By "quotas", I am not talking about the dearth of new posts in this blog (or of any comments whatsoever), rather than the idea of introducing quotas in football. As mentioned in previous posts, this blog will combine topics such as football, betting, statistics and so on, so here are a few figures.
Apparently, according to research by BBC Sport, only 34% of the number of players who started matches in the Premier League qualify to play for England. This figure, which translates to 170 out of 498 players, is at an all-time low, with the corresponding figure in 2006/07 being 191 players (38%). The article seems to suggest that this drop in the number of English players has aggravated the selection dilemma faced by the current England manager, Fabio Capello and as a result, the quality of the English national side.
One suggested solution is what Sepp Blatter through FIFA proposes: limit the number of foreign starters to five for each team. This would be enforced gradually with 4 being the minimum number of starting home players in the 2010/11 season and rising by one, each year until the full implementation of the plan in 2012/13. Before deciding what constitutes a "home" player (e.g. would the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish be classified as "home" players or would they need to be considered as foreigners to the English game?) and without wanting to enter the legality of the measure, I am baffled by the reasoning behind such a quota system, and what the likely results would be. The president of FIFA argues that this plan will help to " ... make sure there is better balance and not only three or four teams in a league of 18 or 20 fighting to be champions ". He goes on to argue that the objective of this plan is to remedy situations such as the one which arose this year with three of the four semi-finalists in the Champions' League coming from the same association, before, in my opinion, contradicting himself by highlighting the fact that six of the starting eleven Man Utd players in the final were English. So does that mean that they won because they were English, or despite their nationality? In the immortal words of Fawlty Towers' Manuel - another foreigner - "Que?"
One has to decide what the problem is before offering a solution. Is the problem the performance of each country's national team? Is it a perceived loss of identity of teams at club level? Is it the temporary dominance of same-association teams in European competitions? The segmentation of teams within a league (e.g Big Four in England, Big Two in Scotland etc) affecting the domestic competition? Is it a problem of sub-standard level of football being played? Or is it something else? Whatever the problem is, if indeed such a problem actually exists, the solution may be something different in each case.
Take the national teams, for example. The BBC article suggests that the performance of the England team is indirectly correlated with the number of English players in the Premier League. Introducing a quota on the number of foreign players, would give home-grown players additional opportunities in the first team, thus increasing the quantity of English players playing first-team football and, hopefully, raising their quality too. But even if the performance of the national team is assumed to be positively affected by the number of home-players in the league (a point which I am not entirely convinced is valid), what effect would such a quota have on other national teams? Would they all be improved by such quotas in their respective leagues? Is this a win-all situation? Since such quotas would essentially restrict the number of foreign players in each country, would it not also mean that it would reduce the exposure of these players to different styles of play. Rather than raising the level of every single national team, it could possibly handicap those national teams whose players ply their trade in the home league.
As far as the issue of domestic competition is concerned, one should consider that the quota will indirectly increase the demand for home-grown players while the supply remains more or less constant, thus pushing the price of home-grown players even higher. Who would benefit from a further rise in the price and wages of home-players? None other than the wealthier and more successful clubs. So rather than investing in a football academy, the top clubs will be able to cherry pick the best available players from the lesser clubs further widening the gap between weak and strong clubs within the already segmented leagues. Why have one youth set-up when money can buy you twenty?
The lack of club identity because of the influx of foreign players as well as any criticism levelled on the standard of football being played are arguments which are simply not true in England. Ask any fan of any team and they will always say that it is the crest on the front rather than the name at the back of a shirt which is important, no player is bigger than the club and so on. And it matters not if that player is called George, Jorge or Jürgen, as long as the team are achieving their targets. There will always be fans who support new teams whenever their favourite player is transferred (remember those fans when Beckham was sold to Real Madrid) but thankfully this is not the norm. Dress eleven Martians in a Liverpool shirt, and let them play their way to the league title and I'll be happy as a clam! As for a possible deterioration in the standard of football, I have yet to comprehend how by limiting the pool of players a manager can choose from, the team can become better. The logic of this statement does not hold, since, if true, it means that somebody along the line is not doing their work properly.
It's really not clear what this measure is trying to correct. Football really is a simple game. And it should be left alone. Protectionism measures will, both in the short-run and in the long-run, be counterproductive. If action needs to be taken, find a way of promoting investment in the grass roots and let the best players rise to the top, irrespective of their nationality, colour or any other non-footballing segregation.
One suggested solution is what Sepp Blatter through FIFA proposes: limit the number of foreign starters to five for each team. This would be enforced gradually with 4 being the minimum number of starting home players in the 2010/11 season and rising by one, each year until the full implementation of the plan in 2012/13. Before deciding what constitutes a "home" player (e.g. would the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish be classified as "home" players or would they need to be considered as foreigners to the English game?) and without wanting to enter the legality of the measure, I am baffled by the reasoning behind such a quota system, and what the likely results would be. The president of FIFA argues that this plan will help to " ... make sure there is better balance and not only three or four teams in a league of 18 or 20 fighting to be champions ". He goes on to argue that the objective of this plan is to remedy situations such as the one which arose this year with three of the four semi-finalists in the Champions' League coming from the same association, before, in my opinion, contradicting himself by highlighting the fact that six of the starting eleven Man Utd players in the final were English. So does that mean that they won because they were English, or despite their nationality? In the immortal words of Fawlty Towers' Manuel - another foreigner - "Que?"
One has to decide what the problem is before offering a solution. Is the problem the performance of each country's national team? Is it a perceived loss of identity of teams at club level? Is it the temporary dominance of same-association teams in European competitions? The segmentation of teams within a league (e.g Big Four in England, Big Two in Scotland etc) affecting the domestic competition? Is it a problem of sub-standard level of football being played? Or is it something else? Whatever the problem is, if indeed such a problem actually exists, the solution may be something different in each case.
Take the national teams, for example. The BBC article suggests that the performance of the England team is indirectly correlated with the number of English players in the Premier League. Introducing a quota on the number of foreign players, would give home-grown players additional opportunities in the first team, thus increasing the quantity of English players playing first-team football and, hopefully, raising their quality too. But even if the performance of the national team is assumed to be positively affected by the number of home-players in the league (a point which I am not entirely convinced is valid), what effect would such a quota have on other national teams? Would they all be improved by such quotas in their respective leagues? Is this a win-all situation? Since such quotas would essentially restrict the number of foreign players in each country, would it not also mean that it would reduce the exposure of these players to different styles of play. Rather than raising the level of every single national team, it could possibly handicap those national teams whose players ply their trade in the home league.
As far as the issue of domestic competition is concerned, one should consider that the quota will indirectly increase the demand for home-grown players while the supply remains more or less constant, thus pushing the price of home-grown players even higher. Who would benefit from a further rise in the price and wages of home-players? None other than the wealthier and more successful clubs. So rather than investing in a football academy, the top clubs will be able to cherry pick the best available players from the lesser clubs further widening the gap between weak and strong clubs within the already segmented leagues. Why have one youth set-up when money can buy you twenty?
The lack of club identity because of the influx of foreign players as well as any criticism levelled on the standard of football being played are arguments which are simply not true in England. Ask any fan of any team and they will always say that it is the crest on the front rather than the name at the back of a shirt which is important, no player is bigger than the club and so on. And it matters not if that player is called George, Jorge or Jürgen, as long as the team are achieving their targets. There will always be fans who support new teams whenever their favourite player is transferred (remember those fans when Beckham was sold to Real Madrid) but thankfully this is not the norm. Dress eleven Martians in a Liverpool shirt, and let them play their way to the league title and I'll be happy as a clam! As for a possible deterioration in the standard of football, I have yet to comprehend how by limiting the pool of players a manager can choose from, the team can become better. The logic of this statement does not hold, since, if true, it means that somebody along the line is not doing their work properly.
It's really not clear what this measure is trying to correct. Football really is a simple game. And it should be left alone. Protectionism measures will, both in the short-run and in the long-run, be counterproductive. If action needs to be taken, find a way of promoting investment in the grass roots and let the best players rise to the top, irrespective of their nationality, colour or any other non-footballing segregation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment