November 03, 2006

Excellent idea. It's absolutely retarded Chelsea can field a team in the ENGLISH Premier League that consists entirely of foreigners. As Niall said, this is a good thing as English talent will HAVE to be developed now.

posted by Drood at 12:04 PM on November 03, 2006

I don't think anyone wants to go back to the ugliness of only, or mostly, Brits on the pitch in the EPL.

posted by hotspur5 at 01:29 PM on November 03, 2006

It's absolutely retarded Chelsea can field a team in the ENGLISH Premier League that consists entirely of foreigners. Really? It wouldn't matter to me if my local team in any American sport were comprised entirely of foreign-born players. Why does it matter in the Barclay's Premier League?

posted by yerfatma at 05:10 PM on November 03, 2006

The difference between almost any American sport and the EPL is we don't take our top athletes from each team and play serious games (with the notable exception of soccer of course). We have the occasional Olympics or World baseball tournament or something that goes against this rule, but these happen very seldom. I think FIFA reasons that if teams have to field a team compromised of at least 6 of their national players, then those teams will take more of an interest in developing players instead of buying them. It would possibly serve to create more parity between teams and thus create a better product (depending on your point of view). It definitely would help national teams field better players and this may be where FIFAs interests lie. In the long run, the product may be better due to games being a little closer and Chelsea not just overrunning competition or the product may be worse due to some of the exciting players being missing. But truthfully, I think instead of losing many great players, each league would just swap some of their foreign stars for some of their own (swapping Beckham for Luis Garcia for example) and it would mostly just even out. We'll see over time I guess. As far as FIFA thinking they are above the law, I think the fact that the players union is agreeing with the decision makes that a moot point.

posted by Ricardo at 05:46 PM on November 03, 2006

This still raises a couple of questions, if they can implement it. Remember the problems with the '3 foreigners' rule in the Champions League in the early 90s? - do players from the whole of the UK count as 'locals' for EPL purposes? In the Champions League, Man Utd players like Giggs (Wales) were included as part of the foreign quota. Which is probably why Fergie overspent on Andy Cole (England) at the time, as I recall. - I also recall something about the European Court being involved, and the quota being removed on a 'restraint of trade' basis. Can anyone confirm this? If so, the legal framework is still there for clubs, players or fans (?) to challenge any restriction imposed by UEFA or FIFA .

posted by owlhouse at 02:50 PM on November 04, 2006

Thanks tieguy. Pity no reference, as the can or worms gets further and further open. I though the Bosman ruling (at its simplest) applied to players out of contract and the issue of transfer fees between clubs. The wider issue of movement of labour emerged from this, but may have been a separate court case (?). As it is, it only applies to EU nationals within the EU states. But what about players not from the EU, of which there are many plying their trade in the EPL and other European leagues? Can a labour regime as proposed by FIFA possibly work in this legal minefield? God knows, and therefore I tend to go with the Sports Economist's view that this is kite flying. Perhaps because Sepp's up for re-election. He will say, or do, anything to shore up his block of votes. For example he was recently in Australia apologising for the poor refereeing that led to Italy's last minute penalty in the second round game. Thanks, Sepp.

posted by owlhouse at 03:35 PM on November 04, 2006

Some quotes from Arsene Wenger:

"Football bodies have to care about the level of the game - that does not mean protecting mediocrity." "Elite sport is first about quality. I wouldn't like to say I paid £2m for a player as he has the right passport." "I am just concerned that when you love football, you have not got to act this way and be big enough, and capable enough to say 'you do not play because you are not good enough'. "I would prefer to say 'you make £4million per year in wages because you are good enough', rather than say 'I give you £2m a year because I need you and you have the right passport.'" "What can you say to a guy who pays money to watch your team? 'This player's first touch is not good, yes, we know but he is English. What can I do?' You are telling them 'yes, OK he is not good enough, but we have to play him because he is from the right country'. I would like to say, 'listen, whether he English, South African, French or South American, he is a good football player'. You say to a player, 'you play because you are better'. I have always done that in my life."

posted by scully at 07:57 AM on November 05, 2006

Of course it is really in the clubs' interests to build grassroots players. Cheaper in the long-run than having to buy in expensive foreign players not to mention the fact that they might hang around if they had more loyalty to the clubs. But I don't think that they could implement this rule, it'd be discrimination on the basis of race isn't it?

posted by Fence at 11:59 AM on November 06, 2006

I think its a brillant idea but will the english league suffer, as they will have to wait for quality players to step in to their places, which may damage the best league in the world. it will come down to whether people cant wait to see the results

posted by Daley at 03:59 PM on November 11, 2006