Didn't you know Prenn....all footballs problems lead to England. The media whores Platini and Blatter have said so. We ********ed up football good apparently...our teams buy the best players, dominate the global market and look like dominating the world biggest club comp, meaning the poor teams like AC Milan, Real, Barca etc get to point the moral compass in Englands direction......cause they would never dream of doing such underhand things as paying ridiculous fees for players or fielding so few national players or having rich owners\goverments or.....
I have read many people say they believe that the EPL having so many foreigners deters the development of English players. Didn't Blatter start bringing this up after England didn't make it to Euros last year ?
I say let the clubs feild whatever they may, my problem is in the "naturalisation" of players from one nation to another. Stricter rules need to apply there, heck look at the French national team, how many are really French?
I'm glad someone made this thread, I wanted to but I don't have the clout around here to make threads. As an American I don't really understand this (potential) rule. The argument I've heard is that foreign players are ruining teams' "persona" but what if you're man u (not a man u fan) and your "persona" is that you pluck the best players from around the world? In my opinion this will hurt my national team, because what will happen to dempsey at fulham and donovan at bayern? We (the U.S. national team) need our best players to be competing at the highest level of club play if we ever want to be competitive, and this is likely going to force us out in favor of domestics. This rule also offends my American laissez-faire sensibilities. Shouldn't you be able to buy any player you choose? This is bad for football, in my opinion.
Reading over responses I see people saying that this will help England's national team. I was under the impression that England underachieves because the players only care about the EPL (being the best league in the world and all) and they all hate each other because they play against one another in fierce league competition. I could be wrong though.
England are not really underachievers. We generally have 1 or 2 really good players, but very rearely do we asemble a team of 11 with no weak links. When we do, the back up simply isn't there. I only really have regrets about 3 tournaments, thinking we could have gone further: Euro 96, World Cup 98, Euro 04. If this rule improves England's players I am all for it, but there is simply no evidence for that. Also, Gareth Barry was about to be bought for £18 million. Imagine how much he will cost after this rule, when English players will be in such demand.
England underachieves because it is rubbish at Penalty Shootouts. Solve this issue and they double their chances of tournament success.
I just don't understand what problem this is trying to solve. There are 200 countries with soccer teams competing for WC 2010 -- there aren't 200 countries with leagues for the players to make a living playing in. If these players can't go to another country to play, what will they do? Is UEFA trying to discourage players from poor countries from playing?
Well, if South America does something we should definitely emulate it. Now, where shall we build these favelas? I'm pretty used to democracy but a junta will have to suffice. At least we can get a Queen concert in our run-down bowl stadiums.
We didn't qualify for the world cup in the 70s, what the ******** was the excuse then? Even if it is damaging us, an EU citizen has the right to work anywhere in the EU. If they rip up one of the Four Freedoms in order to placate Fifa's business interests, then we may as well just abolish the EU.
Exactly, this rule would screw over the small countries. Not only would it keep their players stuck in their amateur leagues, it would cripple their national teams, as their players refused to play for them, and moved to England, Spain or Italy for long enough to be eligible for their national teams just so they could play in the major leagues.
Sorry but most of your arguments speak in favour of the rule rather than against it. One of the big benefits to me would be that sugardaddies can no longer buy a successful team. Building a successful team would be an achievement based more on merit than on money again and that's a good thing. The fact that domestic players would get more expensive - so what? All that'd do is force clubs to spend more on youth development and to give local talent more of a chance. One additional rule would have to be enforced for this to work: no under 18 transfers, not domestically and not internationally.
Its to create a more level playing field in European football and to encourage the development of homegrown talent. For many clubs in Europe, even in the not so rich leagues, it is now a financially more attractive option to get cheap foreign talent rather than develop their own. As a result even poorer leagues and clubs are inundated with foreign talent who aren't necessarily better than homegrown players; just cheaper. A 6+5 rule would ensure that only foreign talent of quite high talent would get a look in. Not too long ago, by the way, the rule in European football was that clubs could only field three foreigners. It's not like this is an entirely hew concept or anything.
The entire point is that the domestic league in the US would benefit more from players like Dempsey and Donovan staying put. If they're really good enough they'd make it to a big club at some stage anyway. It would also force the US authorities to invest more in the quality of their domestic league to keep up. If you need your players to play at the highest level, then make sure your domestic league is the highest level. That's the message. Clubs like ManU just picking and choosing the best players isn't helping either. Out of the 10 players they buy, maybe 5 actually succeed, and that's not even going into the number of foreign under 18s at their youth academy who never make it to the big time while they could've been of value to their domestic league if they'd stayed ManU is just a random example btw, I don't mean to pick on the English specifically.
So, you want to abolish human rights, and deny people the right to make a living, for the sake of football ownership? You really are a fruit. Although I suppose it's not quite as insane as making 600 posts telling everyone how much you don't care about the Champions League.
Who's talking about the champions league in this thread? I must have made an impression on you on that subject seeing that you keep on bringing it up even in threads that are nothing to do with it. On the human rights issue. I'm guessing you think football in the 70s and 80s is deserving of an Amnesty International investigation or ICC tribunal?
Someone already made this point I think...but the situation that would happen is like any other protection scheme. You'd have your protected class of players who didn't have to be as good as the non-protected players, so they'd be less capable and more over-paid (but they wouldn't notice because everyone in their league would be equally incompetent). Look at the English PL for an example. How many leagues are there there? 4 or 5 I think? There's a whole bunch of English players in quite comfortable circumstances, thank you very much. They either aren't as talented as those foreigners taking the top spots on the top teams, or they don't work as hard. Or both. I'm also not quite sure why you think sugar daddies couldn't buy a team anymore. They'd just have to spend money on local players instead of foreign players. Seems like the Super League would come back.
I have a completely unrealistic idea that would kill the worldwide TV ratings for any league that enacted it, but here goes... OK, I'm no expert on EU politics, but apparently a rule like this is hard to be enacted because you can't restrict Europeans' free movement between EU nations thanks to Mr Bosman. A limit on Non-Euro players is much more feasible, and I think some leagues like Spain's already do it. But a way to get around the EU rules is to make a new rule where there is no limit on the foreign(EU) players, but teams can only put 11 domestic players on the starting 11 and make all the foreigners start the game on the bench. This would de facto make teams stop spending so much on foreign players since, after all, who wants to shell out millions for a bench warmer, AND it would encourage more homegrown talent development. I know its a horrible idea (to most people), I just thought I'd point it out that there is a loophole to the Bosman ruling. Come to think of it, this seems to be nothing more than an extremist version of the 6+5 rule. It is, in effect, an 11+0 rule. If I were European I might be in favor of it, but here in the Americas it's downright entertaining watching the talent that so many foreigners bring to Europe. I must admit as bad and unoriginal as my idea is, it's better than the orange card. Edit: The Athletic Bilbao fans might like my idea, they would be kings of Spain again.
How many world class local players are there in England, or France, or Spain, or Italy do you think? Suppose ManU buys four more England internationals, what would be left for Arsenal and Liverpool, for example? A sugardaddy can still buy a team but success/return on investment isn't guaranteed anymore.