BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Browse: Football

84 comments

user rating: 4 star

Premier League clubs discuss quotas

by Marc Vesty (U13781900) 10 February 2009
comment on the article

Premier League clubs have discussed plans to impose a quota of 'homegrown' players in every matchday squad.

Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry revealed the 20 clubs talked about the idea at a meeting last week.

Let us know your thoughts.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted May 13, 2009

comment by therewesaidit (U5702043)
posted Just Now

It's moronic. What is so special about players developed by clubs other some sentimental attachment to an idea. Fetishising home grown talent to achieve what exactly?
----------------------
Surely you know why this is being brought in? The rich leagues (England in particular) have started to monopolise Europe. They don't want Chelsea and Man City buying teams and winning trophies.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by YaBoo (U6983756)

posted May 13, 2009

comment by laming90 (U13962474)

posted 5 Hours Ago

----- Ok for arguements sake lets say all those player are good enough for the top 4. Thats them sorted. Now list the players left for the other clubs to choose from. Not much quality left and thats with players like Owen a Guthrie already taken!!

This is a bad idea in so many ways it will help nothing (apart from lots of money for average players that we all have to pay even more to watch as everybody bids for the best English players) and will ruin lots.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2009

There's a few really big misconceptions here.

Some people are saying that more english players will get through the ranks, and that this will benifit their national team when in fact all this rule would do wil help english clubs poach players from other leagues earlier. In Spain & Italy players cannnot get pro-contracts until they are 18 however in england (& in the scottish league) players can be given pro contracts at 16. This is what british clubs are abusing at the moment and this rule would only encourage them to do it even more so.

Even more strange is this notion that some people are agreeing on here that english players are overpriced, but that it's a good thing cos it keeps them in the english league, furthering the national sides progress in the game. What?!?!

The problem is that english players (and other european english speakers ie. irish, scottish etc.) are generally in a comfort zone already here and unwilling to further their careers going abroad. Partly due to the short sighted way of thinking that playing in different league with different styles of soccer woulnd't add valueable experience to your knowledge of the game, especially on the international stage.

One of the reasons Spain has improved so much recently is that the footballing culture has changed, and many players are leaving La Liga to try something new, where beforehand they would rather stay in spain. There's no quota in spain by the way. If english players did that then maybe it would favour your national team.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2009

Im not into the 6+5 rule and all that but this rule is less drastic and seems much more reasonable my team liverpool would have gerrard carra and insua and I think el zhar and plessis too though im not sure. Although most teams with a fully fit squad could provide four "homegrown" players they would be encouraged to get more homegrown players as injuries susoensions and things like the olympics being cup tied and the african cup of nations will probably mean managers will need more homegrown players to cover for the ones temporaraly lost. I think this is a good rule however the 6+5 isnt.


also I agree with this statement
-------------------------------
One of the reasons Spain has improved so much recently is that the footballing culture has changed, and many players are leaving La Liga to try something new, where beforehand they would rather stay in spain. There's no quota in spain by the way. If english players did that then maybe it would favour your national team.
----------------------------------------------
Be like spain and maybe we would be more successful english players rarely move abroad and when they do they tend to pick a big club that they cant get into the team for eg owen and woodgate.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2009

not impressed, its actually almost a cop out and solves nothing. The 'home grown' idea does nothing to solve the real reason behind the move for a quota and if I'm correct, the 'big 4' can field four home grown players as it stands now in their squad. I know EU rules leave little room for manoeuvre but this is hardly a revolution

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2009

i don't think this is a big deal really. it would mean more if the 4 players in the matchday squad had to qualify for the england team. it still means arsenal can field 11 foreigners in their starting 11 (which i think is disgraceful) and stick the 4 on the bench. its a positive move i suppose but i don't think anything will change apart from scouts being more determined to sign up quality foreign 16/17 year olds. and the price for english players will increase.

i guess its good in that it promotes the academy system something that i believe chelsea and liverpool and a number of other clubs have been guilty of neglecting.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by TWSI (U5702043)

posted May 13, 2009

----------------------
Surely you know why this is being brought in? The rich leagues (England in particular) have started to monopolise Europe. They don't want Chelsea and Man City buying teams and winning trophies.
_________________________

Doug

I was not trying to ask why this had been brought in - the surely is a tad trite especially when I was not answering that question.

One aspect is that no one is even justifying this on the basis of a problem they are solving - motherhood statement about youth development are not reasons.

So yes you may be right since there is no analytical attempt to explain what problem this is the solution to - knee jerk reationary. Medium term likely to hit the smaller clubs worse as any restrictive market in anything but ability to pay always does.

Man City actually are pretty well placed with their youth system and arguably Chelsea may be one of the few clubs it helps as they should be trying some of their youngsters but their managers are on such a leash they play almost the 1st eleven every game (inc carling and fa cup). Their [Chelsea] youth system is massive and expensive and unused.

It ends up purely as an incentive to clubs to keep players who may not be that good on the basis of something failry arbitary IMO - especially poorer ones with smaller academies.

Arguably discouraging teams from throwing so much money at kids would work better as development does seem harder when you have a Ferrari at 18 i.e. the opposite policy funnily enough could work better if you want to push kids to develop beyond the promise of their teens.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2009

The definition of "home grown" does not include the nationality thus Cesc is a home grown along with Clichy,Theo,Denilson etc.So its in Favour of Arsenal I dont think any other big 4 have more then 2 or 3 home grown players-in case of Chelsea I think there is only one home grown in the current squad.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Stev (U6790938)

posted May 13, 2009

"In this system any player who has been registered domestically for at least three years before their 21st birthday is classed as home grown, so for example Cesc Fabregas would be a 'home-grown' Arsenal player."

So what would that actually achieve in regards to the national setup? Sod all. What a stupid Idea, if the whole plan is to ensure English talent is to be nurtured at the games top level, then instigating a system that doesn't discriminate on the grounds of nationality wont make any difference at all. Clubs will still import young players from abroad that are trained by Europe's feeder clubs. Scudamore is a fool.

Blatter's plan makes more sense in regards to increasing the pool of national talent, however it is blatantly racist, but perhaps such actions are necessary to preserve the long term future of English football. Although I cant help thinking if English players broadened their horizons a bit more by playing in other countries leagues then it might not even be an issue at all.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 66.67%
    2 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 33.33%
    1 votes

average rating:
3.67 from 3 votes