Current Issue: 18
7th May - 1st September 2010
Latest Comments
No comments found - why not add yours now!
Leeds Student on Twitter
Does football need a quota system?
By Owen Bradley and Joe Hibbert
Article Tags
No tags found for this article.
Related Articles
Sorry - no related articles found!
Similar Articles
Earlier this week Premier League clubs agreed, in principle, to support a quota for home-grown players. With many expressing concerns over the development of players across Europe, LS Sport asks: should English football implement a quota system for home-gown players?
For
0 votes so far
Vote for this!
Do you agree with this side of the debate? Click below to add your vote to the list!
Debate surrounding the introduction of a quota system to British football have been ongoing throughout Sepp Blatter’s term as Fifa President. His most recent “six plus five” proposal was quashed by the European Parliament in 2008.
Regardless of some of the demerits of his presidency, to his credit Blatter has continually highlighted a vital issue to the future of football; the need for greater regulation and protection of domestic player development.
The UK academy system is continuing to produce great talent. Arsenal’s Kieran Gibbs recently dominated Ronaldo in the first leg of their Champions League semi-final at Old Trafford. Aston Villa’s bright start to the season was due in large-part to the strength of their home-grown contingent. These examples are, however, the exception rather than the rule.
There may well be glimpses of quality coming through, but the number of British players breaking into the top flight is falling and has fallen consistently over recent years.
Over-inflated prices for home-grown players are also becoming an increasing issue. Would you consider paying £3.5 million for an ageing striker who had scored four goals in his previous Premier League season? Probably not, but that’s exactly what Aston Villa did for Emile Heskey. Similar outrageous prices have been touted for Marlon King, Dave Kitson, and most young British players automatically carry a higher price tag than their foreign counterparts simply because of the “local’ label.
Premier League teams look likely to follow the example of the Football League and demand that four of every match-day squad must be home-grown. There remains issues with their definition of what a “home-grown’ player is; under their definition, Cesc Fabregas would be eligible as one of Arsenal’s four. Surely that goes against the spirit of the rule?
The Premier League will not, quite rightly, implement a proper quota system unless it is copied across Europe, and is phased in gradually. Failure to do this would lead to a sudden drop in the quality of competition and, as the footballing world revolves around television revenues, would almost certainly have huge financial implications.
If a quota system were to be introduced it would have to be as part of a raft of world-wide changes to the game at the elite level. The recent example of Federico Macheda at United shows that clubs on the continent and at home need to have their young talent properly protected, to stop top clubs swooping in and cherry-picking talent from other youth set-ups. Legislation would be necessary to stop exciting young footballers playing academies off against each other and manipulating the system for their own gain.
The issue of a salary cap would again need to be examined. Yes, Championship clubs have held discussions this season regarding such a move, but surely Fifa or Uefa should be introducing plans for a world-wide collective bargaining agreement that will give the game the stability it craves?
The stumbling block to all these suggestions will probably be domestic and international law, as was the case with Blatter’s proposal, but surely the law-makers must realise that football is not the same as other industries? To preserve the future of football, these changes are needed, and a quota system is as good a place as any to start.
- Owen Bradley
Against
0 votes so far
Vote for this!
Do you agree with this side of the debate? Click below to add your vote to the list!
This week the Premier League buckled to pressure from Uefa and Fifa and announced that it would be seriously considering introducing player quotas, possibly as early as next season. The quotas adopted would not be as extreme as Sepp Blatter’s proposals which stipulate that any starting eleven could only have five foreign players (he’s looking at you, Mr Wenger). Rather the proposals made by Premier League Chief Exec Richard Scudamore would enforce a 4+4 rule, whereby four players in the squad must have been brought through the ranks at the club and four developed at other clubs in England. A lot less harsh, but as far as I can see, completely unnecessary.
The main argument for the introduction of quotas is that they would improve the quality of English players and thus benefit the national side. But there are clear alternatives to a quota system that would provide the same result. Rather than stifling every club’s freedom to select players of its own choosing, why not distribute the Premier League’s wealth more evenly across the league and also give money to lower leagues. This money would be used specifically, and for no other purpose, than improving academy facilities.
The Premier League is midway through a three-year television contract that earns the league £2.7 billion. Currently a proportion of the money is distributed according to league positions at the end of the season. Ultimately this means the rich get richer and the teams outside of the Premier League get poorer. Furthermore, it is those teams outside the Premier League that have the largest percentage of home grown players per squad. Clubs like Crewe, famous for their rich history of player development, could be given a proportion of the TV money specifically to be used for an academy. More English players would come through at lower league clubs and eventually bought by top flight teams for a fee that benefits the club. This is a far more natural and mutually beneficial method of improving the amount of home grown players in England than introducing strict player quotas.
Player quotas will also prove to be yet another limiting factor on managers. There is already a transfer window; player quotas would further restrict managerial decisions. This is fine for the likes of Manchester United who have the pick of home-grown players and large transfer funds to back them up, but for promoted teams it is just another limiting factor that will cause controversy.
Under this proposed system, already over-inflated prices for English players will rise. When something is in demand its price always rises, and in this quota system English players will be very much in demand. This week, Bolton quoted £15 million for Chelsea target Gary Cahill-a player who has never played for the senior England side. Imagine how much he would be worth if he was really in demand.
Much of my gripe with the quota system lies with the man who proposes implementing it. Richard Scudamore has simply agreed to impose this quota system to get the heavy breath of Sepp Blatter off his neck (now there’s a delightful image). Scudamore does not act with a desire to do what is right for English football, if he’s not attempting to appease Fifa or Uefa he’s looking to make money. The Premier League would do far better to look to its Football League Mother for answers to its problems.
- Joe Hibbert
This article was written by Owen Bradley and Joe Hibbert and was uploaded at 2:52pm, Sunday 4th October 2009.
It was posted in Sport » Sport Big Debate » Does football need a quota system?