UEFA sets foreign player "limits"

[Matt Clark]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind=128/newsId=276829.html

The 'A' list that teams submit for UEFA club competitions will continue to be limited to 25 players, and from season 2006/07, at least two places on this list will be reserved for players trained by the club's own football academy and a further two places for players trained by other clubs from within the same association of the said club.

So this means a 25-man squad will have to contain two "youth products" of the club itself and two from any club within the same country.

So, in Liverpool's current case, by way of example, we could have Gerrard, Carragher, Mellor and Carson plus 19 from anywhere.

However, here's the really pertinent bit:

A club-trained player is defined as a player who has been registered for a minimum of three seasons with the club between the age of 15 and 21, whereas an association-trained player is a player who has been registered for at least three seasons by the club or by other clubs affiliated to the same association of the said club between the age of 15 and 21.

Under those rules, the likes of Florent Sinama Pongolle, Alou Diarra, Antony Le Tallec, and Djimi Traore, Gael Clichy, Jeremie Aladiere, Cesc Fabregas and Cristiano Ronaldo count as "homegrown" - or rather, they will do by the time they are 21.

UEFA, as ever, have stuffed the initiative up in the face of what was doubtless intense pressure from Europe's leading clubs. A ruling that, on the face of it, is designed to encourage the use of homegrown players is in actual fact just as likely to simply accelerate the relatively recent trait of taking a punt on signing young players from all over the world and then seeing if they make it through to your first team or not. The net result for "domestic" youngsters will be negligible.

[Mel B]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind=128/newsId=276829.html



So this means a 25-man squad will have to contain two "youth products" of the club itself and two from any club within the same country.

So, in Liverpool's current case, by way of example, we could have Gerrard, Carragher, Mellor and Carson plus 19 from anywhere.

However, here's the really pertinent bit:



Under those rules, the likes of Florent Sinama Pongolle, Alou Diarra, Antony Le Tallec, and Djimi Traore, Gael Clichy, Jeremie Aladiere, Cesc Fabregas and Cristiano Ronaldo count as "homegrown" - or rather, they will do by the time they are 21.

UEFA, as ever, have stuffed the initiative up in the face of what was doubtless intense pressure from Europe's leading clubs. A ruling that, on the face of it, is designed to encourage the use of homegrown players is in actual fact just as likely to simply accelerate the relatively recent trait of taking a punt on signing young players from all over the world and then seeing if they make it through to your first team or not. The net result for "domestic" youngsters will be negligible.


See. All the overseas players flooding into our game man. And now this stupid rule. Homegrown players should be, well homegrown. Ie, England. Simple as that.

[Matt Clark]

Erm ... yes.

[Jasonisimo]

That is unenforceable. Still. Get over it.

I agree with Matt. Mostly the rule would encourage more investment in academies, but the kids will still come from all over.

Might try looking at the chatter over on Yanks Abroad, too, if lurkers just want to read. Thread here - http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166456. Skip the first several posts as they are misinformed.

[sinner78]

Yep ,this "rule-change" does absolutely nothing really .I remember back in 92 when UEFA suddenly decided that teams could only have 3 foreigners in their starting lineup .So basically every team had to have 8 nationals in their starting lineup every game .

[Matt Clark]

That is unenforceable.

It's eminently enforceable. It's just that enforcement will have no tangible impact upon the original motivation for this initiative, which was to encourage more widespread and automatic use of local players.

It's also worth noting that whilst this is being widely reported as a "ruling" it is in fact only a proposal, which has yet to be ratified by the constituent members of UEFA. The big clubs have yet to have their final say.

All in all, it's nice to think that we could do something to ensure more local kids get a chance in their local teams through some form of legislation - but there isn't. Because football is so badly run, so illegitimate, dodgy and self-interested in so many fundamental ways, that legislation will never prove to be a credible barrier for those who wish to simply circumvent it. Ways will be found.

No - the only way to ensure that local kids play for local teams is to get yourself the best infrastructure, the best facilities, the best coaches and the best kids and to invest all the time and money you can into their development as players.

[Mel B]

It's eminently enforceable. It's just that enforcement will have no tangible impact upon the original motivation for this initiative, which was to encourage more widespread and automatic use of local players.

It's also worth noting that whilst this is being widely reported as a "ruling" it is in fact only a proposal, which has yet to be ratified by the constituent members of UEFA. The big clubs have yet to have their final say.

All in all, it's nice to think that we could do something to ensure more local kids get a chance in their local teams through some form of legislation - but there isn't. Because football is so badly run, so illegitimate, dodgy and self-interested in so many fundamental ways, that legislation will never prove to be a credible barrier for those who wish to simply circumvent it. Ways will be found.

No - the only way to ensure that local kids play for local teams is to get yourself the best infrastructure, the best facilities, the best coaches and the best kids and to invest all the time and money you can into their development as players.

Matt mate. I'm very impressed with your big word knowledge.

Ps. That wasnt me taking the piss. I just wish i could say crap like that. Should have paid attention in School.

[Jasonisimo]

Homegrown players should be, well homegrown. Ie, England. Simple as that.That's unenforceable by EU law, according to everything I have read.

[Mel B]

That's unenforceable by EU law, according to everything I have read.


We invented football sunshine. And we dont give a ******** what the EU say.

[Pazarius]

Under those rules, the likes of Florent Sinama Pongolle, Alou Diarra, Antony Le Tallec, and Djimi Traore, Gael Clichy, Jeremie Aladiere, Cesc Fabregas and Cristiano Ronaldo count as "homegrown" - or rather, they will do by the time they are 21... ...UEFA, as ever, have stuffed the initiative up in the face of what was doubtless intense pressure from Europe's leading clubs.

I don't think Europe's leading clubs complaining were the reason for the weak 'homegrown' definition.

Because of EU law, any attempt to restrict employment on the basis of nationality is doomed to failure. In this new plan, some foreign players will be classed as 'homegrown', so technically it isn't a restriction based on nationality. Because of this, it might be legal.

It's also worth noting that whilst this is being widely reported as a "ruling" it is in fact only a proposal, which has yet to be ratified by the constituent members of UEFA. The big clubs have yet to have their final say.

Not exactly. This ruling will be in effect for european club competitions in 2006; Uefa can change the rules of those competitions immediately, regardless of what the national associations want, because they are run solely by Uefa.

Whether the national associations agree to extend the new rules to their domestic competitions is another matter.

[musicl]

Fifa/Uefa are idiots. Biggest load of foriegn crap ever.

Stupid Swiss/French losers. There leagues suck, doesnt mean you crap on about crap.

[michaec]

Not exactly. This ruling will be in effect for european club competitions in 2006; Uefa can change the rules of those competitions immediately, regardless of what the national associations want, because they are run solely by Uefa.I'm no law expert, but as UEFA run their competitions in the EU (in part at least), I'm fairly sure that they will be subject to EU law, sothe EU could ban this competitons from EU countries. Which effectively means that if they do bring in this rule for the 2006-2007 season they'll get away with it, but if anyone challenges it, it's sure to be ruled illegal. So after however long the legal arguments take it will be repealed.

[The Potter]

I'm no law expert, but as UEFA run their competitions in the EU (in part at least), I'm fairly sure that they will be subject to EU law, sothe EU could ban this competitons from EU countries. Which effectively means that if they do bring in this rule for the 2006-2007 season they'll get away with it, but if anyone challenges it, it's sure to be ruled illegal. So after however long the legal arguments take it will be repealed.


Possibly but because they did not mention nationalities(sp) rather they say 'homegrown' so they may get away with it.

Nevertheless its a stupid half measure and we will just see loads of 16 E.Europeans that Prem academies.

[Andy Bennett]

Regarding the legality in terms of EU law of this issue... I think people are getting confused between whether a club can sign someone who is then available to play in their home leagues, (EPL, SerieA, whatever), and those run by EUFA like the CL. I don't really see how the law, EU or otherwise, can limit the ability of any sporting organising body to make rules about the conduct of it's competitions.

What's the difference between a limit on the number of 'home-grown' players, (using this definition), that are allowed to play in the CL and whether or not a player can sign outside of the transfer window or can play because he has already played for another team in the same competition in the same year, (i.e.' cup-tied')? Nothing as far as I can see. They're all rules that are made by the sports governing body in UK or EU that restrict the ability of players to play by certain criteria.

Personally, I think it's a great shame we CAN'T insist on a certain number of players of a particular nationality in our teams but there we are.

I'm not sure it will be as ineffective as some have said, though. I tend to think it'll always be easier to find kids in your own country and, if there's a reason to do so, clubs are more likely to do it.

The only other issue I think EUFA should be attending to, IMHO, is the number of South Americans that Italian and Spanish clubs sign that 'discover' they have am Italian or Spanish grandparent and thus circumvent the existing rules.

[The Potter]

Regarding the legality in terms of EU law of this issue... I think people are getting confused between whether a club can sign someone who is then available to play in their home leagues, (EPL, SerieA, whatever), and those run by EUFA like the CL. I don't really see how the law, EU or otherwise, can limit the ability of any sporting organising body to make rules about the conduct of it's competitions.


Its freedom of trade you cannot under Euro law restict any E.U person employment because of his nationality if he is a E.U citezen.

[Matt Clark]

I'm not sure it will be as ineffective as some have said, though. I tend to think it'll always be easier to find kids in your own country and, if there's a reason to do so, clubs are more likely to do it.

But that's the thing - this "ruling" does not give the clubs a reason to find more local talent than they already do. And that's local as in truly local and "local" as in "from this country" (which is a whole separate story, given the FA's 50-mile rule, but that's probably too complicated for the good folks at UEFA so they appear to have ignored it).

The only thing this gives clubs more cause to do is to get their foreign, or "non-local" talent at an even younger age so that they can "homegrow" them for the requisite three seasons before chucking them into the first team. So whereas now they are poaching talent in the 17-20 age (think Fabregas or Sinama-Pongolle) on the basis that they are more or less ready for the higher echelons (be that reserves or immediate first team football), soon the propensity will be to poach players when they are 13 or 14 and be a little bit more speculative about their future.

So the net effect of this initiative is not to discourage clubs from taking on foreign youngsters, it is simply to spread the inherant risk in doing so a little. In other words, whereas now the poaching club takes a player from the poached club aged, say, 20 (Flamini from Marseille to Arsenal would be a good example) and bears little or no risk in terms of their development, under the new rules the poaching club will take the player at, say, 16 or 17 and with it, a portion of the risk that the player may never reach the standard required.


And that will happen - we must remember one of the reasons why the increasingly global talent market exists: as the level of play in football rose, the ability of clubs to match the rising standards using only their traditional base of local talent faltered. It is a simple reality these days that if you want to be amongst the elite of clubs in Europe, then you need to cast your net very wide indeed to find a sufficiently broad pool of talent from which to draw the players you will need to compete at that level.

All this initiative achieves is that clubs are required to take a higher level of risk in signing young players in the first place AND assuming responsibility for at least a part of their footballing education.

But clubs will take that risk happily, seeing it as a perfectly reasonable trade-off against the benefits of a global catchment area. If we work on an assumed success ratio of 1:20 for every player in a club's academy (and if anything, that is a generous ratio) then it stands to reason that the more intense the standards of quality, the greater the number of players you select, trial, train and then most probably discard has to be. So this "ruling" will not change the fact that young English players have to compete against a range of foreign alternatives to succeed. It will simply require them to start doing so at a much earlier age.

[Andy Bennett]

Its freedom of trade you cannot under Euro law restict any E.U person employment because of his nationality if he is a E.U citezen.
Then how do we 'restrict' peoples employment with the transfer window and them being 'cup-tied'?

Their employment isn't being 'restricted' - the company, (team, in this case), can still employ them... they can play in home leagues, etc. They just can't all play in EUFA competitions as I understand it.

I'm sure it will be challenged but I'm pretty certain there's no justifiable legal basis for the challenge. If there were the things I've mentioned would also have been chalenged.

Having said that I admit we're talking about the law here - ANYTHING could happen. It's not that the law that's an ass - it's the people that DO law that are the asses.

[Andy Bennett]

All this initiative achieves is that clubs are required to take a higher level of risk in signing young players in the first place AND assuming responsibility for at least a part of their footballing education.

That's why I think it will make a difference over a period - because clubs will prefer to 'take a risk' on a UK youngster than a foreign one.

I accept it won't be much but it's probably better than nothing.

[Matt Clark]

Yeah, possibly. It is obviously a mitigation of risk to bring someone in from Nottingham instead of Nigeria, for a variety of obvious reasons.

Fundamentally though, I do think there is something of a problem at the heart of initiatives such as these, insomuch as they are examples of UEFA pootling around with the central issue and not ever really getting to the fundamentals.

I think most people can agree that in an ideal world more local talent would find a place on football teams in any given country. And equally, we can probably all agree that measures to encourage this are, in and of themselves, no bad thing. But why bother doing it if you're going to do it badly? I don't see the point in legislation that simply inconveniences all concerned to no obvious benefit.

[michaec]

Then how do we 'restrict' peoples employment with the transfer window and them being 'cup-tied'?

Their employment isn't being 'restricted' - the company, (team, in this case), can still employ them... they can play in home leagues, etc. They just can't all play in EUFA competitions as I understand it.

I'm sure it will be challenged but I'm pretty certain there's no justifiable legal basis for the challenge. If there were the things I've mentioned would also have been chalenged.

Having said that I admit we're talking about the law here - ANYTHING could happen. It's not that the law that's an ass - it's the people that DO law that are the asses.But if you want to sign a player and can't play him in UEFA competitions, are you going to bother to sign him at all. I mean, the whole idea of signing good players is to try to win the big prizes, the Champions League being the biggest club prize of all.

I tend to think of this a bit like constructive dismissal, no you didn't sack the bloke, but you made it impossible for him to stay. In this scenario, no, they're not saying you can't sign the player, but what's the point if he can't play in the big competitions?