11/23/24
October 04, 2010
Ron Artest Knocks American Player Limits: While in London preparing for a preseason game Monday at the city's O2 Arena, Los Angeles Lakers forward Ron Artest said that international leagues are being unfair to American players. "There are only like two to a team while Europeans can come to America like the whole San Antonio Spurs team -- a whole American team can be full of Europeans," he said. "It's not fair that a lot of American players can't come to China or can't come to Europe to play with as many players as they want, so there's no balance."
posted by rcade to basketball at 09:54 AM - 20 comments
He's right. I decry those fans of the Premiership who want to limit foreign players to protect the British ones, and I feel the same way about this issue.
posted by sbacharach at 11:13 AM on October 04, 2010
As much as people knock Artest for his behavior (and rightfully so), he makes a valid point here.
Has hell officially frozen over?!
posted by BornIcon at 11:26 AM on October 04, 2010
I don't think the U.S. permits that kind of discrimination.
The ability of foreigners to work here is not a constitutional right, so I don't think this kind of limit in an American sports league would be a problem.
posted by rcade at 11:32 AM on October 04, 2010
No, but you can't discriminate against someone based on their national origin. EEOC fact sheet.
posted by bperk at 11:41 AM on October 04, 2010
The CFL does something similar, limiting the number of "import" players a team can have (a little more than half).
Thing is, it's not just about who's allowed to play at the pro level—it's about growing the game and player development, all the way down to the youth leagues. If you're not a top-tier sport, you want to make sure that there's a place for your domestic players to play professionally. In the long term, there's no advantage for European teams to open up their rosters: sure, the quality of play would likely be better, but eventually the kids stop playing because there's no longer any hope of a pro career.
That said, it does seem basketball is becoming established enough in Europe that this won't always be defensible.
I decry those fans of the Premiership who want to limit foreign players to protect the British ones
That's very different, since you're talking about a first-tier established sport that runs absolutely no risk of becoming irrelevant in Britain.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:39 PM on October 04, 2010
In the long term, there's no advantage for European teams to open up their rosters: sure, the quality of play would likely be better, but eventually the kids stop playing because there's no longer any hope of a pro career.
Unless you are good enough. This situation gives European players a better chance of playing professionally than American players.
posted by bperk at 01:46 PM on October 04, 2010
Look at it as a sort of compliment to the skills of the American players, and not only in basketball. The rationale behind the foreign player limits in European basketball leagues (and also in Japanese professional baseball) is to prevent teams from loading up with US players who are of 2nd tier professional quality. This allows for more opportunity for the Europeans, and I'm sure the Europeans would rather have their top players stay at home. The converse is not true in the US. Here, the foreign players who come over are the top players for their countries. In other words, the US gains the services of the very best, regardless of national origin, while the Europeans have to settle for something less. Maybe the Europeans are taking a job from a less skilled American, but if this American is good enough to be one of the 2 to make a European squad, then he has not been deprived of much. If he's not good enough, then perhaps he should have stayed in college, made use of the scholarship he received, and pursued a career outside of the NBA.
Whether or not a limitation on the number of foreign players in the US would be discriminatory makes for an interesting question. Generally, an association may make its own rules for conduct of its members, but placing a restriction on players based on national origin could well be against the law. The European countries may do whatever their laws allow and we have no recourse other than to impose trade sanctions or to declare war, or something equally unlikely.
posted by Howard_T at 04:13 PM on October 04, 2010
Howard is right. It depends on the sport. The NBA is #1 in the US. The EPL #1 in the UK. There certainly isn't a limit on US born soccer players in the EPL.
It makes sense that the Euro NBA protects spots. It makes sense that the CFL protect spots. It's totally unnecessary for the NBA or NFL to do the same. As would it be for the NHL to protect the number of Canadians (that's our ONE. Our ONE sport we can say that... Maybe outside of some kind of short track speed skating, but that's it.)
That and grum's point about the economics. I don't think a bunch of Italians would sell out a season to watch nothing but second tier Americans play. Or maybe they would, but I have to think a few Euros increases the interest level.
The other important point to be considered here is that Artest is complaining about it. That means the Euro leagues are getting better, more competitive and certainly more lucrative for some players. It's becoming more and more of an option. This was not something that was really discussed a decade or so ago. (Not to mention that it also is a validation for European talent.)
The further unification of man continues...
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:34 PM on October 04, 2010
If a whole bunch of Euros came over here to play in MLS, we would be thrilled. We wouldn't call them second tier because they are good enough and better than most MLS players. No one would make the claim that it is hurting soccer in America to not have a place for good Americans to play.
posted by bperk at 07:39 PM on October 04, 2010
I don't think the U.S. permits that kind of discrimination.
It was my understanding that this was exactly what MLS is doing with its international player rule (ref). They even had to make special rules for Toronto FC to work out a compromise between US vs Canadian players to keep everyone happy.
posted by deflated at 07:51 PM on October 04, 2010
It looks that way. From the MLS Roster Regulations:
Each team is allotted eight (8) International slots, with the exception of Toronto FC who is allotted 13 International slots, five (5) of which may be used on domestic U.S. players. All International player slots are tradable, therefore a team may have more than or less than eight (8) International players on its roster.
The slots are tradable, but that still means that there's a strict cap to the number of international players allowed in the league.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 08:37 PM on October 04, 2010
Unless you are good enough. This situation gives European players a better chance of playing professionally than American players.
If more American players need jobs, perhaps Artest should focus his bleating in the general direction of the closed-shop cartels of American team ownership.
If a whole bunch of Euros came over here to play in MLS, we would be thrilled.
No, in fact they aren't allowed to. And at least one prominent US player has seemed pretty whiny about English players coming in.
posted by rodgerd at 03:10 AM on October 05, 2010
It was my understanding that this was exactly what MLS is doing with its international player rule (ref).
I didn't know that. That seems wrong to me (not your info, the fact that this is common practice). Is this complained about much (besides me)? It seems like the kind of practice that would develop from a fear of an influx of brown and black players.
posted by bperk at 08:22 AM on October 05, 2010
I don't see how there's a racial component. One of the main reasons the MLS started was to foster stronger homegrown soccer talent. If you let your domestic league get overrun by foreign players, that doesn't help you become a top soccer nation. Also, there are plenty of foreign white soccer players.
posted by rcade at 08:45 AM on October 05, 2010
There is no way that having a less competitive league is better for U.S. soccer. Anyway, I was thinking the racial thing would have been started long before MLS to keep the brown people out of the Euro leagues.
posted by bperk at 09:21 AM on October 05, 2010
There certainly isn't a limit on US born soccer players in the EPL.
Not yet, but requiring a minimum number of British-born players per team has been discussed. Of course, given the magic nationalities that crop up during the World Cup and Olympics, I'm sure it would be a joke.
posted by yerfatma at 09:24 AM on October 05, 2010
"There are only like two to a team while Europeans can come to America like the whole San Antonio Spurs team -- a whole American team can be full of Europeans"
Funny quote, but I believe the Spurs only have one European (Tony Parker) on their team, which is one less than the Lakers (although I believe another French player was on San Antonio's roster last year). Artest probably thinks Ginobili is a European as well.
posted by holden at 02:21 PM on October 05, 2010
Actually UEFA is putting in a homegrown player rule, or at least its in the final stages of discussion/approval. Of course, I think that given EU legal rulings there are legal limits on how European players are treated.
EPL Teams: Players who do not hold a EU member nation passport, which many can get if a parent or grandparent was born in any EU nation--or by paying someone to forge the relevant documents, as apparently is a common thing--must have played a certain percentage of their national team games in the previous year (or few years) to qualify for a UK work permit. This caused problems for several US players that teams in England and Scotland were interested in signing and is part of the reason Brazil and Argentina play so many friendlies.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:23 PM on October 05, 2010
If a whole bunch of Euros came over here to play in MLS, we would be thrilled. We wouldnt call them second tier because they are good enough and better than most MLS players. No one would make the claim that it is hurting soccer in America to not have a place for good Americans to play.
Wow, thanks for demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about MLS or the history of soccer in the USA. MLS was set up specifically so that American born players would have a place to play and develop - not putting a limit on foreign players would significantly stunt the growth of native born soccer talent.
Soccer is a minor sport in the USA and needs all the help it can get. Compare the 1990 USMNT to the 2010 USMNT and the change that has come about thanks to MLS is obvious. No way we would have developed that talent without a domestic league with a certain minimum number of spots for native players.
Also American soccer fans can watch all the top European soccer they want on TV - MLS is never going to be good enough to compete with that, so there is no sense going bankrupt signing better players when you can not compete with the top European leagues. MLS will grow its own native audience slowly. Quick fixes do not work.
I didnt know that. That seems wrong to me (not your info, the fact that this is common practice). Is this complained about much (besides me)? It seems like the kind of practice that would develop from a fear of an influx of brown and black players.
Wow. Just, wow. (rolleyes)
There is no way that having a less competitive league is better for U.S. soccer.
Ever heard of the NASL? That league attracted lots of top players but it was not a sustainable business model. You would not be saying the things you are saying if you had any familiarity with US soccer history.
Anyway, I was thinking the racial thing would have been started long before MLS to keep the brown people out of the Euro leagues.
It is not a racial thing. It was never a racial thing. Learn some soccer history before speculating wildly.
posted by dave2007 at 03:12 AM on October 10, 2010
He seems right on to me. I don't think the U.S. permits that kind of discrimination.