Quota’s Likely To Find Support In England

The plans for Sepp Blatter to impose a quota system on football have long been derided. Indeed, there was some cause for opponents of such a scheme to celebrate when an EU spokesman stopped long enough to wipe the gravy from his mouth to espouse that any system that prevented the free movement of labour was contrary to the principles of a common market and against European law.

Which means absolutely nothing whatsoever in the great scheme of things. European football politics and those at a governmental level are built of a tradition of horse-trading. On this subject, there is much to be done. The first point of contact for Blatter as far as English football is concerned will be his meetings with Richard Scudamore and Lord Trieseman. Having being voluble in their opposition to such plans, both men have much to gain by turning into Blatter’s most vociferous supporters.

The Premier League clubs may not have been surprised by the opposition to their ludicrous proposal for a thirty-ninth game. Blatter treated the idea as if it were worse than stepping in a pile of dogs you-know-what when the plans accidentally on purpose became public knowledge. Yet the league which has much to lose by capping the number of foreign players has more to gain financially through acceptance of their idea to play matches on foreign soil. Similarly, the Football Association want his blessing for their 2018 World Cup bid; what better way to achieve that aim by becoming an ardent supporter of a quota system?

Whilst the quota system is designed to protect national sides, it is a questionable methodology to apply to achieving that aim. Simply increasing the number players indigenous to these shores does not guarantee a successful England team. Indeed allowing sub-standard players to rise to the top could be a short term folly – even a long term one. The logic applied by the Governing Body appears to be that quality will show through in greater numbers if they have more spaces to fill in each team on the pitch. It is illogical to assume that this holds true for there is no evidence of such a convergence taking place. Simply increasing vacancies means that more ‘average-ness’ surfaces, certainly in the short term.

The clubs are trying to develop more local talent; they make no bones about this. However, if it is not there in the indigenous population, it is not there; it cannot be developed out of nothing or magically appear from thin air. On this aspect, Blatter cares not one jot. He wants to protect the national games. Yet he misjudges the detrimental effect that his plans will have worldwide.

There is no condescension intended in the following but the national teams of Africa have benefited from their players plying their trades in the French, Spanish, Italian and English leagues. It has opened up these individuals to a world of improved technique and different tactical ideas, benefiting the national sides. Those players possessed ability and technique in abundance beforehand; pastures new improve any player of any standing or nationality, foreign lands ensure education on a personal and professional level.

Yet Blatter seeks to shut doors to a large number of these individuals. If a club has to field a minimum of six ‘indigenous’ players, the opportunities for players to move abroad diminishes. In turn, the national teams reach a plateau far quicker than they might otherwise have done through lack of exposure to higher professional levels. It seems that Blatter has not made this element of his plans as vocally as the ‘protecting your interests’ angle.

Simply put, the big clubs will benefit from this plan more than the average. They will become more ‘choosy’ about individuals whom they train in their Academy; the best will be enticed to the top clubs, the average will find their choice of clubs wider but to whose benefit? And what of UEFA’s quaint classification for youngsters poached from abroad? Presumably this ruling will still be allowed by Blatter – he has yet to put the detail behind his sweeping plans – and it begs the question, exactly what changes? Perhaps a shift towards more dominance by the financially strong leagues? Already there, Sepp old bean. Indeed, with the lax nationality rules applied by European nations, there is a strong suspicion that Blatter could make the situation worse.

It is an ill-conceived plan, where the vested interests of a ruling body are acting against the interests of the game as a whole.

EPL May Just Have Killed Off Loan Deals

In the jet stream of the recent furore surrounding the proposed thirty-ninth game, the English Premier League may well have set in motion a train of events more harmful to the game than any money can inflict.

The same Board meeting that proposed the ill-conceived additional game to be added to the domestic season, it was accepted that seven substitutes will be allowed on the bench with effect from the 2008-09 season. On the face of it, the proposal allows more flexibility for managers to utilise the strengths within their squads. The scope for tactical switches is widened with the potential for each bench to be filled with two defenders, midfielders and attackers. The variety available allows the managers to react more aggressively to the situations that each match poses.

From the players’ point of view, it enhances the likelihood of them participating in more matches. A fundamental reason for seeking a transfer at any point has always been the lack of opportunities; additional places on the bench suggest that more playing time may ensue.

There is a downside to this that has yet to be fully considered, the implications of which are seriously harmful for the lower division clubs. Recovering slowly from the ashes of the ITV Digital debacle, the clubs have been less active in the permanent transfer market; the volume of money transacting may be increasing but the number of players moving for fees is decreasing. To compensate for this, Football League clubs have been utilising the loan system with more frequency than before. Increasing the number of substitutes reduces the number of players available for loan by a minimum of two per Premier League club, forty less players to be precise.

By having more bench space available, the Premier League clubs have to draw on their existing resources even more. This means that they have ensure that the cover available within their squads increases in addition to the two extra spaces on the bench. With more and more wear and tear injuries being suffered, managers who are already under pressure to achieve more than before with limited resources, will be reluctant to allow players to move on loan with as much frequency as is currently enjoyed.

Take Arsenal as an example. In the January window, two players, Mark Randall and Kieran Gibbs moved to Burnley and Norwich City on loan. Around the same time, the squad found itself depleted by injuries and international duty. Unquestionably, Arsene Wenger would not have sent the two players on loan had the requirement for seven players on the bench been in place; quite simply there were times when he did not have that number of players to choose from.

The players lose out as much as the clubs. Youngsters such as Randall and Gibbs only hope of first team football would be in dire emergency or the Carling Cup. It is not a total football education that Wenger wants them to have or the one that they are getting by gaining experience on loan at lower division clubs. The standard of play may be lower but in understanding the rigours of regular first team action, loan spells are invaluable.

Expecting the Premier League Board to understand the negative impact they will have is beyond hope, as is expecting them to care.

Apologies

The blog has been on a bit of a break these past weeks but that will be rectified, starting tomorrow when it will be back for a wider football discussion