FIFA’s 6+5 rule, a new low for England, and Liverpool FC

Headline news on BBC Sport shows both FIFA’s insistence in pushing a 6+5 rule as well as a study stating that Premiership teams fielded an all-time low number of English players this past season.

My silence thanks to a lack of topics during the past week, coupled with a fervent dislike of the 6+5 rule (plus a fondness for poking and prodding Blatter’s FIFA), means I’m using these two stories to hit at a larger issue. Fair warning, this is long.

I guess I’ll start with FIFA.

For those unaware, FIFA has been trying to cut down on foreign players since the beginning of Blatter’s reign. The newest manifestation of this pursuit is the aforementioned “6+5 rule,” which looks to be endorsed by FIFA’s Congress later this week.

As demonstrated by the name, the rule moves towards a goal of at least six “homegrown” players in every club side, leaving no more than five foreigners. According to Blatter, it would be implemented step-by-step, with four required in 2010/11, five in 2011/12, and six by 2012.

It’s worth noting that there are differences between FIFA and UEFA’s definition of homegrown players. FIFA’s means those eligible for that country’s national team while UEFA’s means those trained a club as teenagers. As Reuters explains:

“Under rules introduced by UEFA three years ago, home grown players are not necessarily nationals of the countries they are playing in.

If a player spends at least three years at a club or in an adopted national association between the age of 15 and 21 he is termed as home grown.”

Loath as I am to prefer anything Platini suggests, I’m far more in favor of his version if one has to take hold, mainly because it would protect teams like Liverpool who scour the globe for young players and train them in their academies. But it also contravenes the exact point Blatter is trying to make: FIFA wants club leagues to be primarily made up of players from that country and Platini’s plan doesn’t do that. Players like Fabregas, who joined Arsenal at 16, would qualify as homegrown. Although article after article, especially those put out by FIFA’s press shop, states that Platini would go along with FIFA’s plan.

According to FIFA, the rule wouldn’t violate European law because it doesn’t restrict the free movement of workers. Clubs are still able to buy as many foreigners as they like, but they’d have to have six players on the pitch eligible for that country’s national team.

Of course, the European Union has been hinting differently and earlier this month the European Parliament voted 518-49 against the FIFA proposal, with a majority backing UEFA’s proposal (and we in the US complain about Congress getting involved in sports).

This news comes hand-in-hand with a study stating the number of English players in the Premier League is at an all-time low, and it seems more than coincidence that both stories came out on the same day.

According to the report, there are 37 less English players in the Premiership than there were seven years ago (170 compared to 207), down 21 from last season. It is a new low for Englishmen, with the former mark coming in 02/03 with 179 (numbers had slowly risen in the four years following that nadir). And aside from the usual ‘woe is England, woe is John Bull' overtones, it’s an interesting piece.

Unsurprisingly, Arsenal has the lowest number of English players, with only .34 (a third of a player?) on average in their starting line-up. Liverpool comes in next with 2.34, and West Ham is the highest with 6.61 (Villa are the only other team above six with 6.42). On average it’s 4.038 Englishmen per side throughout the league.

And it’s pervasive from top to bottom in the league. Contrary to my expectations, two of the relegated teams (Reading and Birmingham City) are in the ‘bottom of the table,’ with the 7th and 8th lowest numbers respectively (Fulham, who finished 17th, are even worse, barely above Liverpool with 2.42 per game).

One of the main reasons that the Premier League has less and less English players is that there’s little value in it. Look at the exorbitant amounts paid for Englishmen: Darren Bent for £16m, £16m for Carrick, £18m for Hargreaves, and £10m for an unproven (but admittedly talented) Walcott. You can even see it in the price quoted for the English players supposedly coming to or going from Liverpool this summer: £15m for Bentley or Barry or Crouch? You’re having a laugh.

That’s why teams from top to bottom are searching for foreigners; when you’re shopping on a budget (which at least 17 out of 20 teams are, and I’m including Liverpool in that), buying English is the absolute opposite of cost-effective.

And it’s little coincidence that Manchester United has the most English players out of the big four. They have the money to spend £16m on Carrick and £18m on Hargreaves just as they can spend a combined £30m on Anderson and Nani or something like £27m for Rooney at the tender age of 18. Chelsea has that sort of money too, and you can see it in the premiums they pay for English players (Cole, Cole, and Wright-Phillips for example), but having an English spine is one of the least of Abramovich’s concerns.

Meanwhile, it’s little surprise that the two teams trying to keep up with United and Chelsea financially, Arsenal and Liverpool, have the fewest English players.

Despite the recent fortunes of the national team, which I’m certain was the impetus behind this study, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s bad for football. It’s arguably been a good thing for club football, evidenced by the fact the Premiership spins as much money worldwide as it does. Of course it’s also evidenced by the fact I’m writing about it despite being an ocean away, and the sustained interest in the league from countries around the world.

With the dearth of English players in the first team sides, you’d expect to see similar in the reserves and academies of Premier League clubs. And Liverpool should be a prime example of it given Benitez’s worldwide scouting network, an influx of young foreigners, an emphasis on using young players in the reserves, and the need to be cost-efficient with player transfers. But the disparity isn’t as big as I’d imagined before looking at the numbers.

Not counting players who spent the majority of the season on loan, there are currently 6 reserve team players from England, 4 from Spain, 3 from Hungary, 2 from Argentina, and 1 each from France, Holland, Morocco, Paraguay, Scotland.

I realize the reserves are fairly fluid, but for argument’s sake, here’s a usual starting line-up: Martin; Darby, San Jose, Huth, Insua; El Zhar, Plessis, Spearing, Flynn; Nemeth, Brouwer. That team wouldn’t qualify according to FIFA’s plan, with only Martin, Darby, Spearing and Flynn eligible for England.

The Under-18 team from the Academy (I’m counting those who played more than 5 games for the U-18s) contains 11 from England, 3 from Ireland, 2 from Sweden, and 1 each from Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, and Scotland. (FYI: There are a number of players who played for both the Reserves and Under-18s. I’m counting them in the team for which they played the most games.) It’s more multinational than it was under Heighway, but the vast majority are still from the Home Nations, if not eligible for England.

As for those on loan (Anderson, Antwi, Carson, Guthrie, Hammill, Hobbs, Roque, and Threlfall), six are English, with Antwi Ghanian and Roque Spanish.

I realize Liverpool is an “extreme” example, and of course recognize the oddity of an American writing about this from the other side of the ocean, but those numbers in the youth set-up don’t appear overwhelming. England is still the most represented, with the Academy having far more English players. But at the same time, Liverpool are adequately planning for the future by poaching (yes, poaching) young foreign talent so they don’t have to pay ridiculous fees in a few years.

Look, regardless of supporting Liverpool, I don’t believe instituting player quotas is going to fix the problems with the English national team. That needs to be done by improving grass-roots football, aiding and improving lower-league clubs’ academies so they can identify and nurture young English talent, and even re-opening an FA Center of Excellence, such as the much-discussed Burton National Football Centre.

But England also needs to understand that with the globalization of sport and the increasing quality coming out of the Americas and Africa that the country isn’t an automatic world-beater anymore, if they ever were. And, despite my nationality, I say that as an England fan for nearly 20 years now, more than two-thirds of my life. Plus, as pointed out by a Premiership statement in the BBC article, England struggled to qualify for a number of tournaments in the 70s and 80s, when this certainly wasn't an issue in the old Division 1.

The FIFA rule might narrow the gap between the ‘big four’ and the rest of the league, which is one of the intended goals of the directive. But given United and Chelsea’s ability to pay whatever they want for English talent (and Arsenal will be there soon given the increasing match-day profits thanks to the Emirates), it could also create a greater disparity between the big and small clubs.

More clubs would lose talent like, to make a cheeky example, Gareth Barry, a club captain for Villa who’s been rumored to be joining Liverpool. And the smaller clubs would be further punished by their inability to pay the higher costs for English talent. I may be an idiot when it comes to economics, but I think I have a grasp of supply and demand, and I’m pretty sure it’s applicable here.

Admittedly, something needs to be done to lessen the gap between the big four and the other 16, as well as something to improve the fortunes of the English national team. But I firmly believe FIFA’s quota will do neither. Creating a further premium on English talent while restricting the number of foreigners any side can play probably won’t increase competition the Premiership at all. I hate to suggest American “remedies” for European sport, but either a salary cap or a luxury tax/redistribution of profits would do far more to increase parity.

And might not even help the national team, given those players could be up against a diluted Premiership. Teams from top to bottom, from Arsenal and Liverpool to relegation candidates, would suffer, and those staring for the English national side would be up against lesser competition. You can’t tell me that players like Gerrard, Terry, et al don’t improve by playing with and against the world’s best week in and week out. Players who deserve to play in the Premiership and players who deserve to play for England still get their shot for both big and small clubs in the league.

To make a long story short, please, Blatter, Platini, FIFA, etc, keep your politics out of football.

“Is that that now, Mrs. That’s That?”

Fifa rejects Premier League plans

I actually agree with Sepp Blatter. That’s him and Michel Platini in the same week. Wow.

This doesn’t mean I’m starting a local chapter of the Blatter fan club, but even a broken clock’s right twice daily, and I’ll gladly recognize when it is.

"This does not take into consideration the fans of the clubs and it gives the impression that they just want to go on tour to make some money," Blatter said.

"This will never happen, at least as long as I am the president of Fifa."

You can’t make a more concrete statement. If you listen to the BBC interview, which I recommend, Blatter even says (although prompted by Bose’s question) that this could hurt England's 2018 World Cup chances. Now that’s a shot across the bow.

He then goes on to state (surprise, surprise!) that the issue absolutely falls under FIFA’s brief, and it doesn’t matter what the FA does, because FIFA’s executive committee isn’t going to approve it.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore had previously expressed his belief that Fifa could not stop the plan if the clubs receive the go-ahead from England's Football Association.

But Blatter rejected that claim.

"It is not true," he added. "Even if the FA did sanction it, all the national associations receiving these clubs would have to sanction it also. This will be very difficult.

"In addition to that, the Fifa executive committee will apply article two of the Fifa statutes: 'to prevent all methods or practices which might jeopardise the integrity of matches or competitions or give rise to abuse of association football'.

"This is abuse. The rich Premier League is trying to get richer and wants to expand the importance of that league."

I’m no legal scholar, but “abuse of association football” and “jeopardizing the integrity of competitions” could be challengeable grounds, but most likely grounds that would stand up in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is where a case would go if it ever went that far.

I don’t doubt Scudamore’s desire for this plan to happen, but I do doubt the Premier League’s willingness to buck FIFA on this issue, especially if the FA’s not in complete agreement with their actions. I’m not even sure if the Premier League can appeal to CAS on its own; I believe the FA has to first take it up with FIFA’s appeal committee, and if they don’t like the verdict, then it goes to CAS.

And that the FA hasn’t publicly backed the idea (and seems to be doing all it can to stay mute during this debacle) says there’s probably not much support at Soho Square.

Plus, it's hard to see how they'd push a court case with the national associations where the proposed games would be played against it; the Australia and the Asian Federation have already condemned the plans, while the USSF agreed to abide by FIFA's ruling.

But where there’s a will there’s a way, especially when money’s behind it. It can't be dead just yet.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Michel Platini was elected President of UEFA ahead of incumbent Lennart Johansson this morning. I can’t say I’m thrilled (I certainly would have voted for Johansson), but hopefully, Platini will come to realize it’s a figurehead position and won’t attempt to bring his proposed changes to the European game.

The cause for this concern is Platini’s constantly stated proposal to limit countries to three teams in the Champions League. According to the incoming President, England, Italy, and Spain should no longer receive 4 Champions League places, TV revenue and G-14 be damned. This year, Arsenal, Osasuna, and Chievo Verona wouldn’t have made the Champions League. Osasuna and Chievo were admittedly surprises, and on face value, might not deserve to be in the tournament as neither qualified for the group stages, but it’s hard to say that they took a spot from a team more deserving.

Look at the usual suspects from the national leagues. Competition for Champions League places in these organizations is already heated. And now, one of United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool would miss the CL every season. In Spain, there are Real, Barca, Valencia, Sevilla, and Villarreal, among others. In Italy (after Juve returns from Serie B), there’s AC Milan, Inter, Roma, and Juve. Every year, one of the biggest names in club football, if not more than one, will miss out on its biggest tournament.

It wouldn’t kill the competition, but it certainly wouldn’t help competition or revenue. As Johansson himself repeatedly said, why change a success? Why try and kill the goose laying you golden eggs?

I still find it hard to believe that the G-14, the organization made up of the largest clubs and stalking horse of European football, would agree to or ever allow this to happen. Their clubs would be those that will lose places and revenue. England especially, as the bulk of television revenue comes from the UK.

I’m sincerely hoping Platini’s proposal is campaign trail talk and nothing more. Pleasantries and empty promises to encourage the smaller national associations to vote for him. Because I firmly believe that it would be to the detriment of the tournament to take these teams out of the Champions League. Primarily, you’re losing a big name that will bring fans and revenue to the tournament, more so than any team that would replace them, but it’s more than that.

It will not help winners from smaller nations last longer in the Champions League. Chances are, those teams will still lose to bigger opposition, whether it’s the 3rd or 4th placed team from said country. And it will not increase the visibility and viability of the UEFA Cup. There will always be only one Champions League.

Not to mention that traveling down this road will bring UEFA in direct competition with its biggest clubs and the G-14. Fostering these divisions cannot be good for the game, simple as.

If Platini’s proposal was already law, Liverpool wouldn’t have won the CL in 2005. There would have been no Garcia wonder-goal against Juve, no ‘did it cross the line?’ controversy against Chelsea, and no greatest comeback in European Cup history. Liverpool fan or not, there’s reason enough.

But hey, Sepp Blatter fully supports and endorses Platini, so everything must be fine.

Gratuitous bashing of Sepp Blatter part XXXIV

Clash averted over FIFA's 18-club leagues plan

The perpetual internecine squabbling between FIFA and the national leagues would be amusing if it didn’t have such a damaging impact on the game. They bicker over the fixture list and the number of international dates, over injury compensation, over releasing players for national team duty. Over so many subjects it can only be described as laughable if the subjects weren't so important to European soccer.

Seems it has been ages since Sepp Blatter and his mob of suits first tried to get the EPL, Serie A, etc to slim down from 20 teams to 18. Primarily so we have more cracking games like England versus Andorra, but also because of FIFA’s overwhelming concern for the players’ welfare (wink wink, nudge nudge), as they play too many games you know. Of course it’s the leagues’ fault there’s such a cluttered calendar; it has nothing to do with the fact that teams like Germany are thumping San Marino 13-0 while qualifying for a tournament that’s two years away.

Slimming the leagues is an especially popular proposal with the clubs, as they’re in love with the notion that two of them will be playing a division lower, and all of them will be losing the revenue from two home games. This proposal would also necessitate a complete revamp of the lower leagues in the countries affected; all the lower divisions will have to be reorganized to compensate for the addition of two teams.

It comes down to the idea that FIFA believes they have the power to tell the national associations how to run their own leagues. I have an idea. FIFA can only make unilateral declarations on issues that solely impact the international game. How is that hard? Actually, I have two ideas; the other is firing Sepp Blatter. Please. Thankfully, this fight seems to be over for now, but the article clearly states that FIFA considers the discussion open and ongoing. I don’t believe for a second that Blatter’s FIFA will cede this argument so easily.

European qualifying and you!

Due to the infinite wisdom of Sepp Blatter and the rest of the gold star organization that is FIFA, less than 3 weeks into the Premier League season we have our first international break. Players are just starting to get into the flow of the game due to an abbreviated preseason thanks to the World Cup, and then they’re off to play two qualifying games for a tournament nearly 2 years away. And loathe as I am to complain about a favorable group, England’s two games are against Andorra and Macedonia. Someone explain to me how is this good for the game.

I got into European soccer through the international teams. During my formative years as a fan, club football was pretty much unavailable in the States, and the USA was still nowhere near the world powerhouse they are today (ha ha ha). England in Italia ‘90 is my first real memory of European soccer, and the World Cup tournaments in 1990, 94, and 98 cemented my love of the game. Michael Owen’s goal against Argentina in 1998 is the reason I started following Liverpool. But after years of delving deeper and deeper into Liverpool and the EPL, international breaks are ostensibly a waste of time, and the World Cup is a fun diversion during the close-season. Now, I just hope all of Liverpool’s players come back to Anfield without any injuries, and I believe most Liverpool fans feel the same way. Although scousers never have had a strong fondness for the national team.

England’s game against Andorra would be full of positives, if the game wasn’t against Andorra. It’s far too early to tell, but maybe I was wrong to believe that McClaren was a continuation of the failed SGE regime, and the FA would have been better hiring Scolari, Martin O’Neill, Guus Hiddink, or Mojo the monkey (pray for Mojo...). But McClaren appears to know what “tactics” are. He has also been unafraid to make the tough decisions, whether it’s pushing Beckham out the back door or moving Gerrard to the right to fit both him and Lampard in the midfield. After watching Fat Frank struggle through the World Cup, I was sure his pairing with Gerrard would never work, and was heavily lobbying for a midfield of Lennon-Gerrard-Hargreaves-Cole. But maybe McClaren knows something Sven didn’t. Actually, I hope there’s a lot of things McClaren knows that Sven doesn’t.

The new youth policy also puts Sven to shame. Erikkson’s youth policy was summed up by the aberration that was Theo Walcott’s inclusion in the World Cup squad. Not only did Walcott not play a single minute, but England was short of strikers throughout the tournament. But hey, according to SGE, he’s got experience now. I would like to see him get his experience at Arsenal first, but that’s just me. McClaren, on the other hand, has brought Jermain Defoe back into the fold, and he’s scoring braces against Andorra when he can’t get a sight of goal at club level. Aaron Lennon, Dean Ashton, Shawn Wright-Phillips, Andy Johnson, Darren Bent, Stewart Downing, Michael Dawson, and Luke Young all look to be getting more time under McClaren than they did under Sven.

As it relates to Liverpool, I really can’t complain about McClaren’s reign so far. The aforementioned switch of Gerrard to the right flank will allow him to do so much more for the national squad than he was allowed under SGE, it can only help him continue his development. I’m also actually pleased Terry was named captain and not Gerrard; obviously I believe that Stevie’s main focus should be on Liverpool. Michael Owen’s apparent obsession with the national team always contributed to scousers keeping him at arm’s length. That, and he turned out to be a taffy midget judas liar.

It’s also lovely that Crouchy has continued to score. I firmly believe he was one of the key pieces for Liverpool’s reemergence with his holdup play, and the additional confidence from not only scoring regularly at the international level, but bringing English fans around to his side will do him wonders. Which will be needed, as his place at Liverpool is severely tested with the arrival of Dirk Kuyt.

The international game is fantastic for raising the profile of soccer worldwide, but it doesn’t compare with the rivalries, intensity, and style of play of club soccer. More and more, club soccer is pitted against international soccer. Clubs are reticent to release players out of fear of injury. Compensation cases on behalf of the G-14 are making their way through the European court system. There are even arguments over whether or not a player is allowed to retire; Domenech's insistence on calling up Claude Makalele to the French squad for these qualifiers is a glaring example of this discord. International organizations are in direct competition with the clubs. Frankly, it seems England's international squad is slowly turning into America’s international basketball program. Both teams have some of the best players in the world and the strongest lineups on paper, but due to the emphasis on club sides, the cult of celebrity that follows the team everywhere, and the inflated expectations, both teams fail to deliver. And increasingly, I fear that the international game is becoming less relevant to the fans. And FIFA, UEFA, and the other relevant organizations are doing nothing to help the matter.

I really do blame Sepp Blatter. September 9th cannot come fast enough.