Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: moro
Date: 01-11-2007, 13:59

http://www.prosport.ro/articole/atac-la-legea-bosman/64924

The article is in romanian, dont know what source they had, but it says that Uefa and Fifa asked the help to UE and got it: football got a particular statut, and from 2009 it'll be maximum five strangers/team in the field (incl. european players). Exception from the rule: juniors raised in the club - if they stay there as seniors, they'll can play.
I'll try to check other sources, french.

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: moro Date: 01-11-2007, 14:12	http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/605298.pdf ... so it's true. It's something special about sports in the new EU-treaty recently signed.

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: Malko Date: 01-11-2007, 15:13	I am afraid that this will just make, that the good domestic players will leave their country meven much earlier, du be such a "junior"-Player in Italy, spain or England.

Author: jpcccc
Date: 01-11-2007, 16:30

The devil is in the details.

Ok, there's something special about sport but there's still the rule of freedom to work anywhere inside EU.

So, the specific details must comply with both.

Maybe teams can sign in whoever they want and pay them, they just can't put all of them playing at the same time (max. according to FIFA rules, probably 5) BUT they also have to assure that any player plays a minimum number of games, so that his career is not affected and no 'Bosman' can say it goes against its freedom to work anywhere.

I suspect the future will bring smaller number of players per team and/or more matchdays or new competitions to keep all those people playing. Along with big contracts with promising junior players.

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: amirbachar Date: 01-11-2007, 16:31	that means that in the leagues and the european competitions there going to be at least 6 players from the country of the team on the field at any given time? If so, some teams will have to make a huge change in their squad!

Author: moro
Date: 01-11-2007, 17:31

Again, I dont know what source they had, but the title of the article is: "Decision: ..."
It'r written between the lines that players will have a special status, so the laws about working in UE will not be applied. That's how I interprete it.
Funny thing, "L'equipe" dont say a word, and our english friends are still searching in their papers for a trace.
I'm sure for english clubs this will be the equivalent of gaz over fire (the fire was the Winner's cup spot in CL instead of fourth of the league).

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: Cirdan Date: 01-11-2007, 18:55	afaik it is an aim of the FIFA to get a special status for footballers, so the FIFA can limit the number of foreigners in a club team. However I am pretty sure that this still needs the approval of the EU, and I kind of doubt that they will get it.

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: moro Date: 01-11-2007, 19:36	It's already done, Cirdan! Read the Uefa media-article from 20 or 19 october, I've put the link on another post. It's in the new EU-"constitution" already signed by chiefs of states.

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: badgerboy Date: 01-11-2007, 21:42	Moro What on earth are you talking about? The UEFA.com article you refer to says absolutely nothing about quotas. It's very "unspecific" about what "specificity of sport" means. It seems to me that the article on the Romanian site must be written by someone who takes Mr Blatter too seriously. Look at what Michel Platini said about player quotas on 12 October. It just isn't happening!

Author: moro
Date: 01-11-2007, 22:35

What's your problem badgerboy, beeing scared that top-english clubs will lose some of the 75% foreign-quality?
Why dont you read my phrases with attention?
The romanian paper title is: DECISION: it'll be 5 foreigners from 2009. And I said I dont know their source, wich means we should watch it carefully.
Then I said that new UE trait (dont know to spell it) was signed on october 19, seven days after Platini's words you put here. And in Uefa's paper from 20 october, the federation thanks to UE for giving sports a special statut. That's what I was talking about when I said "it's already done" - not about the "5 foreigners law". Wich is, in my opinion, a great project. Even if this would be the point of a massive integration (nationalisation) of players, but at least they'll stay in one country, they'll respect terms of contracts, etc etc.

Author: Cirdan
Date: 01-11-2007, 22:55
Edited by: Cirdan
at: 01-11-2007, 22:56

The UEFA article states a special status of sports and sporting issues. Blatter wants professional players to be recognized as something special, for whom the usual labour rights don't apply, so the FIFA can limit the number of foreign players. That's not exactly the same. While I would agree that this might get hopes up a bit for a limit of foreigners, I still don't think it is coming.

And I just don't think that only one single paper would publish a decision of that magnitude, and I haven't seen this news anywhere else so far.

And btw, as far as I know, your beloved Cluj would be hurt just as much as any English club

Author: moro
Date: 01-11-2007, 23:31

1. I told you, it's not my beloved team, it's a personal problem I have with other forum-users. It never happened to you never to predict something that had nothing to do with your feelings, only with your brain, then a group of blind-people laughed at you? That's my story, now I want Cluj to win, and I admit I think it could be the best team we've ever sent in Europe in last 15 years.

2. Dont worry, there will be players naturalised. Diddy already said he would like to play for Romania...

3. It's the second time on this forum we talk about "foreigners limit". First time was after Blatter's declaration about this, as a result Badgerboy had another article published...

and many of you laughed about this proposal also.

It seems to me that the sense of humour here is overstimulated, but I have kind of a feeling that the end of the history will be tragic. Two examples: CFR winning the title and England losing points in the coefficient ranking, points to be divided by Romania, Serbia and Russia.
You know the romanian phrase "the one laughing at last, laughes better". I'm patient.

Author: Pedro
Date: 02-11-2007, 06:07

Quotas are stupid, just like the politicians who make them. Clubs are not national teams. Soon we will see more players from Brazil and Argentina asking for portuguese, spanish and italian citizenship, because they have ancestors from these countries and african players also asking for citizenship because of their ancestors in portuguese, french, english and belgium colonial times. In the end everything will remain the same. KEEP FOOTBALL FREE OF STUPID LAWS!!!!

Author: badgerboy
Date: 02-11-2007, 11:54

Ah I see Moro - this is just you enjoying "winding people up" again.

And I fell for it hook line & sinker. Now I know how so many of my Romanian friends feel...

If the law was irrelevant then I agree quotas aren't a bad idea - but in the squad rather than on the pitch. So maybe of the 25 (maximum in the first team squad) at least 8 or 10 have to be the nationality of the club. But the law isn't irrelevant so...

UEFA has to go instead with "home-grown" which can be any nationality but must be trained within the association. A lot of people (possibly Romanian journalists too?) confuse this "home-grown" and think it refers to nationality. This year 6 of the 25 players in the CL squad must be "home-grown". Next year the number increases to 8. Half of the number must be trained by the actual club.

This year half of the clubs in the Champions League named less than 25 "A" List players. But only one failed to make up the number to at least 25 with "B"-listers - players born after 01/09/86 and with the club for at least two years. Of course these "B"-Listers are mostly youths & reserves - unlikely to get a game except in a crisis or in the event of early qualification. Though that's not always the case. Cesc Fabregas is on Arsenal's B-list!

Want to guess the one club that names less than 25 players in their overall squad? I'll give you a clue. It's the one with the biggest percentage of "players of own nationality" in their squad too. They just don't train any (or at least many?) of them themselves...

Author: moro
Date: 02-11-2007, 12:40

You're wrong, I'm not making jokes, just find the article and share it with you (sorry now). Then there were some miss-interpretations and deserved answers because we're not at the church and we're allowed to show some teeth from time to time.
My english is not good enough to translate the "hook and..." expression, but I'm sure is something sweet.

On subject - I'm sure it's not just talking in the wind, as you (we) thought after Blatter's interview few weeks ago. Guess that ProSport has journalists friends with M. Sandu, federation-chief, member of the Uefa board - I dont see them writing stupid things without at least an Ace in the hand.

Author: eldaec
Date: 07-11-2007, 11:43

While this would never have got off the ground because anyone with an ounce of sense realises that footballers from smaller european countries playing in bigger european leagues would have been down to the ECJ quick smart to sue for infringement of their right to work under the human rights legislation, EVEN IF the employment legislation was changed....

The European Commission has now piped up and quite rightly pointed out that in employment terms a european is a european is a european. If anyone starts discriminating against particular types of european whether by officially sanctioned rule, or by a nod and a wink as Man U suggested earlier this week, then the commission would wade in to protect the rights of footballers from smaller european countries.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 07-11-2007, 12:44
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 07-11-2007, 12:45

A good article on goal.com explaining why "nationality quotas" wont wash but mentioning a possible expansion of the "home-grown" alternative.

Of course to make this "entirely legal" that rule - or the transfer regulations - really need to be changed slightly.

At the moment to qualify under UEFA rules a player has to have played for a club (or within the same national association) for three seasons between ages 15 & 21. But players can't transfer (even within the EU) until they are 16. Thus "national players" have a one season advantage. Not much - but to save possible problems UEFA should really change their own criteria to three seasons between 16 & 21.

Lowering the age further - as the article suggests is being considered - would presumably involve abolishing transfer restrictions all together unless rules like the English FA's: "must live within 1 1/2 hours of the club" could be considered as "non-nationality specific".

I'm also not absolutely sure about the UEFA "home-grown" quota rules as they relate to 16 & 17 year-olds from countries with EU Association Agreements either. The EU already ruled that these players have to be "treated like nationals" once employed in the community so - given that international transfers are illegal until age 18 - I would suggest more "discrimination".

Easy solution here though would be to drop the transfer age universally to 16 but have national legislation (i.e. working visa regulations) that make sure only "the very best" players get visas at such a young age. That would/should already be the case in the UK.

Author: eldaec
Date: 07-11-2007, 15:36

The 90 minute rule for kids in England is only legal for British children.

National governments are free to allow discrimination against groups of their own nationals, but not against other Europeans.

Scottish Universities are an oft-quoted example. The British government gives free university places to Scottish kids at Scottish universities, and as a result has to allow non-British EU citizens in for free as well; however, children from other parts of Britain who attend in Scotland pay fees.

Similarly, an FA academy in the North West of England can discriminate against young players from Aberdeen or Exeter, but not against those from Seville or Stockholm.

(As far as I'm aware this hasn't been tested in court - though the scottish universities thing has, and there is no obvious difference)

Author: moro
Date: 07-11-2007, 16:25
Edited by: moro
at: 07-11-2007, 16:27

http://www.prosport.ro/articole/wenger-e-ridicol-sa-reducem-numarul-de-stranier
i/65827

In fact it's taken from Daily Express.

Article in romanian - it's an interview with A. Wenger, who says that there are 50% chances for the "max 5 strangers" rule to be applied. He says he had talks with Uefa and Fifa, that Fifa has enough power to introduce it.
He also says the rumle is ridiculous, but I find rather ridiculous his explanation, well, at least what the paper said: "they want to protect national teams with that rule (why???), but it's gonna have the opposite effect, because you cant win the World Cup with mediocre players, only with world-class players". Now I must say, either the journalist, or M. Wenger, were drunk.

However, it's nice to see someone saying 50%. A decent percentage for my hopes.
It's comiiiiiiing!

Author: badgerboy
Date: 07-11-2007, 16:39

Actually I think Wenger makes quite a lot of sense on this issue.

What is better for the English national team?

Clubs are forced to play 5 "national players" regardless of how good they are. So these players don't have to work as hard as they do now to make teams "on merit". Some players might get to play more & one or two might become better players because of it but it's just as likely that "mediocrity" will be allowed to rule.

Or - the very best youngsters get to play with & against - and hence learn from - the very best youngsters from around Europe?

I know which I think is better.

Of course it's definitely true that some of England's best young players don't get as much playing time as they should. But would any quota system help this & hence help the national team?

Personally I just see teams like Chelsea & Manchester United buying even more top young English players than they do now - for far more money - and still not playing them much. Because if it was "compulsory" for them to play 5 English players they would probably need at least 10 to cover for injuries. An "idealist" would hope this would mean more chances for "junior players" but for the richest clubs that "have to win" I doubt it.

Author: moro
Date: 07-11-2007, 17:12
Edited by: moro
at: 07-11-2007, 17:12

It has nothing to do with NT, if they say so, it's just to justify some actions.
Why not? Because the NT play 10 games/year, while club-teams 50/year and 1.000/year/country. In the NT are involved 25 players/year, 15 to play, 10 to serve, while in club-teams 500 players/country/year.
I think it has something to do with the national integrity, with limitation of money-flows and inflation, and some cure for fat-cats (heart-risk). And every aspect I check, I see only advantages for the majority of people loving this sport in Europe.
If you, Wenger or anybody else think the rule could affect NT performances - just check the results: England before/after Bosman law, Romania, Italy, France. Easy.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 07-11-2007, 18:08
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 07-11-2007, 18:10

Sorry Moro but one of the main reasons some people advocate "nationality rules" is to "protect the national team".

Obviously the idea is that - if clubs like Arsenal are "forced" to play a certain number of English players then that means more players playing at "the highest level" and therefore more "quality players" for the national coach to choose from.

I would probably agree with Arsene Wenger that their "logic" is flawed in this regard.

Is the England national team better or worse since Bosman? Not obviously one or the other I would say. We missed two World Cups in the 1970s pre-Bosman and 1994 - again pre-Bosman. And except possibly in 1990 we weren't any better at the Final tournaments than we have been since.

I think there are many other factors that affect not just "how good the players actually are" but how often they show this when wearing an England shirt. Are the likes of Frank Lampard & Steven Gerrard better players because of the increased quality & diversity of their teammates? Will Wayne Rooney be a better player because he's playing alongside the likes of Ronaldo & Tevez? Probably yes to both.

Will that make any difference to the England national team? Well evidence so far would suggest not. But as I said there are many other factors: too much football & the increasing prestige of club football over international football being high on the list.

Back to the club game. Which seems more "impressive" to you? Having a club full of "national players" none of whom you developed yourself - you were just able to pay the highest price for them when they reached 22 or 23. Or having a club with lots of "foreign players" but these players were all bought by the club when they were still in their teens - and hence still needed quite a bit of development?

I would say the latter.

Author: moro
Date: 07-11-2007, 18:21

Neither one. (is this in english?)
But I think you're wrong about teenagers. How many of them get to the PL? 1%? 2%?
Clubs wont buy 50 players in order to use one or two six years after.
They'll just have to deal with what they have, but dont forget, 50% of strangers is largely enough to stay in top...
And I consider Wenger's words an insult to "normal" football-countries (I admit I like him a lot, but not on this one) - as he cant imagine for example that players from Boca Juniors will increase value playing aside of Tevez and Crespo, or assuming those two will play worse in Argentina.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 07-11-2007, 18:55

The quota rule has nothing to do with the NT issues. Exporting players certainly doesn't hurt the National Team. Your players get an additional experience in the big leagues that is critical in the biggest competitions. This might be an issue for countries importing players, but I don't think that this quota rule was requested by England.

I believe that this is the opposite. The quota rule is designed to protect domestic clubs. If you limit transactions of players, then the richest clubs will concentrate on the very best players and mid-ranked clubs will still be able to keep their group of players. They moght lose the star of the team, but not half of the team.

There have been some critics that some clubs buy players, not because they really need them but because they want to prevent the other clubs to get them (e.g. as far as I know, Chelsea / Wright-Phillips).
If this really is the situation, then football would be in danger.

Re: Breaking news: max. 5 stranieri from 2009
Author: eldaec Date: 07-11-2007, 19:36	Quota systems certainly would be good for the big country's international sides. They would be better off because the system would strangle the smaller nations' international sides (as their players wouldn't be able to get into the best leagues). Obviously it would also reduce the quality of the large nations' international sides, but it would hit the smaller countries much more.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 07-11-2007, 20:38

"They'll just have to deal with what they have, but dont forget, 50% of strangers is largely enough to stay in top..."

But the richest clubs wont have to "deal with what they have". They will just wait until other clubs develop the best "national players" and then buy them. Just the same as happens now but to an even greater extent.

"And I consider Wenger's words an insult to "normal" football-countries (I admit I like him a lot, but not on this one) - as he cant imagine for example that players from Boca Juniors will increase value playing aside of Tevez and Crespo, or assuming those two will play worse in Argentina".

I think you're misunderstanding Wenger here. To me he's simply putting his case from the perspective of a football club manager in England answering critics that say that Arsenal's lack of English players is "bad for the national team". Context is necessary.

Of course from the perspective of football fans in Argentina & Brazil especially - but also France, Holland, Portugal as prime European examples - it would be much better if more of their own "national players" stayed in their domestic leagues.

But the quota system wont stop their very best players moving abroad. I doubt it will stop very many of their "very good" players moving either. It certainly wont stop (indeed will encourage) the two or three biggest clubs in each league to "horde" the best available national talent that is left available to them once "richer leagues" have met their requirements.

On this subject actually I'd be interested to know what "rules" there are with regard to youth players (Under-16 & Under-18) in countries like France, Holland & Portugal.

In England there are "geographical limits" - theoretically at least -on the purchase of players U16. But is that also the case in other countries or are they able to pick-up the "cream of the national crop" much earlier?

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 09-11-2007, 12:31

No geographical limits in France. I'm not fully aware of all the rules but basically it works that way.

1 - the most obvious way to go to the academy is to sign very early in the club. For example, Benzema comes from the suburbs of Lyon, and started playing for his local club. At the age of 8, his club met OL and they won 2-1 (2 goals from Benzema), which is extremelery rare at that level(when I was a kid, and when we met OL, the score was always between 12-0 and 17-0 ... for them

); Benzema signed to OL just after that game.

2 - the second way - the most common - is to attract promising player in your own academy at the age of 15; All clubs developped a very dense network all over the country to identify all players able to join the academy and there is a fierce competition between them to attract the best players (with more and more money involved I have to say - gifts to the player and his family, etc.).
Ben Arfa for exemple (who's 20 now) was the first kid where a club (Lyon) had to pay to get him. He had very quickly identified as a promising star, he joined as a kid the INF (which is the national academy run by the Federation and the most prestigious for what they call the "pre-education" for kids between 10-15) and basically all clubs wanted him.
Otherwise, all clubs focus both locally and in the Paris area (largest area). But it doesn't always work. Abidal is born and was raised in Lyon, but OL missed him (he went to Monaco). This happens pretty often I have to say.

3 - once the player enters the academy at the age of 14-15, he becomes "stagiaire" (trainee) then "aspirant" (don't know how to translate but this is the last step before becoming professional). There is a rule, just applicable in France unfortunately, that once the player enters into an academy, he's obliged to sign his first professional contract in this club ... if he's proposed to sign a contract of course (for 10 kids going to the academy, one 1 will become professional). So, there is like a "non-competition rule" between clubs as long as a player entered the academy.

Unfortunately, this rule is not applicable in Europe and that's the reason why some English clubs (sometimes Italian clubs) are able to steal our youngsters. Damien Plessis for example was a junior in the Lyon academy, he is the striker of France U18, but Liverpool could get him for nothing as Plessis was not considered as a professional player. So, clubs tend to make their players sign contracts earlier to be able to keep them.

At the end, compared to England,
- no geographical rule
- but non-competition rule between French clubs so that training clubs are sure to get at least the first contract (limited to 4 years I believe). This rule however is not applicable for non-French countries.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 09-11-2007, 13:53
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 09-11-2007, 14:01

Thanks Lyonnais.

Actually the French system is very similar to the English one except the ages are slightly different.

England also has similar "rules" (if I understand them correctly) about young players - but they don't seem to be enforced that strongly. Maybe they're not enforceable. I don't know?

The FA rules as they appear to be relevant:

"Players on or after their 14th birthday may be offered a scholarship to commence no earlier than the last Friday in June in the academic year in which they will reach the age of 16 provided they are not receiving fulltime education"

Presumably for players from outside the UK (and indeed outside the "geographical limits" of the club) this offer can't be made (at least officially) until the player is 16.

"On or after a Player on a Scholarship's 17th birthday, the player may remain on a Scholarship or may sign as a Player under written contract subject to the regulations of the league... of which the club is a member"

Elsewhere it says that noone under 17 & noone in full-time education under 18 can sign a professional contract.

"Neither a Club nor any person shall induce or attempt to induce such a Player on a Scholarship to leave the Club for which the player is registered".

I guess that's what we call "tapping up" and seems to happen often.

"If a Player on a Scholarship wishes to become a Player under written contract, the Club for which the player was registered on a Scholarship shall be entitled to the registration of such Player as a Player under written contract. If the Club does not wish to exercise its entitlement the Player shall be free to register for any other Club".

In addition the FA rules specific to "The Football Association Programme for Excellence" (covering Academies & Centres of Excellence) say:

"After the player's fourteenth birthday, the club may offer the player a Scholarship for the Academy from 16-19 years with a two-year option until 21 years of age, held by the club. Such offers to be mutually respected by all participating clubs and incorporated into FA Premier League and Football League rules. Any time after a player's 17th birthday, a player may sign a professional contract but is required to continue the required educational and technical programmes until the end of the season of his 21st birthday".

Given how easy it is for Premier League clubs to sign up the best young players (From English clubs not just foreign ones) at 16 or 17 these rules obviously aren't strictly adhered to.

But then I must admit that when I put all the rules together (and I might be missing or misinterpreting something) the idea that a kid of 14 might be offered a "scholarship contract" that basically ties them to a particular club - which might not be a very good one if it has to be within 1 1/2 hours of home - until they are 21, wouldn't seem right either.

I guess in reality these very authoritarian sounding rules just mean that for any player who does move the club he leaves is entitled to some kind of "compensation" from the club he moves to. Which is more than reasonable.

Author: eldaec
Date: 09-11-2007, 19:59

"" Of course from the perspective of football fans in Argentina & Brazil especially - but also France, Holland, Portugal as prime European examples - it would be much better if more of their own "national players" stayed in their domestic leagues. ""

If you mean, 'at least the local fans would get to watch them', then yes, I agree.

But this has to weighed against the fact that they wouldn't be the players they are today if they couldn't play abroad, and the national sides would be weaker as a result.

Further, it is unambiguously bad for the players themselves. Which is what drives the current legal arrangements.