Football League to introduce

A homegrown rule from next season. It has just been announced on sky sports but no further details yet. Should make it interesting for FM2010 .

"Four players in a 16-man matchday squad must have been registered domestically for at least three years before they turn 21."

It's downhill from here, in my opinion. Nationalist and frankly borderline racist policies are not needed for us to see that our national team is still crap. Any player worthy of the England team still gets through, so the purpose of any policies like this is beyond me.

If 6+5 gets implemented like the mad UEFA power-crazed racists want, and as I fear, I sense a crisis, particularly a financial one, from which English football and the Premier League will never recover.

So we are saying now that we don't really have any good english players because we have to rely on foreign players. Its about time we had more homegrown players in the squad and will certainly sort out some teams in the football league.

Remenber that this does not apply to the Premier League

"Four players in a 16-man matchday squad must have been registered domestically for at least three years before they turn 21."

It's downhill from here, in my opinion. Nationalist and frankly borderline racist policies are not needed for us to see that our national team is still crap. Any player worthy of the England team still gets through, so the purpose of any policies like this is beyond me.

If 6+5 gets implemented like the mad UEFA power-crazed racists want, and as I fear, I sense a crisis, particularly a financial one, from which English football and the Premier League will never recover.

In the Belgium leauge its mandatory to have a few Homegrown and youngsters in the team. I have tried to find this rule back in the Belgium FA statutory, but I couldnt find it. Saying this a few years ago Beveren played with 10! Ivory Coast players in the first team, didnt really do it for them in the end.

But to call the 6-5 rule Racist, well, that's a bit too much for me. The lesser counties might benefit from this and in the end make the European Cup competitions a bit more fun to watch. The way its going on now, dunno, but I really think that its killing the game.

"Four players in a 16-man matchday squad must have been registered domestically for at least three years before they turn 21."

It's downhill from here, in my opinion. Nationalist and frankly borderline racist policies are not needed for us to see that our national team is still crap. Any player worthy of the England team still gets through, so the purpose of any policies like this is beyond me.

If 6+5 gets implemented like the mad UEFA power-crazed racists want, and as I fear, I sense a crisis, particularly a financial one, from which English football and the Premier League will never recover.

I'm struggling to see how this is racist? :confused:

It's a pointless rule. There isn't a team in the FL that I can think of that doesn't already adhere to these rules. Basically, 4 players must have been at a "domestic" (UK? England? Wales for Swansea and Cardiff?) side since they were 18.... basically every homegrown player fits into this catagory.

It's a pointless rule. There isn't a team in the FL that I can think of that doesn't already adhere to these rules. Basically, 4 players must have been at a "domestic" (UK? England? Wales for Swansea and Cardiff?) side since they were 18.... basically every homegrown player fits into this catagory.

While I don't think the idea is bad in principle, I have to agree with you tbh. Fairly pointless, as I don't see teams choca-block full of foreign players anyway.

So we are saying now that we don't really have any good english players because we have to rely on foreign players. Its about time we had more homegrown players in the squad and will certainly sort out some teams in the football league.

Remenber that this does not apply to the Premier League

Any good English players get through the system, particularly because of the advantages they have in their home country. Foreign players merely fill the gaps where the English players aren't good enough. All this will do is reduce the standard of football in the League.

English football, particularly the younger players, has a certain mentality that just doesn't work on the pitch. Can see it often in the national team, and more often in clubs with a larger English presence (eg Spurs) where they seems to be a lack of drive and motivation and composure except in exceptional circumstances. The grass roots coaching needs to be addressed for a good 10 years before such policies are introduced, in my opinion. Too many young players have poor attitudes, with poor work rate and overly aggressive nature because of the lack of nuturing to create more cultured and effective players. I could rant on much longer, but I won't because I have a headache.. :o

I'm struggling to see how this is racist? :confused:

Having to choose someone for employment based on where they come from is racial discrimination..

Having to choose someone for employment based on where they come from is racial discrimination..

The rule hardly has anything to do about their employment. The PL used to have a max of 3 non-EU players (anyone remember?!)...

Having to choose someone for employment based on where they come from is racial discrimination..

A nationality isn't a race. This has been discussed in the courts. But at the risk of getting into semantics with you, why stop at racism/xenophobia. Isn't the whole of football sexist for not allowing women to play? You try not allowing women to do a certain job in the real world and look how far you get.

Plus, where does it say anything about employment. You can employ as many people from Swahili to Brazil to Estonia to China for all the Football League cares. You can only play a certain number on a match day, but what has this got to do with employment?

The rule hardly has anything to do about their employment. The PL used to have a max of 3 non-EU players (anyone remember?!)...

It is though. It's the same as saying to a building firm 'I know the Polish people might be better at their job and work for less, but you're going to have to replace 3 of them with these talentless school dropouts because they're English and thus more important'

Having to choose someone for employment based on where they come from is racial discrimination..

It is the same with every business though, you have to prove that the job can't be filled by someone from the UK before you offer it to somebody abroad. I can't see how this is racist especially if the rest of Europe implement the same rule. I can't see this making a blind bit of difference anyway as most football league teams have more than 4 home grown players every week.

I'm playing a Shakhtar game and the 6+5 rule is incredibly frustrating, given the poor quality of Ukrainian nationals.

A nationality isn't a race. This has been discussed in the courts. But at the risk of getting into semantics with you, why stop at racism/xenophobia. Isn't the whole of football sexist for not allowing women to play? You try not allowing women to do a certain job in the real world and look how far you get.

Plus, where does it say anything about employment. You can employ as many people from Swahili to Brazil to Estonia to China for all the Football League cares. You can only play a certain number on a match day, but what has this got to do with employment?

Ooohh Jeez, you might just gave someone another reason to go to court and get another arrest done...

I'm struggling to see how this is racist? :confused:

Race and nationality aren't mentioned. You could have anyone from anywhere registered domesticly can't you?

A nationality isn't a race. This has been discussed in the courts. But at the risk of getting into semantics with you, why stop at racism/xenophobia. Isn't the whole of football sexist for not allowing women to play? You try not allowing women to do a certain job in the real world and look how far you get.

Plus, where does it say anything about employment. You can employ as many people from Swahili to Brazil to Estonia to China for all the Football League cares. You can only play a certain number on a match day, but what has this got to do with employment?

Efficiency. Going into economic theory here, but basically you're not going to employ the same number of people to do fewer jobs, or more to do the same number of jobs, because the cost of keeping them employed has in relative terms increased, while their output, ie productivity, has decreased.

Fine, terminology may be wrong but the point remains. I'm all for the rules allowing women to play in the English League, providing the rules of the League remain as they are to maintain equality, rather than cause positive discrimination. Maybe morality and ethics would cause natural change, but most likely women would then choose not to play.

Some good points made on both sides but we are getting away from the game side of it.

Even positive discrimination is still discrimination. It's nothing to do with race though, is it?

I fail to see how limiting the opportunities to non-British people is not a policy that discriminates based on nationality and race.

Positive discrimination is a terrible idea, in any context, anyway, in my opinion.

Efficiency. Going into economic theory here, but basically you're not going to employ the same number of people to do fewer jobs, or more to do the same number of jobs, because the cost of keeping them employed has in relative terms increased, while their output, ie productivity, has decreased.

Fine, terminology may be wrong but the point remains. I'm all for the rules allowing women to play in the English League, providing the rules of the League remain as they are to maintain equality, rather than cause positive discrimination. Maybe morality and ethics would cause natural change, but most likely women would then choose not to play.

So basically you think football should be treated exactly the same as every other profession? I disagree - it's entertainment, and the rules are different. Mixed gender teams? No thanks. And as for protecting nationality - I'm as unpatriotic as they come (hate England, half Irish, half Dutch) - and yet I agree with the sentiment of protecting national identity at football club level.

I cant understand why the Football League still limit you to a 16 man matchday squad when the vast majority of competitions around the world now use 18man squads on match day. This rule would be easier to implement with 7 subs...

I fail to see how limiting the opportunities to non-British people is not a policy that discriminates based on nationality and race.

Positive discrimination is a terrible idea, in any context, anyway, in my opinion.

The rule isn't discriminating against anyone. Chelsea could sign as many foreigners as they like in the summer, just not all of them can play (which is the case now). The foreign players still get paid there wage so there is no employment discrimination.

Actually it doesn't break any employment law, nor should it. The player has a contract and a job, that contract does not give him the right to play in any matches at all.

Only thing it will effect is work permits, players that arent internationals have to play a certain amount of games otherwise they won't be renewed.

I can only see it effecting championship teams, and not that much tbh.

Ignore this - went off topic.

Is the overall plan really to benefit National teams.

ANYWAY, I ONLY STARTED THIS THREAD TO SEE HOW IT WILL BE IN THE GAME AS i BELIEVE IT IS IN THE GAME FOR OTHER COUNTRIES.

Let's not have a political fall out over this please.

Its not just british players as I understand but British trained players so thats anyone from within the EU, its all about scouting the young talent and getting them into the clubs youth acadamies while they are young.

Im not a fan of this system but dont like the though of what could happen to our National teams if the current situation of buying top foreign players rather than developing youth!

The current england team are being to age in some postions and I dont see as much young english talent now as I did say 10 years ago. Im a liverpool fan and we are as guilty as any of not giving the youth as much of a chance as they should! Jay Spearing Jack Hobbs Steven Darby are the only 3 I can think of who have had any first team starts. They deserve a chance.

I fail to see how limiting the opportunities to non-British people is not a policy that discriminates based on nationality and race.

Positive discrimination is a terrible idea, in any context, anyway, in my opinion.

It doesn't mention non-british people. Anywhere. Teams can still have as many fourteen year old germans, eighteen your old brazillians and thirty year old Nigerians as they want. They just have to complete three years with a club in the country before they're twenty one. This has nothing to do with Polish people what so ever. If every team in England wanted to they could have entire youth teams of Polish kids and they'd all count as home grown.

So basically you think football should be treated exactly the same as every other profession? I disagree - it's entertainment, and the rules are different. Mixed gender teams? No thanks. And as for protecting nationality - I'm as unpatriotic as they come (hate England, half Irish, half Dutch) - and yet I agree with the sentiment of protecting national identity at football club level.

I see where you're coming from, but surely national identity is protected by the very fact that the teams are representing areas of England, with their youth academies largely taking from local areas. It's not the clubs fault that these players aren't good enough for the first-team.

As far as women are concerned, I'm saying legally clubs should be allowed to sign and play women players, but other factors would prevent this from happening anyway. I can't imagine a woman wanting to play a more physical, foul-natured and aggressive form of the game, but if they do they know what to expect, so why not? It would just be the same choice as a manager should have anyway - is the player good enough? The same reason why I don't agree with quotas.

As far as patrotism is concerned, I'm English and support England. However, having played football with 'the next generation', the "FIFA Street Generation" to me, it's clear that grassroots football needs to be addressed first. Recruiting from schools and focussing on mental coaching over tricks and hitting the ball hard, right down to U12s. It's clear to me that England seems to be overly expecting of its players, and this will remain as players get worse, leading to further pressures to introduce such quotas and policies, getting nowhere internationally, while crippling the domestic game.

It doesn't mention non-british people. Anywhere. Teams can still have as many fourteen year old germans, eighteen your old brazillians and thirty year old Nigerians as they want. They just have to complete three years with a club in the country before they're twenty one. This has nothing to do with Polish people what so ever. If every team in England wanted to they could have entire youth teams of Polish kids and they'd all count as home grown.

That youngster thing is another story all together, some people feel this is a form of child trafficing. There should be rules in place for taking promising youngsters from other countries, for instance in Holland a lot of very promising young players are lured away with loads of promises. Clubs feel that they are being robbed and might just trow the towel into the ring, having no priority on youth academies anymore, thus killing the possibility for future promising players to break trough. Its a vicious cycle that needs addressing.

So English players go from 3 times as expensive to 6 times as expensive.

Backwards step, confusing the product and cause again.

Develop good english players and you'll get less foreign ones!

It doesn't mention non-british people. Anywhere. Teams can still have as many fourteen year old germans, eighteen your old brazillians and thirty year old Nigerians as they want. They just have to complete three years with a club in the country before they're twenty one. This has nothing to do with Polish people what so ever. If every team in England wanted to they could have entire youth teams of Polish kids and they'd all count as home grown.

The majority of teams don't have the scouting abilities to find, or the ability to lure talented young players, who will just simply go to bigger teams. These teams rely on finding good players, and buying them. If they have to have the young players, these will likely be British, and the quota policy will put teams off buying young, 19 or 20 year olds abroad, because while not the finished article, they cannot include them instead of a homegrown player, even if they are better than them.

So English players go from 3 times as expensive to 6 times as expensive.

Backwards step, confusing the product and cause again.

Develop good english players and you'll get less foreign ones!

So put the money and the time in to developing young English players who will then have little problem getting through the youth systems and reserve set-ups.

Have to blame the players a bit though; a kid going to Manchester United at 16 may be far more technically able than one choosing to more to Stockport, but the player at the later team may be relatively better in terms of his team-mates, allowing him greater opportunities than the guy who will eventually be released from Man Utd at 22 and go and THEN play for Stockport, while the other kid is at Tottenham..

Maybe a different approach would be to go for the Spanish 'B' team system for top flight clubs.

several countries have already rules for stopping u18's to move to other countries

The majority of teams don't have the scouting abilities to find, or the ability to lure talented young players, who will just simply go to bigger teams.

the quota policy will put teams off buying young, 19 or 20 year olds abroad

Stop the flaw in your argument

Stop the flaw in your argument

I could've made myself clearer, but I mean that they don't have the ability to find 'youth' players, at 15/16 who they can sign; and that as a result of the policy if they DO find someone of 19 or 20, they may be put off signing them because they won't be ready for a first-team spot, but if on the bench then it would have to be instead of an experienced player, rather than a less talented 'home-grown' youngster.

"Four players in a 16-man matchday squad must have been registered domestically for at least three years before they turn 21."

It's downhill from here, in my opinion. Nationalist and frankly borderline racist policies are not needed for us to see that our national team is still crap. Any player worthy of the England team still gets through, so the purpose of any policies like this is beyond me.

If 6+5 gets implemented like the mad UEFA power-crazed racists want, and as I fear, I sense a crisis, particularly a financial one, from which English football and the Premier League will never recover.

I'm ill but you have really really really really made me laugh.

Thanks:D.

I'm ill but you have really really really really made me laugh.

Thanks:D.

Hyperbole is a wonderful thing.

I could've made myself clearer, but I mean that they don't have the ability to find 'youth' players, at 15/16 who they can sign; and that as a result of the policy if they DO find someone of 19 or 20, they may be put off signing them because they won't be ready for a first-team spot, but if on the bench then it would have to be instead of an experienced player, rather than a less talented 'home-grown' youngster.

if you had a 20 year old player from england and the same from brazil both are as good as each other and you can only sign one,which would you sign?

if you had a 20 year old player from england and the same from brazil both are as good as each other and you can only sign one,which would you sign?

Brazil; generally better mentality. But, depends if I could get a work-permit, and how good they are at all; ie if they'd get into the first team straight away.

if you had a 20 year old player from england and the same from brazil both are as good as each other and you can only sign one,which would you sign?

The cheaper one.

Not too bad as it follows the 7 sub rule, just assign the newly created 2 extra sub spaces to some random youth kids, and make sure you have a couple of English players in your 16. Only club I can see struggling with this at the moment would be Arsenal

Not too bad as it follows the 7 sub rule, just assign the newly created 2 extra sub spaces to some random youth kids, and make sure you have a couple of English players in your 16. Only club I can see struggling with this at the moment would be Arsenal

Arsenal would be fine actually. Quite a few English youngsters, and others are young anyway so would get the 3 years before 21. Merida, Barazite etc would be fine. Liverpool would probably have a bigger problem.

I could've made myself clearer

So the teams in question don't have the resources to scout europe for fiften year olds but do have the resources to scout the world for nineteen year olds?

Rather then all the hyperbole, why don't people go check out team websites and list all the English professional sides who will be impacted by this rule change? If we're talking about clubs who would have problems acquiring youth players from foreign countries then we're talking bellow championship level, I assume?

So the teams in question don't have the resources to scout europe for fiften year olds but do have the resources to scout the world for nineteen year olds?

Rather then all the hyperbole, why don't people go check out team websites and list all the English professional sides who will be impacted by this rule change? If we're talking about clubs who would have problems acquiring youth players from foreign countries then we're talking bellow championship level, I assume?

No. I'm just saying that they might be able to find a talented 19 year old in a Serie C/1 or in a lower reputation league (through international teams, maybe), but might not be able to, or willing to, commit to signing a younger player for lack of judgement, or inability to lure a young player.

I too am ill so maybe that'a affecting my clarity of mind. :o

Isn't it an 18man squad from next season though as opposed to 16?

If 6+5 gets implemented like the mad UEFA power-crazed racists want, and as I fear, I sense a crisis, particularly a financial one, from which English football and the Premier League will never recover.

It's not racist! The way I see it, it's more to do with trying to level things up, finantially wise. Currently, the big 4 or 5 countries (Italy, Spain, England, Germany, France), with a LOT more ad, TV, etc, revenue have an enourmous advantage over all the others. Why? Because, since they have a LOT more money than most teams in other leagues and since there's almost no restrictions on what players they can buy, they are dominating football. Add to this the current situation with the Champions League, a lot of teams from the money-rich countries, which get even richer with the prize money they get from the Champions League.

Take, for example, Spain and look at what's been happening: teams no one had ever heard about before, e.g. Villarreal, suddenly turn into powerhouses and can win against any traditionally big team from the less-healthier countries.

While people from these money-rich countries might find it great to have their teams, due to their finantial might, dominate everybody else, it's not a lot of fun the others.

Before all this crazy stuff ocurred, football was a lot more interesting, competition wise. Teams from many European countries could get into finals, play deep into european cups, etc. Currently, especially in Champions League, it's not like that, it's almost always the same countries who win everything and get a lot of teams into the final stages.

So, I'm all in favor of all that can be done to try and level things up a little bit more.

It is though. It's the same as saying to a building firm 'I know the Polish people might be better at their job and work for less, but you're going to have to replace 3 of them with these talentless school dropouts because they're English and thus more important'

Says nothing about employing them by the way, they can sign as many people as they like, it is just playing them in the first team, so poor comparison mate.

UEFA power-crazed racists ?

Nationalist and frankly borderline racist policies ?

Bit OTT, did you call the BBC about the ross/brand thing by any chance?

Any way how can UEFA be rasict against themselves?

Isn't it an 18man squad from next season though as opposed to 16?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_3118251,00.html

Says nothing about employing them by the way, they can sign as many people as they like, it is just playing them in the first team, so poor comparison mate.

UEFA power-crazed racists ?

Nationalist and frankly borderline racist policies ?

Bit OTT, did you call the BBC about the ross/brand thing by any chance?

Again, I'll use the word 'hyperbole' to state my intentions. Open with a bang, put forward your point to an extreme, then carry on arguing.

I've already said above it can only act to discourage employment due to the efficiency, productivity and cost factors; without meaning to generalise or economise too much. If they have as many players, but can use less, then the cost of having them compared to their potential output per person is increased, as cost stays the same while their output falls.

And no I didn't ring up the BBC. I have opinions and I believe in freedom of speech. They may have been wrong, and rightly were punished, but it was not up to the public to influence matters. It should be up to the employer to punish if they deem it neccessary, and for the audience and the public to choose not to listen if offended.

And don't call me 'mate'.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_3118251,00.html

That's the PREMIER League, and it took effect at the start of this season.