European clubs confirmed their opposition to Sepp Blatter’s Quota Plans earlier this month, a hardly surprising result since had they supported them, it would have been the footballing equivalent of Turkey’s voting for Christmas. Does this mean that the ideas are without merit or is it simply a case of the vested interests of the club overriding their concern for the game as a whole?

Without doubt it is the former yet despite the derision of the media, fed by the clubs, there is some point to the idea behind quotas, albeit the methodology of achieving those aims is awry. Blatter’s intention is to create a strong international game; arguably, he already has it. However, there are exceptions to this rule and one of them in particular, England, is also the richest league in the world.

To have the English fail to qualify for Euro2008 was neither good for the game as a whole nor was it bad. One nation’s travesty is a benefit for another; Russia served notice that under Guus Hiddink’s leadership that they are not to be taken lightly, providing a delightful aspect to the competition. That they were eventually undone by the uncrowned Champions is no shame. They had recovered from a thrashing in their first match to reach the semi-finals, dismantling one of the tournament favourites en route.

That the English failure to qualify forced the Football Association to bring into existence a National Training Centre, situated in Burton-on-Trent, is further benefit to the game as a whole. It is shameful that they had not done so sooner. Any initiative that brings a standardisation to coaching for the elite of the game of any age should be applauded.

However, the idea of quotas is an anathema to any European governement which is a member of the European Union. To the bureaucrats of Brussels, everything is about levelling playing fields without barriers to its citizens. The only way for football to address the imbalance at a national level is to ensure that there is sufficient technical quality amongst natives.

One example of this is John Bostock. Aged sixteen, Crystal Palace valued him at £5m. It is ludicrous to believe that his true worth was anywhere near that yet Simon Jordan, The Eagles owner, used emotive language in describing the players valuation at £1.25m by a tribunal. Jordan has a vested interest, a desire to do the best for his club yet he epitomises all that is wrong in the transfer system. Had the deal not been struck by the tribunal, another player would have been lost to the lower divisions through the excesses of money that are believed to permeate the upper echelons of the English game.

There is merit in the argument that Bostock would have been better served by playing regularly for Palace but that is based on the assumption that he will be dumped into Spurs reserves. Perhaps he will be used in the same manner that Theo Walcott is at Arsenal, benefitting from a mix of substitute and starting appearances at Arsenal.

Whatever the case, transfer fees have to be regulated; this is the biggest cause of consternation at larger clubs. Some sense needs to come into the system otherwise indigenous talent is lost through greed. Yet protection of the lower league clubs is also needed, a balance must be struck. Simon Jordan observed that there is little incentive for clubs such as his own to nurture talent if they are not going to be suitably rewarded. As a businessman, he will recognise the paucity of his argument. If football clubs only survive because of transfer fees, something fundamental is wrong with their financial model.

Seeking talent is to be eulogised yet seeking reward as their only solace through this opportunity is folly. Finding a talented youngster is the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; many average players must pass through the doors for the ‘chosen ones’ to be found. If a club’s future is dependent upon this result, something is rotten in the state of Denmark and owners must look to their own weaknesses for a longer term solution.