In part one we discussed the FA's commission and how they got it tragically wrong with their suggestion that a League 3 of B sides was the way forward. In this part we will discuss what the commission should have done had they had the courage to stand up against the Premier League and recommend some serious solutions to the issue.
Home grown rules
In the report discusses ‘home grown’ players throughout and
bases its future numbers and stats on this definition of home grown. Yet this
is where the report falls down heavily in my opinion. It shows such a fear of offending
the Premier League that is shies away from any recommendations which will have any impact the Premier League.
This is in complete contrast to how it feels about ripping apart the Football League. But we all know who is the boss in English football and who has the control (which is why not having any Premier League representatives on the commission was puzzling and almost redundant).
The B team idea is made solely for the benefit of the elite of English football and it is little surprise managers of the top sides support the idea.
The FA have viewed their 'mission' as being one of helping English football win a World Cup. Therefore they see Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City as the key sides to develop England's future world class stars. Although we have a problem...and that is the home grown rule.
So let’s look at ‘home grown’ players. According to the
report “on average, 65% of players who qualify as Home Grown Players are
English.” What? Surely this should be 100% no? And here comes the ambiguity and
issues with the Premier League and its negative effects on English players in
the youth system.
Based on the Meltdown report in 2007 and concerns surrounding sides
like Arsenal, in particular, for fielding all-foreign teams. The PFA had backed
UEFA proposals for each club’s squad to contain eight home grown players was initially agreed in 2006 yet it would take four years until the rule was
implemented. In 2010/11 the ‘home grown’ rule was introduced by the Premier League in order
to address the lack of English talent playing in England’s top league.
The rule now was that Premier
League clubs were restricted to naming a squad of 25 players, eight of which
were required to be ‘home grown’. It appeared a positive step for the
development and integration of more English players. And yet, the term ‘home
grown’ became ambiguous and failed to address the problem it sought to fix. In
fact it may have made the situation worse for English football.
The definition
of home grown is “Trained for three years under the age of 21 by somebody in
the English and Welsh professional system.”
Thus a Spanish player like Cesc Fabregas (for instance) would have been
deemed home grown as he arrived at Arsenal at 17 years of age, and then trained
for three years.
Managers saw this loophole and because of this ambiguity have sought to bring in foreign
players at even younger ages in order to make them eligible as ‘home grown’.
Many would argue, therefore, that the rule has actually hampered the
development of English players.
As it stands the ‘home grown’ rule in the
Premier League accounts for any player (under the age of 21) from any
nationality that has been trained and developed in the country for three years. This loophole enables foreign players to be
classed as home grown and allows teams like Arsenal to field non-English sides
in the Premier League. Therefore this rule clearly does not benefit the national team at
all.
The ‘home grown’ rule in England is
ambiguous and clubs have abused it. In Germany they develop more ‘home grown’
players because their rules state that at least 12 players in each academy’s
intake have to be eligible to play for Germany. Simply put the German model
gives more domestic players the chance play more, meaning more players gain the
necessary experience to improve.
The top clubs and Premier League are doing a
disservice to the English game by not creating more opportunities for clubs to
develop talent. If every academy had the same rule as Germany’s academies then
the quality would surely improve.
The Premier League, if they genuinely did
care about the development of the national side, would make academy teams use
the 6+5 rule, or would make the ‘home grown’ rule less ambiguous. At this
moment it is clear that they have no interest in England’s national side. The
Premier League needs to do more to prove they care.
By neglecting this need to change the home grown ruling the FA's report shows weakness and fear of the Premier League.
The Premier League is restricting England’s chances at
achieving success because they are not being strong enough on clubs developing
home grown talent. The overreliance on foreign players has decreased the
opportunities offered to home grown talent with the resultant knock-on effect
for the England national team.
This loophole is damaging and needs to be changed to mean English
players only. Without question this will force clubs to push the development of English academy players. Right now it is simply too easy to recruit players from across the world at 16 years of age. It is damaging the chances of English talent as well as these foreign players who are often treated poorly and denied opportunities when they come over. Cesc Fabregas is an exception, a Dennis Suarez shows the negatives of this move.
A cap to promote talent
An important change which the Premier League must instruct
Academies to introduce is a cap on how many foreign players can come into
academy sides at 16 years. And I’m talking Irish and Scottish here too. Too
many English players are being replaced at this age by foreign players and
England is suffering because of it.
I'm not saying a complete ban on foreign
young imports yet something like what the Germans did in terms of having youth
squads up to Under-21 containing at least 12 players who can play for the
national sides. Will this help? It certainly can’t make it worse.
Even better would be the introduction of FIFA’s 6+5 rule
which is used much more stringently in Germany. In Germany the 6+5 rule enables
more players to gain the necessary experience to improve and take their skills
from their youth education into the senior levels. If English youth sides were
forced to use the 6+5 rule up to their Under-21 level then once again more
English players would be given the opportunity and experience they require to
develop.
Another solution might be a new rule which completely prevents foreign
players being signed or bought until the age of 18. Alternatively, the Premier
League should restrict the number of foreign players in youth squads and allow
clubs only four per squad. This way a squad of 16-18 players will have 12-14
players who are English. There is no doubt this rule will aid their
development.
The worry is that political willpower will make these changes
difficult to implement.
If we
want this to help the English side then they need to change the 'home-grown'
ruling to mean players who are legible to play for England – this should
at least force clubs to have more English players in their squads. Forcing clubs to concentrate on developing their own local talent, instead of casting the nets ever wider across the world, appears a necessity for getting more English players into the game.
Another thought is to put it at the feet of the players. Looking at the English mentality and arrogance it does seem players find it ‘too easy’ in their late teens to pick up good wages for doing very little. Clubs should pay these players less and help them continue their hunger to improve. And
Why don't more seek new pastures and new experiences? Is it fear? Fear of culture, language? Or is just too easy in England to earn decent money? Where are the players who wish to excel and who are brave to say that if they aren't getting the chances in England between 18-21 then they will look abroad for the chance. The players have it too easy and I fear this is having an effect on their desire and drive. Less wages may mean more desire to work hard and it may mean they will accept low wages abroad if it means the chance to play and get better.
Yet do foreign clubs rate English players? They certainly find them too expensive for what they offer. And if our own clubs believe that their English players aren’t of a
high enough standard the argument must return as to “what have you been doing
with them for seven years?”
This question is hugely important yet Dyke felt this wasn't necessary as this stage. A B team league was supposedly more important?!
In the final part we will discuss why players aren't of the deemed necessary talent as their foreign counterparts and highlight the key problems holding English football back.
To read Part III - Philosophies click here
No comments:
Post a Comment