FIFA's 6+5 rule: In favor or against?

The EU will not allow restrictions based on nationality. All EU citizens are guaranteed freedom of movement within the borders of member states. A legal challenge will defeat the proposal very quickly.

 

the eu has already declared foreigner restrictons on eu citizens illegal 13 years ago and it was after a worker sued against those restrictions.

what exactly has changed to make you think they will reverse that decision?

so yeah, it is because they care about the rights of workers.

 

there's no limit on how many EU citizens (and non EU citizens) can be put under contract so I don't see where the restriction is (if we are talking about workers rights). The restriction is only on how many can play in a single match and it's a rule of the sport, an area where the EU should not interfere.
Next they'll be fighting the rule that who has chosen to represent a given NT cannot change NT. That's a clear restriction on the freedom of the individual.

BTW there are plenty of restrictions in pro football that if you look carefully are against the common workers rights.
Did you guess why EU ignores them? Because the top teams like that restrictions.

no, it isn't.

 

relax, liverpool will be a decent team even without starting 9 out of 11 non englishmen.
Try to look at the long term not the short term.

 

if that was the case, why was the old 3 foreigner rule abolished?

that didn't stop clubs from signing as many foreigners as they wanted.

of course this rule would restrict players rights to work as clubs wouldn't sign them if they're not allowed to use them just like domestic players. of course that is discrimination.

imagine a rule that half the staff in any hotel have to be domestic. you know, they could hire waiters from anywhere in the eu, it just that they couldn't let as many of them work as they would want.

so who is going to pay that waiter if he can't put him to work?

when the bosman decision was made, the Europeans court made a clear distinction between clubs and national teams .

national associations and competitions among them are not of economical nature , they are only sporting contests.

examples ?



why are they even going through with this?
this was all decided in the bosman case.

 

Bad rule, hurts the game as a whole. Severe blow to developing football nations such as the US. Many players from third world countries will never realize their full professional potential. Does a young Adebayor or Benjani ever get a chance under this rule? Most likely not. Some of the morons from smaller federations who voted for this don't know it yet but they may have cost some young kid in their country a chance at his dream of suiting up for a Milan or Chelsea. Football is a game AND a business. Imagine US Major League Baseball introducing a cap on players from the Dominican Republic? Of course not, the owners want to put the best product on the field, regardless of national origin. More garbage from the mind of European elitist snobs.

 

bayernrevs,

You also have to consider leagues that are constantly feeding the big centers.
Brazil, Argentina and Holland are left with rejects!
It's understandable to see a guy like Pato leave to Milan, because he is a genius. But we are also losing guys like Wagner Love!

Real Madrid took a good look at Boca Juniors and River Plate some time ago and took their best players: Gago and Higuain.

What about Ajax? Look at their fall...

Maybe the 6+5 rule is not the best way to solve this problem, but it's a way.

 

This is just another way to keep the top footballing countries up, and keep the average and below countries down. Spain, England, Italy, France, etc will always have the best championships, that is not going to change. The only thing this is doing is not letting the star from an African or South American country without a strong national league get a chance to play for and develop his skills in one of the top leagues of the world.

Who is this going to affect, certainly not 99.9% of South American teams, African, Asian (maybe some Japan), it is only going to affect Europe. Look at the last world cup Semi-finals Italy, France, Germany, Portugal IS THIS RULE REALLY NECESSARY!?! Personally, it looks like they want to keep the powerbase of football in Europe, (rant) heaven forbid an African nation with a strong base of players who play in Europe make it to the WC semis.

 

Could somebody please tell me where this a problem outside of the european continent, is it even a real problem? There may be one or two teams in any given league who hold a lot of forgien players, but losing the national identity of a club team is unrealistic.

 

Presumably you lost Wagner Love because Wagner Love wanted to play for another team. I'm not sure why you think it would be a good thing to prevent soccer players from advancing at their career?

I had the thought that maybe this was a plan to limit players' power though. A player under the new rules could go to Spain and become a citizen in a few years, but he couldn't easily leave and move to Italy. If the plan uses the 'homegrown' players plan, that same player could play without restriction for the team he was trained at, but was limited to where he could move next.

 

Agreed. Did Europe just end their world leadership of soccer in order the placate the nationalists in each country who feel they're losing their grip on the game for whatever reason? The globalization rule of thumb is that any organization/country that engages in protectionism will eventually lose. Are global audiences tuning into the Champions League in order to see David Bentleys? NO- try Abedayor/Tevez. Did the rule just strengthen the hell out of Italian teams who have better access to Argentine and Brazilian players with Italian ancestors?

This rule really hurts African countries who were just getting confortable with a variety of sytems through their Euro (Chelsea/Arsenal!)-based players. Our US players will lose that EPL experience that not only strengthens the US team, but the global game in general (even if there's a direct correlation between US players and relegation). The great globalization of the game is coming to a halt. Europe was the epicenter of all of it.

The only bonus is that it may help domestic leagues hold onto their best for another year or two, but believe me- that wasn't the goal of the 6+5 rule.

What happens when Nike sees the chance to attract the non-Euro best to the MLS because European options are limited? Congrats to FIFA/UEFA for being able to turn back the clock to 1988- good luck with that!

 

Wagner Love left because playing in Russia would get him more money. If the brazilian league was stronger, the teams would be able to give players better paychecks.

 

So....rule changes that make Wagner Love incapable of leaving Brazil to make more money is a good thing? I guess it would keep the Brazilian league from having to get stronger to keep their good players. Hey, the league will be able to pay them less because the players won't be able to play anywhere else. The clubs will get richer; the players will not. As I said, moving power away from the players and back to the clubs.

Sounds like a plan.

 

You must see things long therm.
Brazilian clubs will buy players from each other. Right now we only have medium/top players being sold overseas.
What keeps Chelsea from getting Cristiano Ronaldo from Manchester United? The idea is the same...

 

I player under contract with team x cannot just change my mind and walk away after max few months to find another job I like better.

Isn't that the hardest restriction you can get from a workers rights POV?

That restriction is essential for football to stay healthy but that doesn't mean it's a huge one.

So guess why EU has no problem with that and suddenly becomes a paladin of workers rights for a far far minor restriction which is actually not a restriction but could only indirectly work as a restriction?

EU should not interfere with sportive rules. Especially when the restriction affects only the single match, not the freedom of anyone to join whatever team in whatever country.

It's just the top teams (or a good number of them) not liking the rule if EU blocks it.

 

Who held the gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract? If you didn't like the terms, you needed to have a better agent. And that contract goes the opposite way as well - they can't throw your sorry ass out on the street and quit paying you.

 

This rule will not making Brazilian teams as rich as Russian teams. And Russian clubs don't normally play that many foreigners, so Wagner Love would still be able to play in Russia, even if it meant moving to Zenit or somewhere.

Maybe if Brazil found some rich owners, or had a more even spread of wealth so fans could afford to go to the games, they'd be able to keep their players.

 

That would be legal, but wouldn't really change much.

 

this rule is exactly opposite of that, it is against the interests of big club.

it would be much easier for them to sign the best players if they didn't have to pay a transfer fee for any of them .

it would only hurt them in the long run,but not any more than anyone else, as it would be the end of professional football.

the eu wanted to allow players to leave clubs on a 3 months notice, but were conviced by uefa that football couldn't function like that.


allowing eu citizens equal employment opportunity is probably the EU's most important law and the perceived negative consequences of its implementation in football are nowhere near great enough to abandon it.

and equal employment rights also include the right to equal treatment in the workplace.

that's what this fifa rule would be infringing on.

 

most countries already have restrictions on non-eu players. in some you can have only 2 or three non-eu players, but clubs constantly find ways to get around it.

many south Americans "discover" Italian forefathers and gain their passport, the spanish give out citizenships to Latin Americans after 2 years residency, the french do similarly with french speaking Africans etc.

fifa's proposal would counter this, players would count as domestic only if they were eligible for the national team of the country they're playing in.

 

you said it all. they can understand, when they want to, that a sport needs different rules than the norm in order to function at best.

Next they will want all the players to start on a rotating basis cause all of them must be treated equally. It's not like the coach can decide that a player he doesn't think he's good enough will at best warm the bench or even worse never even make it to the bench. they all must play otherwise it is mobbing.

It's political. you may think it's good but it's political not a crusade for workers rights.

 

making contracts meaningless would be the end of pro football.

implementing freedom of employment wouldn't. we've already had it for 13 years.

you can treat it all as a joke if you wish, but it isn't . players should have an equal chance of playing regardless of their nationality.

 

Listen Aloisius, I think this rule will be good for football, you think otherwise. Let's not pretend it's about the defense of workers rights.

 

I think it would be a very good rule and extremely beneficial to my own club (as we wouldn't need to change a thing). It won't ever happen in the EU though, they can't seriously think the EU will change a law just to accommodate FIFA.