Wouldn't it be two? Jang Gyeol-Hee has rarely made the bench nevermind play for Juvenil A, and he's too old to play for them next season. Is he going to be promoted to Barcelona B?
i think he can play for them for at least 6 more month since he doesn't turn 20 til april of 2018. i think he has a tough choice to make this summer.. stick w/ Juvie A for 6 month and hopefully move up to Barca B (or C..i hear Barca might have another team) or move to another club.
Youth leagues don't work like that from my understanding. Usually, you have to be under the age of X on the 1st January XXXX, and having looked up some Juvenil A squads, this seems to be the case. I don't think Jang will be eligible for the Juvenil A squad next season. For example Theo Chendri was released last summer, and he didn't turn 20 till May of 2017.
This was the way I understand it should work as eligibility is based on birth year, but eligibility lasts through season. There's some confusion here and elsewhere based on pre 2016 US rules and also inconsistency on what some teams will call u18 teams (e.g. whether to change name to u19 on january for 2nd half of season)
📍🔵🔴 Barça B put 12 (twelve) goals past Eldense - the biggest win ever for the reserves! Watch the 🎥 here: https://t.co/nxww3zAD8a #FCBlive pic.twitter.com/2UU5PhNcw2— FC Barcelona - Masia (@FCBmasia) April 1, 2017
LSW has no chance to make it at Barca. How many supposed superstars came through (Bojan, Defouleu, Cuenca, Tello, etc.) He's way too small, not even height. He's not thick and gets pushed around almost at will.
In one of the earlier threads someone said that it was unfair that FIFA banned the non EU players and it was to keep the keep the european kids ahead of the africans/asians/americans. All I gotta say on this is that of course it's their job to protect their countries, if the roles were reversed and africans/south east asians were taking over jobs in Korean countries/Kpop people would demand restrictions for foreigners. Korea doesn't have the money China, or even Japan, does so the best thing is to unify (unlikely, i know), then create an economic union with (japan, south east asia) which will increase the competition over time as these regions develop. Football/Baseball players should be allowed to defer military service, this is an extreme handicap to development. Hopefully Korea can unify peacefully in the near future and get more integration with neighbors (japan,se asia), otherwise its future looks bleak in sports or economics...
If anyone believes this crap that person should seek mental care. The mesures were taken after European clubs/dodgy managers engaged in child trafficking young boys, mostly from Africa, to Europe in order to make money over their backs and abandon them when they werenot turning into soccer pro material, thus making their lives miserable. When one wants to put in an opinion it would be better to first get informed about it. We already have too much fake news circling around. The one the poster cited is a bloody imbecil and making an opinion based on it doesnot make you look very good either.
Dude I totally get where your coming from and we could have a debate about this that could go on forever. I'm not saying your wrong, your right, I was in the peace corp. (in South Africa) and one thing that I figured out is it is it is impossible to look at these situations from a 1st world perspective without more experience. The situations these people live in is a life without hope, sometimes the only dream is to make it in football (in europe, not in africa). It is true that teams see kids of ALL races as numbers to be funneled through a machine to see 1/1000 make it. I would argue a kid from Africa that tries out for a club, gets cut, and stays in France/Belgium/Portugal is still likely to have a better life than in their hometown. That's how bad it is. I'm not saying its right, it not. But lets not act like FIFA has any morals and gives one crap about this unless it damaged their brand or they had other motives. If child trafficking is a problem then it's mostly pertained to Africa/Latin America. I'd say the risk for America/Korea/Japan is less than say Romania or Bulgaria. Lederman (USA), Lee (Korea), etc. are banned but someone from a poor eastern europe country is not? That doesn't make sense, eastern europe is WAY more likely to experience trafficking but since its EU its ok? I don't buy it.
The assertion made was the FIFA did it to benefit Euro kids The FIFA has no business being nice to Euro kids. They had to come into action after several tv news programms payed attention to the dodgy actions with the kids and the subsequent misery of them in Europe when they failed to deliver. Politicians and public anger resulted in regulations being formulated in cooperation of the European Commission with the FIFA and UEFA. Maybe being miserable in Europe is better than being in Africa, but that's not the vision of the Europeans. It feels like exploiting the miserable circumstances of the kids in Africa to your own benefits and that doesnot go down well with the common people in Europe. Regarding your remarks about poor Eastern European countries. The ban is for any kid, even for rich kids if they are more than 100 km away from their home. So a kid from a rich country like France cannot go to a Dutch academy like the Feyenoord and Ajax academy. So a kid from Rumania is not able to be join our academy.
I'm aware of the rule but I also understand the rules of the EU. Freedom of movement allows anyone to move freely across the countries. Eastern Europe has seen historic levels of emmigration. Half the german team isn't ethnic german (I don't have a problem with this! Just using as basis of comparison to Korea/Japan). Koscielny is half polish, Raphael Guerriero born in France (went to academy, plays for Portugal). Process goes: due to open borders people of different ethnicities move to richer countries at high rate. Parents have kids in country. Even if they're poor, living in favelas/no go zones the kids are technically whatever country they grew up in, able to enjoy benefits that all EU people (even sometimes extends to former colonies) enjoy. This may seem obvious but this first step is a big deal and disadvantage for American/Korea/Japan who don't have poor families that move at high rates to Europe. Their academies produce players that sometimes play for other countries (Mastour, French born Africans, etc..). I don't trust Fifa with anything. Bayern Munich goes to Qatar every winter kissing the oil money even though Qatar is building their stadiums with slaves from India/Philippines. Fifa cares about human trafficking all right... The french voted for Qatar 2022, then the Qatari owner buys PSG.
You donot have to (as I do distrust them too), but in this case it was the EU that forced them to take steps, whether they liked it or not.
Hey guys, Juvenil B played last Saturday and they lost 2-1 vs T.Levante, Kangin played all the game again. Tomorrow they play again a league match, and then there's a break because is Easter tournaments time. Juvenil B will travel to Abu Dhabi to play the Hazza Bin Zayed U17 Tournament; sometimes these internationals tournaments in Qatar, Dubai etc are televised, so we'll see if we can watch something.
That's ... not actually true. The FIFA international youth transfer ban has three exceptions: 1) The parent of the player immigrates lawfully to a new country for job-related, non-football reasons. 2) The player lives within 100 km of a club in a foreign country (this is what you're getting confused by. If a player lives more than 100 km from a club within their own country, they can still transfer.) 3) Any player within the European Union or the European Economic Area who is over 16 can freely transfer to any other team within the EU/EEA (provided the club gives the kid an adequate education, housing, etc). So any French player over 16 can indeed transfer to Feyenoord's academy. And so can Romanian players, without restrictions from FIFA. There is a practical aspect to this - immigration and business between EU nations is not as closely regulated, which would make attempting to monitor academy transfers extremely difficult. And European academies have a long practice of scouting and recruiting players from other European countries - much more than the other continents. When the youth transfer ban was first being laid out, UEFA would obviously have recognized that a straight ban would negatively impact their teams by far the most, and made the case for avoiding the disruption. And really, when FIFA was laying out the ban, they weren't really thinking about Europe, so much as international trafficking problems involving poor kids being exploited by unscrupulous individuals offering empty promises. And that was a legitimate problem - the transfer ban addressed a real issue that needed solving. But what it amounts to is that this exception for EU/EEA nations allows European players to go to the best academies on their continent and possibly the world - while players in other federations don't. In Asia, North America, and Africa, where the youth systems are extremely underdeveloped, it means that most youth players are unable to attend the premiere youth academies of Europe and South America - AND they're not even able to go to the best youth academies in their own federation. Which means unless an individual country is willing and able to fund and construct an elite youth training system for its own players, then they will perpetually be on the back foot compared to players in the EU/EEA. So, for example, if you had two youth players, one in Canada and one in Liechtenstein, then the Canadian player can only go to the best youth academy that Canada can provide - which is probably a community rec center that doubles as a hockey rink during the winter. The Liechtenstein player can go to Real Madrid, PSG, Bayern, Manchester, and yes, Feyenoord. If both players had equivalent talent, which one is likely to end up as the better pro, and which one will probably be moonlighting as the mascot for the Nunavat Semi-Pro Ice Hogs? So, no, it's not quite fair. BUT... I'm not saying that there was a "conspiracy". I really doubt there was any sort of collusion inside FIFA: "Let's screw over the non-EU nations" because the fact is, the international youth transfer ban was and is the solution to a real problem involving exploitation of minors. And there were very practical reasons why the EU/EEA exception was put in place. It just kind of sucks for the rest of the federations, is all. Although ... I do wonder what it means for England now that they're Brexiting. I mean, I'm sure they'll do their best to stay at least in the EEA - for footballing reasons if nothing else.
That's called immigration and not child trafficking (= getting a kid on its own abroad) That was what I posted, we were talking about international transfers. That also isnot the subject of child trafficking, as 16 year olds are capable of signing contracts (with consent of their parents) and children (= age 11 till 16) arenot and thus vulnerable. With this conclusion I agree. That's why Feyenoord for years had an academy in Ghana (founded October 23d, 1999), in which talented kids not only received football development on Feyenoord level, but the kids were also going to a school, so if hey didnor turn into pro players, at least they had an education. Combined with good nourishment provided ( the kids were in a campus) made it for kids a place they really wanted to be selected for. Some time ago we stopped with it as we produced players, but not one was good enough for our first team.
The significance is that while the first and second exceptions apply evenly across the whole world, the third exception applies only to countries within Europe. And I'm not sure you understand the significance of that - because the exception means only 16-18 year-olds in Europe are allowed to transfer to other countries. If you are 16 in an EU/EEA nation, you may transfer to any other EU/EEA nation. But if you are from Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, or a non-EU European country, then you are not allowed to transfer to an academy outside your country for football reasons until you are 18 years old. You may argue that 16 year-olds are capable of signing contracts - but the terms of the FIFA ban means that only European 16 year-olds can do so. Again, there are very good reasons why the ban is implemented the way it is - but it gives EU/EEA players much more freedom and opportunity to develop their careers than the rest of the world. So it does give UEFA a leg up on the competition ... but realistically, if FIFA was to do a more in-depth vetting and monitoring of the youth academy systems, then that would require them to be willing, competent, efficient, dedicated, intelligent, watchful, innovative, and thoroughly incorruptible. Who thinks that FIFA would be capable of that?
Thank you, you took the words out of my mind. I couldn't articulate as well as you did in this post, but this was pretty much what I was saying in the beginning pretty much word for word.
Ever since the former soviet countries joined the EU the immigration has been out of control. The brexit case really opened a lot of people's eyes. This type of poor to rich country immigration blurs the lines between illegal trafficking and what we consider to be regular immigraton. Look at the polish/romainians in london, there are tons of documentaries on youtube for anyone to see what's going on. Employers hiring illegally for dirt cheap wages, stuffing 20 into a room, no employee safety. A lot of women/children turn to prostitution as well.
That has nothing to do with FIFA or UEFA, but simply with the rights of a citizen of an EU country and these have the right to do so. This right exists with and without footballing reasons for any contract, be it work in a factory, buying something etc. This right has nothing to do with football, so isnot there to create an exception for European kids. It only applies to football as it is about contracts.
Uhm, what does this have to do with the original post? Or do you have info on a flood of under 16 year olds into academies of the rich EU countries from former Soviet satelite countries? Did you care to read my reposte to that post?
I think we're misunderstanding each other. skim721 is better at articulating than me to be fair. Your looking at it correct too, just differently. I'm not even sure if we're debating because I'm just talking about cause/effect. No matter how the rules came, I think we can agree the net effect of making it near impossible for young Koreans to enter academies in Germany/Spain will be bad for KNT in short & long term since they will have to go to Korean academies instead. Agree? That's basically something all three of us can see I think.
It has everything to do with FIFA and UEFA, because FIFA and UEFA are independent non-governmental organizations. The EU allows 16 year olds to sign contracts - FIFA is not obligated to allow the same. FIFA can and does place all sorts of restrictions which extend beyond what governments require - including the international youth transfer ban. If a 16 year-old from Micronesia with the proper visas comes to the Netherlands and signs a contract with Feyenoord, then the EU will not prohibit that - but FIFA will. Unless the EU mandates that its football academies must allow 16 year olds to sign - and it doesn't - then that exception is entirely FIFA's decision as to how it regulates the entities within its own organization. Think of it this way - you have the legal right in the EU to proclaim yourself the rightful pope and tell people to call you "Pope Joey the Awesome". But the Catholic Church is not obligated to accept you as their new pope because they are not a governmental organization and can follow their own regulations.
No, a fundamental right cannot be curbed by any organization, see the Bosman ruling of the European court of Human Rights. There is only one exception to that non infringement of rights and that is the curbing has the purpose of serving the common good. To get at that point you must have the cooperation of the EU lawmakers and get (if challenged) the approval of the EU Court for Human Rights. That's why the transfer rules for the kids has been possible although it clearly is a curbing of rights and put on the FIFA/UEFA by pressure from EU legislators. To challenge it you will have to go through the whole chain of courts, starting in the country where you are confronted with the transfer rule. For your informaion the rule for the first time has been challenged last year or in 2015 by a Columbian kid iirc in Spain and the Spanish court has acknowledged his rights have been violated. So it is interesting which way this will go.