RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 512
|
|
One thing that strikes me about FIFA's Six plue Five idea (whereby a team would have to field no more than 5 'foreign nationals') is...while everyone is clamouring about it being illegal in the EU as being a restraint of trade, surely that only applies to the actual employment of said players. A club could still employ as many 'foreigners' as they like, but would them being left out of the team on a saturday be regarded as a restraint of trade as no one has stopped them being employed (though they are in effect being stopped from applying their trade in the workplace). Surely this could, in theory, allow a player to claim 'restraint of trade' if the coach doesn't pick him on a saturday at the moment? The original Bosman case was brought because the club he played for refused to let him leave, which was indeed a restraint of trade as it stopped him from being employed...The six plus five rule wouldn't stop anyone being employed at all...
|
stephen_woodside
member
Reged: 02/05/2007
Posts: 1840
Loc: Huyton, Merseyside
|
|
Pretty pathetic idea's by Sepp Blatter really, but then what do you expect? We are talking about FIFA here afterall all who are more than pretty pathetic as a Governing Body! Same can be said for all concerned at UEFA.
--------------------
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
Edited by stephen_woodside (02/06/2008 12:25)
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
Excerpt from the Bosman ruling:
"15. Article 48 of the Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in matches in competitions which they organize, football clubs may field only a limited number of professional players who are nationals of other Member States.
Such rules are contrary to the principle of the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality as regards employment, remuneration and conditions of work and employment and it is of no relevance that they concern not the employment of such players, on which there is no restriction, but the extent to which their clubs may field them in official matches, since, in so far as participation in such matches is the essential purpose of a professional player's activity, a rule which restricts that participation obviously also restricts the chances of employment of the player concerned.
Nor can those rules, which do not concern specific matches between teams representing their countries but apply to all official matches between clubs, be justified for reasons which are not of an economic nature and are of sporting interest only, such as: preserving the traditional link between each club and its country, since a football club's links with the Member State in which it is established cannot be regarded as inherent in its sporting activity; creating a sufficient pool of national players to provide the national teams with top players to field in all team positions, since, whilst national teams must be made up of players having the nationality of the relevant country, those players need not necessarily be registered to play for clubs in that country; or maintaining a competitive balance between clubs, since there are no rules limiting the possibility for richer clubs to recruit the best national players, thus undermining that balance to just the same extent".
The fact that this ruling is so startlingly clear does make me wonder what on earth Sepp Blatter thinks he's doing (or since he's a cunning old bugger what it is he's really up to).
The solution is UEFA's homegrown player rule - but with restrictions on squad sizes at all levels and particularly controls on the number of "foreign" players at youth level.
The EU have already said they are "OK" with UEFA's rules at the moment. The key question is how far this could be pushed at youth level. For example would it be OK to say that a certain percentage of U18 players (lets say 80%) had to have been trained within the national association of the club concerned from the age of 15? Given that no international transfers are allowed prior to age 16 (even within the EU) this might also be deemed as "discrimination" but then it's not about nationality (a French kid living in London at 14 could still play for Arsenal etc as a "homegrown player").
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 512
|
|
Well that shuts me up  Top work there Badgerboy!
Personally I'm in favour of the 6+5 rule, mainly because I grew up in the innocent times of the 80s (Am I being ironic here?...I guess we'll never know...) and felt the English League was predominantly that: it had a sense of self...How I loved watching the skill of the 86 Liverpool team replete with Daglish, Molby, Johnston, Grobbelaar etc...er...oh bugger...
|
henryfan1
member
Reged: 22/06/2006
Posts: 728
|
|
This is a stupid rule only reason English players will be playing because of a rule.Not because they are good enough.English players have to prove themselves to be better.And finally English players cost too much as well.
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 512
|
|
Your last sentence underpins one of the problems with the 'modern game'. A lot of English players aren't given the chance to prove they're good enough simply because it's cheaper to buy someone in from abroad, rather than create a youth system...and even then, a youth system is all very well, but when it's predominantly used as a feeder system for lower league clubs rather than as a means to break into the first team then it falls down. From a business point of view, it makes no sense (in the short term) to invest millions into a youth system when you can buy a proven professional for pin money. Hence, to return to my original point, a lot of English players may well be good enough, but the cream cannot rise to the top if it's not in the bottle to start with...
|
ubeep
member
Reged: 04/07/2008
Posts: 12
|
|
I totally agree with the principle of the 6+5 rule. Believing that all federations should do their best to encourage clubs to promote domestic talent. This can only be good for the game in the long run. However my major gripe with Fifa pushing this is that their rules on INTERNATIONAL representation are such that we see a "Brazilian" in almost every national side these days and several players representing a country that they have merely lived in for 5 years and thus gained citizenship. A certain phrase springs to mind. pot.....kettle.......black... anyone?????
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 306
|
|
I totally disagree with it. Let clubs choose the players they want (or can afford) from wherever they want them. Full stop.
As for nationalised players, no-one has a right to tell a country when and how to give anyone a passport. Once someone becomes a citizen, they are entitled to every right a native has, including playing for its national team. The existing rule whereby you can't represent two countries at senior level is restriction enough, and even that would be thrown out as soon as anyone takes the trouble to sue.
|
ubeep
member
Reged: 04/07/2008
Posts: 12
|
|
Quote:
I totally disagree with it. Let clubs choose the players they want (or can afford) from wherever they want them. Full stop.
As for nationalised players, no-one has a right to tell a country when and how to give anyone a passport. Once someone becomes a citizen, they are entitled to every right a native has, including playing for its national team. The existing rule whereby you can't represent two countries at senior level is restriction enough, and even that would be thrown out as soon as anyone takes the trouble to sue.
I never thought I would see that!
It is not my British Passport that makes me British! It is my way of life, my culture, my history etc.
If I live in Spain for 5 years I am not Spanish I am British living in Spain. The fact I can hold a Spanish passport does not change that fact.
I don't want an English national team made up of a Brazilian, an Italian, A Dutchman, a Pole, 2 Scots, A Saudi and perhaps 1 Englishman. It totally dilutes the idea that it is INTERNATIONAL Football. You might as well ditch the World Cup and just extend the champions league.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 306
|
|
Quote:
If I live in Spain for 5 years I am not Spanish I am British living in Spain. The fact I can hold a Spanish passport does not change that fact.
Why would you apply for a Spanish passport then? To have access to rights denied to foreigners, among them representing their sporting teams if that's a career move you want to pursue. It's a person's right to do so, and a country's right to accept that, or not, according to their laws, nobody else's, and much less football fans.
Quote:
I don't want an English national team made up of a Brazilian, an Italian, A Dutchman, a Pole, 2 Scots, A Saudi and perhaps 1 Englishman. It totally dilutes the idea that it is INTERNATIONAL Football.
Don't worry, that won't happen. All those people will be British citizens when they play for England.  Only the British government decides who is British or not, and only the England manager (sometimes an unselectable foreigner himself) decides who gets a cap.
|
ubeep
member
Reged: 04/07/2008
Posts: 12
|
|
My point Rogorn is that you are diluting international football by allowing this.
It is a hugely grey area I accept that, especially in the current world of European unions and all. I also fully accept that my views on this side of it will never come to light.
But I strongly believe a national team should consist of people born to that country. At the very least who have parents born to that country.
Currently it is about money. The national federations pay for guys to get citizenship and rules on that are regularly bent to allow it to happen.
Therefore International football doesn't really exist any more.
And for what it's worth the fact that the English side has been managed by an Englishman for 2 of the last 10 years is not only sad but embarrassing!
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 306
|
|
Fair enough, but my point is that you're not diluting anything. The cases are very few and far-between, and any nationalised players still have to earn their place in their 'new' teams.
There's no going back, it's just not going to happen, and it's better that way. Sport can't be apart from the rest of a society, and it has to respect basic human rights, such as equality for all its members.
If you mean that some applications for citizenship are fast-tracked, yes they are, and that's also a decision of the government. Many around the world do so when they need to attract scientists or workers of a particular skill. This is not different.
Quote:
the fact that the English side has been managed by an Englishman for 2 of the last 10 years is not only sad but embarrassing!
I know. What a waste of two perfectly good years. Steve McClaren didn't even deserve that chance. 
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 512
|
|
Quote:
If you mean that some applications for citizenship are fast-tracked, yes they are, and that's also a decision of the government. Many around the world do so when they need to attract scientists or workers of a particular skill. This is not different.
One minor point here...it is different as those employed 'abroad' are not doing so to represent that country. They are merely being employed to work for a company and the citizenship is done to comply with employment laws. Football IS different in that, while still a business and therefore subject to business rules (which applies more easily to club football than internationals), the players are representing a nation...and it looks rather pathetic if a nation chooses to represent itself with people who have no real ties with that country. Ireland had its fair share of critics when it utilised the Grandmother rule to use lots of English players. It will be a sad day when a country represents itself with a collection of 11 'ringers'.
Surely the whole point of international football is to see who's the best 'nation'?
We may well see the day when a country lifts the world cup with a team of 'foreigners'...the country itself may well rejoice, but in truth it will be a hollow cheer as the team that holds the trophy will bear little connection to the nation whose jersey it wears.
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
I agree that there should be no quotas for clubs.
Although extending UEFA's homegrown player rule to national competitions (and restricting first team squad sizes at the same time) would be a good idea.
But for national teams I'm in agreement with the majority of posts here (excluding Rogorn's). It is different to the club game (which is about "employment") while the national team is about representing "your country".
UEFA have probably solved most of the problems of "mercenaries" by extending the qualification period for adults moving to a new country from 2 years to 5.
Personally though I'd prefer to see the current rules changed to: born there, parents born there, grandparents born there (though I'd happily see this ditched) or lived there for a continous period of at least 5 years prior to reaching age 18 (or maybe 21).
I think representing a country where you weren't born is fine if you moved there to live as a child/teenager. But after that - not for me.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
