home grown' is trained for three years under the age of 21 by somebody in the English and Welsh professional system. Clubs will have to declare their 25 at the end of August when the window shuts and then again at the end of January."
This is in a similar vein to the ruling UEFA brought in a few years back which stipulates similar limitations in terms of maximum squad numbers and a minimum of 8 'home grown' players in each squad. The idea behind this is to protect the interests of each country's domestically-trained assets and give them every chance to progress through first team football, or so Michel Platini says. The question is though, does it really work?
Is this really the root of the problem?
Looking at the Dutch, who many would agree are the masters of bringing their own through, you begin to see other problems which may be more prevalent in terms of the production of young footballers. PSV Eindhoven, known for producing the likes of Van Nistelrooy, Philip Cocu and Jaap Stam in the past, have complained that the main problem facing them is that they are not being able to hang on to their prized assets due to the Bosman Ruling. There is no doubt that there is still a lot of good young talent in Holland, but its clubs are losing the incentive to nurture them for fear of losing them - nothing to do with home-grown 'quotas' and everything to do with money as they cannot afford the same wages some of our rich oil industry billionaires can.
Aside from this point that the FA (and FIFA/UEFA) could be targeting the wrong source of the problem in the first place, is this going against the grain of freedom of trade and everything the EU stands for? Surely in a place of employment, it is wrong to discriminate against a player not born here if they are good enough to do a job in the eyes of their prospective employers? FIFA/UEFA/the FA's product is based on entertainment and quality which then draws in the money through gate receipts and television revenue, and the game appears to be flourishing and healthier than ever, so why the need to go back to the old days?
Speaking of money, let's take a look for a second at the millions upon
millions of Pounds, not to mention the time and effort invested into our academy systems (and we're not alone, the model was taken from abroad where it has previously been implemented in places like France and Holland). The academy systems are beginning to finally show signs of fruition in this country with players such as Theo Walcott, Aaron Lennon, Glen Johnson and Wayne Rooney all becoming familiar figures in the English national team having come through them.
Where are football clubs getting all the money from to fund these academies and the future of our game? That's right, TV revenue and other income streams directly linked to the high quality of the product on offer - thanks in no small part to the foreign influences in the Premier League. Would so many people from across the world tune in without entertainers like Arshavin, Drogba, Torres and Robinho appearing as regularly, instead being being replaced with unspectacular, if steady home-grown players all over the pitch? Of course, we have our own talents in those I've mentioned and Joe Cole (who is as close to a Brazilian as we have in terms of technique and tricks), but surely the natural balance between Brits and foreigners can find itself without the intervention of governing bodies in this manner?
One thing I've yet to touch upon is a rather puzzling additional ruling with regards to academies and home-grown players which the FA have, in their infinite wisdom, seen fit to pass. This ruling is the '90-minute from home' rule which in short means that clubs are no longer allowed to draft in players who live more than a '90 minute commute' from them to play in their academies. So hang on a second, the Premier League want to bring in a rule which 'encourages' youth development through forcing clubs to name home-grown players in their squads, yet restricts their movement within our own country, thus restricting their development in the process? Good thinking.
Opposition from a couple of friends
Two men who are also slightly miffed by this are those best of pals Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger. Ferguson said, "The 90-minute rule is the most ridiculous rule I have ever known. 90 minutes could be 5 miles up the road. I would have thought it was illegal to deny a young boy the chance to come to a club like Manchester United but it is something we can do nothing about." Wenger shared Fergie's concerns and when taking into account his own good work at bringing youngsters through at Arsenal, he added that:
"It will make that policy virtually impossible. If you cannot add any players under 18, and you have the home-grown rule, and on top of that English clubs are limited to bringing in young players who live less than 90 minutes from the training ground - how can we produce home-grown players? Personally, I don't know. So it's vital that this under-18 transfer rule is not implemented because English clubs would have a domestic limitation and a foreign limitation, making it harder to produce home-grown players.
"In England we accumulate disadvantages. We cannot buy (an academy player) outside our 90-minute radius, so already we cannot take a player from Manchester or Southampton. We cannot take a player from Asia, North or South America. What can we do? We can only pray that somebody next to London Colney is as gifted as the next Maradona and says, 'please can I play for you?' We want to be the best league in the world and that is why we have to open the doors to the best players in the world. The first signs, with Cristiano Ronaldo and Kaka going to Spain, are not very good for us. You have to accept that the best have to play with the best."
Going back and focusing strictly on next season's new ruling, I could understand limitations placed upon squad size years ago, but surely this is shooting our own clubs in the foot nowadays? Cup competitions are already being devalued as it is without extra incentive to rest players for vital league and Champions League games as the latter increase in number. This is damaging the domestic game to a large degree, so why impose such restrictions? Are Chelsea going to risk Drogba in an FA Cup game knowing that if he gets injured they may be forced to play Daniel Sturridge on his own at Old Trafford the following week if he gets injured? No disrespect to Sturridge, but there is no comparison between the two - at this stage in his career anyway, so why put him under unnecessary pressure when he could be sent out on loan to gain vital experience instead of this self-imposed nonsense?
So far I've only really looked at the top clubs, but the effect may hit the Hulls, Birminghams and Blackburns of this world even harder. These clubs muddle through as it is scouring the world for bargains on cheaper wages than their English counterparts - what would happen to them if they were being prevented from doing so and in addition English players' transfer fees and wages were artificially inflated as a consequence of the new ruling? Supply would not be equal to demand in terms of the players required and average players like Kevin Davies and Mark Noble could be fetching 8-figure fees in the not-too distant future with the gap between top and bottom widening yet further. This would make for a less competitive league and attendance figures and revenue could again fall as a direct result of this.
Proposed solution
As crazy as this may sound, I think that UEFA may have hit the nail on the head with their recent proposition regarding spending. A big reason for over-inflated salaries and teams looking abroad for players is the influx of foreign ownership in our game and clubs spending far outside their means in business terms. European Football's leading body recently put forward plans to prevent clubs from spending over what they take each year in terms of revenue. After careful consideration, this is not as daft as it seems...
Under this new system, the likes of Real Madrid, Manchester City and Chelsea would be forced to rethink their foreign policies and look to use their facilities to bring through more players from their own countries. Madrid have already proven they can do it with Raul and Casillas, City with Wright-Phillips and Stephen Ireland and Chelsea with England captain John Terry. In my opinion this would be preferable to an imposed salary cap per player, or squad restrictions and would force clubs into becoming more efficient in terms of their operations as well as perhaps restoring some identity. Of course this would still leave the door open to bringing in top quality foreign players, but in partnership with a healthy production line of British youngsters. Naturally, we'd also scrap that daft 90-minute rule as it is denying our youngsters the chance to gain top coaching and experience, which is what they'd want in a new system.
Thoughts?
Posts
