This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football

Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent.

Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.

Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side.

The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most home-grown ones. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. It also is an indictment on the school programs in place and youth football as a whole. It has little to do with a lack of opportunity at club-level, for clubs will always look locally for cheap, ready-made talent. They are forced to look overseas because foreign-born players are proving to be better bets. Furthermore, these foreigners thereafter assist the few local-born players who have made the grade. Therefore, if you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will actually weaken both club football and the national team.

A focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent? 

Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society.

This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country.

The youngsters from poor nations who excel in Europe do so because of their move, not irrespective of it. It is a fallacy to suggest that all players develop in a vacuum, that their ability is irrespective of their development opportunities. For the best youngers in poor and under-developed nations, being poached by the rich European clubs is a way out, a means to realising their obvious talent. Taking away that source risks wasting not only a precocious young talent but also denying him the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, it can be expected that the poached youngsters will give back to their host countries, in the form of national team appearances and domestic league endorsements, later in their careers.

The six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs. 

Sporting organizations, of which FIFA is merely a more powerful example, cannot and will not be permitted to introduce a rule that denies otherwise-qualified persons from maximizing their income by moving overseas. Furthermore, and regarding the six-plus-five criteria specifically, the five foreigner-limit applies only to those which are not home-grown, encouraging the bigger clubs to look abroad for younger talent to bring into their academies. Once in the academy, they will gain home-grown status and therefore not count as one of the five foreigners. Therefore, FIFA’s proposal does not fix the problem but exacerbate the fears of exploitation.

Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent.

Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.

Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side.

The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most home-grown ones. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. It also is an indictment on the school programs in place and youth football as a whole. It has little to do with a lack of opportunity at club-level, for clubs will always look locally for cheap, ready-made talent. They are forced to look overseas because foreign-born players are proving to be better bets. Furthermore, these foreigners thereafter assist the few local-born players who have made the grade. Therefore, if you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will actually weaken both club football and the national team.

A focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent? 

Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society.

This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country.

The youngsters from poor nations who excel in Europe do so because of their move, not irrespective of it. It is a fallacy to suggest that all players develop in a vacuum, that their ability is irrespective of their development opportunities. For the best youngers in poor and under-developed nations, being poached by the rich European clubs is a way out, a means to realising their obvious talent. Taking away that source risks wasting not only a precocious young talent but also denying him the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, it can be expected that the poached youngsters will give back to their host countries, in the form of national team appearances and domestic league endorsements, later in their careers.

The six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs. 

Sporting organizations, of which FIFA is merely a more powerful example, cannot and will not be permitted to introduce a rule that denies otherwise-qualified persons from maximizing their income by moving overseas. Furthermore, and regarding the six-plus-five criteria specifically, the five foreigner-limit applies only to those which are not home-grown, encouraging the bigger clubs to look abroad for younger talent to bring into their academies. Once in the academy, they will gain home-grown status and therefore not count as one of the five foreigners. Therefore, FIFA’s proposal does not fix the problem but exacerbate the fears of exploitation.

FIFA’s plan is illegal under European Union rules: ‘The implementation by FIFA of this proposal in the European Union would violate EU law. The Commission is not considering any change to allow FIFA to push forward this idea. FIFA is aware of this fact.’[1]. The rules say that you can’t discriminate against people from other EU countries on the grounds of their nationality - exactly what the six-plus-five plan would do. And the EU has agreements in place allowing people from non-EU European countries like Switzerland and Norway to work freely in EU states, plus a lot of countries in Africa and the Caribbean as well. This means most of the overseas players currently with European clubs would be able to take FIFA to court if it tried to put its plan into practice. And if six-plus-five won’t work in Europe, there is no point applying it elsewhere.

[1] BBC Sport. (2008, May 30). FIFA backs Blatter on quota plan. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from BBC Sport: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7421348.stm

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations"[1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article5809517.ece

This plan is unnecessary – Manchester United is one of the most successful club sides and often fields more locally-born players than its rivals. Most big clubs are working hard to build strong football academies to bring talented youngsters through. The logic is simple, home-grown youngsters can be developed much more cheaply and easily than foreigners. In any case, money will still remain vital to success – this plan would mean that the richest clubs will simply pay silly sums of money to buy up all the best local players. Therefore, competition within domestic leagues would not even up, it would simply lead to a re-shuffling of the best home-grown talent. Really the FIFA proposal is just an attack on English football clubs as they have been so successful recently. The issue wasn’t raised previously when Italian and Spanish club sides dominated European competitions.

Competition would actually improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs can buy up all the best global players and so dominate domestic competitions – often no more than two or three teams have a real chance of winning the big European leagues.  This makes tournaments predictable and boring, while clubs become the playthings of billionaire owners. Even international club competitions like the European Champions League are now dominated by just a few teams – in 2008 three of the four semi-finalists and both finalists were English. Forcing clubs to develop home-grown talent would level the playing field, make money less vital, and give more teams a chance to compete for top honours. This would inadvertently drive players to get better, because there  would be fewer short-term fixes available to a team’s poor form.

In practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future.
And what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country?

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.