"Mr. Dyke and his supporters say England’s national team is struggling because fewer players have the chance to learn their trade at the highest levels." Classic spurious statement! The main reason there are higher proportions of Spanish and German players in their national leagues is simply that these countries have better players (and far better national teams). This is another example showing that the ratio of how good the fans THINK their national team is divided by how good the national team ACTUALLY is, is higher in England than in any other nation. At the same time, the success of the Premier league has something to do with the dominance of the English language across the globe. In other words, a kind of vestige of colonialism.
Just as I have stated privately to Sunil Gulati, head of the US Soccer Federation, that the United States needs to improve its entire (it's not even a) system for developing elite soccer players, I suggest that Greg Dyke and the FA take a long hard look at what the English do to develop soccer players and maybe implement a plan of improvement. And, yes, I have made specific recommendations to Gulati of what I would do if I had a say in the matter. Nobody in the United States has yet carped and complained that the best players in our so-called Major League Soccer were trained and developed abroad, true since the season in 1996. If a national soccer association wants to have a truly competitive national team, it takes a lot of hard work, discipline and talented coaching to get there. Never mind the presence of players from other countries in the league. Instead, accept them and use them as role models for better domestic soccer players.
Protectionism is a bad long term policy.
The English Premier League is special because it is a world stage, like the Champions League.
International football is dull and not as exciting or entertaining, therefore real football fans prefer club football.
The English players should rise above and compete as Rooney, Kane, Henderson, Sterling, Hart, Ferdinand, Gerard, Lampard, Cole and Carrick have done
The English Premier League is special because it is a world stage, like the Champions League.
International football is dull and not as exciting or entertaining, therefore real football fans prefer club football.
The English players should rise above and compete as Rooney, Kane, Henderson, Sterling, Hart, Ferdinand, Gerard, Lampard, Cole and Carrick have done
This doesn't speak directly to the points made in the article (and those quoted in it), but it should be noted that Harry Kane is merely the latest in a long line of English players who have suddenly appeared as WC squad saviors by having a single shining year in the PL. There's no denying his incredible goal production, but we've seen this before: meteoric rises and disappointing follow-up seasons. It should also be mentioned that many of HK's goals came against inferior (Europa League, or Lithuania--Lithuania?) competition, and many of them were poacher's goals (tap-ins). He has genuine quality around the box and a nose for goal, but sometimes players just get lucky a lot in a single season. His appeal to some (not all or most!) English national team devotees (other than the goal) is that he's homegrown, white, and unaffected in choice of hair-style. That kind of affection isn't all bad, but it isn't all that good.
It's also naive. In the PL era, English national team players who have also played for PL teams have thrived by playing with and competing against some of the best from around the world. The talent that England has sent to the last four or five World Cup finals has always underperformed. They always should do better, especially at PK shootouts, but they crack. That hurts, and that's why its easy for manias over figures like HK so easily take deep hold.
It's also naive. In the PL era, English national team players who have also played for PL teams have thrived by playing with and competing against some of the best from around the world. The talent that England has sent to the last four or five World Cup finals has always underperformed. They always should do better, especially at PK shootouts, but they crack. That hurts, and that's why its easy for manias over figures like HK so easily take deep hold.
I personally know that a premier league coach told an aspiring English teenage goalkeeper that he could get all the keepers he needed cheap from Eastern Europe. There's the rub - not the quality of young English players, but the economics of English football. And now the Africans are cheaper than East European.
1
Funny, Everton's top two keepers are neither English nor Eastern European...
2
The future of European soccer is France. The French national team looks anything but European; African, for sure. I have heard my friends ask why don't the French use French players to represent them at the World Cup, like all the other European teams? The reason is history. The French Republic has adopted its former colonies as integral to French nationality. Colonials have fought French wars and become bona fide French nationals. Before there was globalization, there was colonialism. Today's "Francophonie" is France's way of retaining the glories(?) and the nostalgia of French colonialism. One might say, the French have been more liberal about race and ethnicity (perhaps, out of necessity) than the rest of Europe, certainly, more than the English.
1
Globalization certainly raises the pay of English soccer players, but how about its effect on the typical English worker, or the American one? More money at the top and less from the middle on down.
they can only limit players from outside the EU that of corse leaves a lot of foreign players to pick from and they are needed as the premier league would die in a month if they could only pick english born players just no home grown talent as world cups prove
I love the way Harry Kane, in his white jersey, pops out in that photograph.
Re: Kane. Standout season for sure. But he's about to discover another aspect of the inability to develop homegrown talent, when the media and fans say "Here, catch", and drop the Great English Hope boat anchor on top of him.
1
You characterise the Football Association's approach to this issue as imposing "new limits on the supply of foreign players" (non-EU, by the way, not just non-Brits) when an alternative interpretation might be simply wishing to eliminate what are currently an excessive number of special exemptions granted to non-EU players (work permits and all). If I fly over to NY later today and just tell the kind INS man at JFK to let me in because I fancy starting work as an accountant, I don't think he'll even let me in.
By the way, you don't mention that the penetration of foreign players in US sports e.g.the NFL is way lower than it is in European soccer. Then again, why would you need them - in baseball, for example - when you already call your domestic championship the World Series?
By the way, you don't mention that the penetration of foreign players in US sports e.g.the NFL is way lower than it is in European soccer. Then again, why would you need them - in baseball, for example - when you already call your domestic championship the World Series?
2
And, by the way, in 2014, 26% of Major League Baseball players were NOT born in the United States. FYI ...
3
"Then again, why would you need them - in baseball, for example - when you already call your domestic championship the World Series?"
Why does everything come back to a straw man about America. Americans have NOTHING to do with this.
England's problem is that it has to look in the mirror and and realize that its players are simply not good enough, not worry about the demography of its domestic league(s), or what we call our baseball championship. With a population of 53 million (6th largest in Europe), you can't find, develop and nurture 25 world-class players? Note that the Netherlands, who have been to 3 WC finals, and to at least the semi-finals the last two WCs, have a population of 16 million. Spain has a smaller population (46 million), and look what they've accomplished.
Why does everything come back to a straw man about America. Americans have NOTHING to do with this.
England's problem is that it has to look in the mirror and and realize that its players are simply not good enough, not worry about the demography of its domestic league(s), or what we call our baseball championship. With a population of 53 million (6th largest in Europe), you can't find, develop and nurture 25 world-class players? Note that the Netherlands, who have been to 3 WC finals, and to at least the semi-finals the last two WCs, have a population of 16 million. Spain has a smaller population (46 million), and look what they've accomplished.
6
England has made only sporadic entries into World Cup playing and has not been a real factor for decades. England's reputation is sustained by its undoubted importance in the spread of the game. As it often turns out, once people learn a game or learn out to make a product, the differences between the initiators and them disappear, whether it's football or electronics.
The success of English club teams, the last 15 years or so, has propelled them to a high level of financial success which is sustaining the various clubs. However, this year, they are nowhere to be seen on the international scene and if it continues they will also lose their economic prominence.
The success of English club teams, the last 15 years or so, has propelled them to a high level of financial success which is sustaining the various clubs. However, this year, they are nowhere to be seen on the international scene and if it continues they will also lose their economic prominence.
The problem that the British are citing is the lack of development of British players. Fair enough. The solution is to have British players go play abroad in leagues where they can play. They just don't want to do that because they won't make as much.
5
If a British player cannot get a game with a club in his own country how much money is he earning? That's right 0. Playing abroad at least he'll get paid. And if a player is attached to a club and sent abroad to play the British club pays his wages.
1
@HC: not so at all. An EPL squad is made up of 25 players, only 14 (max) can play in a given match, and only 18 of whom are even eligible to play, named in the match day roster. But all receive a salary, and some quite handsome. Theo Walcott is an Arsenal irregular whose salary exchanges to US$7.5 million per year, about twice the MLS salary cap for a squad of 20 players, less any designated players.
From what I can gather if a player in the Premier League has a contract, they'll be paid irregardless of whether they play or not. Ergo, it's financially better to sit in the reserves for Manchester City than move to Spain and play every week.
Lower division teams aren't minor league teams. With promotion and relegation in force, there's always the possibility of a lower-division team joining a higher league, or going from amateur to professional (see AFC Wimbeldon).
2
Why is preserving jobs for uncompetitive British footballers any different than preserving jobs for the uncompetitive British plumbers, restauranteurs and health care workers who have also been replaced by superior immigrant labor?
4
Well, as far as the English FA are concerned, they want to see better English players. Those are at a premium, so they need to be developed. The club owners want better players now so they buy finished products from anywhere available, which crowds out local talent.
But being competitive at this level involves playing time -- the relationship is one of positive feedback, not orthogonality. Introducing a quota will no doubt lower the general playing level but that affects more the owners and maybe media companies than the fans. There are devoted fans of Swindon and Scunthorpe, PNE and Blackpool, just as there are of Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal. And nobody can say that the aforementioned group play quality football.
That said, I don't think this is the best way to develop those players. The academies are where it starts, and it wouldn't hurt for the lower leagues to foster a less agricultural brand of football so that the players and clubs have a better chance in the event of promotion.
But being competitive at this level involves playing time -- the relationship is one of positive feedback, not orthogonality. Introducing a quota will no doubt lower the general playing level but that affects more the owners and maybe media companies than the fans. There are devoted fans of Swindon and Scunthorpe, PNE and Blackpool, just as there are of Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal. And nobody can say that the aforementioned group play quality football.
That said, I don't think this is the best way to develop those players. The academies are where it starts, and it wouldn't hurt for the lower leagues to foster a less agricultural brand of football so that the players and clubs have a better chance in the event of promotion.
It's one thing for the Prem to be "the most successful product in sporting history." Quite another for it to offer the best football/soccer. That it clearly does not.
3
The Premier League has a global presence like no other league. Why would one want to dilute the quality of players? Do that, and you can kiss the huge global audience goodbye. True, there is Barcelona, Bayern Munich & Real Madrid, but in those leagues the standard of the other teams in those leagues is not so good. The Premier League is more competitive and therefore far more interesting.
There is a fundamental problem in England that their is not an organized approach or cooperation at all levels to develop English players who can compete for a spot on a Premier League team or play at the internatioal level.
Ask any Englishman, club or country and most will reply club.
There is a fundamental problem in England that their is not an organized approach or cooperation at all levels to develop English players who can compete for a spot on a Premier League team or play at the internatioal level.
Ask any Englishman, club or country and most will reply club.
1
I watch both. Top to bottom, I think the Bundesliga is better than the Prem.
2
It's true that La Liga is severely and unfairly skewed to the Big 2. But if you made a league combing the top ten of La Liga and the Prem the top half of the table would be 70-80% Spanish. Chelsea might make top 5, Arsenal would be there, but neither of the Manchester clubs have shown much ability in recent years in Europe. If you made a league of the bottom ten of the English and Spanish leagues, it would probably be a random mix. Levante-Villa? Celta-Newcastle? Almeria-Sunderland? Not much in it either way.
More money does not automatically make things better.
2
@abo, Paris
Maybe not, but it certainly does for Bayern Munich...
Maybe not, but it certainly does for Bayern Munich...
The World Cup is a festival of nationalism, even more so than the Olympics. People like rooting for their countrymen.
3
Wow, this article is over its skis. The EPL as most successfil sports product of all time? Cue the belly laughs. This is a league in which top clubs make 10x in revenue compared to smallest so there is zero competitive balance, it is awash in debt, and half the clubs are quietly (and some loudly) for sale. And it has the governance hallmarks of the tri-state used car dealers association. Contrast that with the the NFL, Olympic Games, F1, IPL, etc.; it's no contest.
Re: player quality, it has been fully noted in these comments the English have historically far overestimated the quality of their player stock. This is very true. The real issue though is not that young english players are good enough, it's that they expect much higher wages because they 'deserve' them because they are English playing in England and thwrefore more attractive to clubs.
EPL clubs sign young talent from all over the globe - they do not discriminate - and would LOVE to field English players. The reality is that many similar quality young foreign players will play for much less and with no sense of entitlement. When you combine those foreign players cost effectiveness and at least as good level of talent, it is no contest.
Re: player quality, it has been fully noted in these comments the English have historically far overestimated the quality of their player stock. This is very true. The real issue though is not that young english players are good enough, it's that they expect much higher wages because they 'deserve' them because they are English playing in England and thwrefore more attractive to clubs.
EPL clubs sign young talent from all over the globe - they do not discriminate - and would LOVE to field English players. The reality is that many similar quality young foreign players will play for much less and with no sense of entitlement. When you combine those foreign players cost effectiveness and at least as good level of talent, it is no contest.
3
The issue is giving academy players match minutes. Players are being produced only for it to sit on a bench to be eventually put out on loan. It's not that talent isn't being produced, it's being lost. Secondly too much money is being spent on average foreign talent so not only is indigenous talent being denied much needed experience but what is replacing it isn't much better. So in effect neither club nor country benefits.
The financial advantage of big clubs over small is FAR more extreme in other leagues where media rights are NOT evenly divided, especially Spain and Italy. I would recommend you check out REAL economic analysis of the sport at the Swiss Ramble. You will discover, for example, that last year's 3 relegated teams from the Prem ALL made more in media rights than Bayern Munich did.
The primary reasons for inequality in England are stadium size restricting match day revenue, European qualification, especially the Champions League, and huge kit and sponsorship deals by the big hitters, which are global brands, unlike, say, Leicester City and Hull City. But it is far more pronounced elsewhere.
The primary reasons for inequality in England are stadium size restricting match day revenue, European qualification, especially the Champions League, and huge kit and sponsorship deals by the big hitters, which are global brands, unlike, say, Leicester City and Hull City. But it is far more pronounced elsewhere.
3
"It's not that talent isn't being produced, it's being lost."
This is just impossible to believe. Population of 53 million, and you can't find, nurture and develop 25-30 world-class players? If I'm an English player and not getting minutes, why not go to another country, or to a lower division club, and get minutes? Entitlement, anyone?
If the English players were that good, they would be ready to jump in or work their way. There are myriad opportunities with Cup competitions to show what you have. You can't tell me a lower ladder PL team can't find places for English players.
And, if players are "lost", many are doing it to themselves. They leave for the big money flung at them by top clubs, just to sit on the bench ... I would argue Theo Walcott would be the poster child for this, he left Soton way too early. Scott Sinclair would also be an example, although he probably would have been at best on the fringe for playing for England
But, instituting a quota system - even if you could legally - is not going to fix this.
This is just impossible to believe. Population of 53 million, and you can't find, nurture and develop 25-30 world-class players? If I'm an English player and not getting minutes, why not go to another country, or to a lower division club, and get minutes? Entitlement, anyone?
If the English players were that good, they would be ready to jump in or work their way. There are myriad opportunities with Cup competitions to show what you have. You can't tell me a lower ladder PL team can't find places for English players.
And, if players are "lost", many are doing it to themselves. They leave for the big money flung at them by top clubs, just to sit on the bench ... I would argue Theo Walcott would be the poster child for this, he left Soton way too early. Scott Sinclair would also be an example, although he probably would have been at best on the fringe for playing for England
But, instituting a quota system - even if you could legally - is not going to fix this.
When that famous Italian soccer coach lamented that his team didn't have enough Italians there was outcry, people understood he was unhappy with brown or black faces on the team even if they lead them to victory (& even if they were Italian-born).
Seems same thing happening here, nationalism but fear of immigrants being the main driver.
Seems same thing happening here, nationalism but fear of immigrants being the main driver.
3
This is the STUPIDEST argument I have ever seen.
“How many other Harry Kanes are there in the academies of English football who cannot get a first-team game? We are simply not giving young domestic talent sufficient opportunities at the highest level of English football”
-Greg Dyke, chairman of English soccer’s governing body.
The reason there are not more English players playing the in the PL is that THEY ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Mr. Dyke is as clueless about EU law as the idiots at fifa: you can't restrict EU players. So, great, he can keep out Africans, Asians, etc., but not the citizens of 27 European countries (not to mention countries who have agreements with former colonies e.g., UK and France.) Further, I can't wait to see him try to exclude UK citizens - Scots, Welsh, Irish - from a UK-based league.
The reason England's national team does not do better at the international level is that THE PLAYERS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The league was almost exclusively English in the 70's, and the English did not even qualify for the WC in 74 and 78.
If they are not good enough, having more of them play PL every weekend will not improve anything - the Nat'l team will still perform at the same level, the PL quality will suffer, and the overseas $$ will dry up.
Better idea: why doesn't Mr. Dyke head down to Southampton, to see how an academy develops talent. Gareth Bale, Theo Walcott, etc. Lost half their team last summer, and still are top 6 this season. Too simple ...
“How many other Harry Kanes are there in the academies of English football who cannot get a first-team game? We are simply not giving young domestic talent sufficient opportunities at the highest level of English football”
-Greg Dyke, chairman of English soccer’s governing body.
The reason there are not more English players playing the in the PL is that THEY ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Mr. Dyke is as clueless about EU law as the idiots at fifa: you can't restrict EU players. So, great, he can keep out Africans, Asians, etc., but not the citizens of 27 European countries (not to mention countries who have agreements with former colonies e.g., UK and France.) Further, I can't wait to see him try to exclude UK citizens - Scots, Welsh, Irish - from a UK-based league.
The reason England's national team does not do better at the international level is that THE PLAYERS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The league was almost exclusively English in the 70's, and the English did not even qualify for the WC in 74 and 78.
If they are not good enough, having more of them play PL every weekend will not improve anything - the Nat'l team will still perform at the same level, the PL quality will suffer, and the overseas $$ will dry up.
Better idea: why doesn't Mr. Dyke head down to Southampton, to see how an academy develops talent. Gareth Bale, Theo Walcott, etc. Lost half their team last summer, and still are top 6 this season. Too simple ...
9
1 million
You (correctly) state that the top English tier was almost exclusively English in the 70's (you're right) and yet we didn't qualify for the WC. However (we did win the WC in 66) if you look at the European Cup back then, English teams DOMINATED the tournament, beating all and sundry that Italy, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal could throw at us. In fact, an English team won the European cup EVERY YEAR from 76 to 82. It wasn't until UEFA used the hooliganism to thrown English teams out of the European Cup completely that forced the domination to inadvertently stall.
2
And how many English players are in Southampton's first team?
This is incredibly short-sighted.
If England limits foreign players, their world cup results will get worse. While they may have fewer players in Premiere League, those players are getting better experience against better competition than anyone else anywhere else in the world. That makes the British players who play in the Premiere League far more prepared for world cup level play when they play for team England.
If England limits foreign players, their world cup results will get worse. While they may have fewer players in Premiere League, those players are getting better experience against better competition than anyone else anywhere else in the world. That makes the British players who play in the Premiere League far more prepared for world cup level play when they play for team England.
1
Why bother with who play for the premier league for any clubs in England or anywhere. They recruited player from other nationality to the team simply to attract the worldwide audience and financial gain (advertising). Also the games are more for the entertainment value than the pride of any nation.
Because if anyone care about the nationality of the player for any national team, we already have that kind of soccer (football) games. It's called "Olympic".
Because if anyone care about the nationality of the player for any national team, we already have that kind of soccer (football) games. It's called "Olympic".
Do I sense some jingoism here?! Don't worry dearest friends across the pond, for a dearth of lads on the pitch will never hurt too much, because there will always be an England!!! (And Scotland, and Wales too!)
3
When I played basketball in Italy, there were 2 spots for Americans (reserved for WNBA players), 5 spots for foreigners, and the rest had to be Italian. I obtained Italian citizenship through my grandfather and played as an Italian. I thought this made a lot of sense. The team was balanced and it protected the league from becoming overran by superstars. It isn't unreasonable to limit the number of foreigners, except in men's soccer there is a hek of a money on the line.
3
Good points. Similarly, the Japanese restrict the number of American baseball players any of their teams can have.
1
Two points:
1. While technically you qualify to be Italian, it breaks the spirit of the rule, designed to give Italians a chance, since you are really an American, growing up in America through the American basketball system. So, how does that make sense?
2. England cannot legally restrict players from other countries. I wouldn't see for a minute how they could stop a citizen born in the UK (e.g., from Scotland) from playing in the English league (i'm not surprised when the idiots at fifa don't understand the unique circumstances of British football and political structures, but a Briton doesn't?) There is a Welsh team playing in the PL (and one in the second tier; how do they plan to deal with that?) We know they cannot stop citizens from the other 27 countries of the EU from playing, that is the law.
At the end of the day, if one uses quotas to determine playing spots, all that will do is dilute the quality of the games. England is stronger at football than Italy is at basketball, and to think they need a leg-up is frankly hilarious and ridiculous. Someone over there needs to not take the lazy way out and do some work (as I noted in another comment, go down to Southampton to see how young talent is nurturedand developed.)
1. While technically you qualify to be Italian, it breaks the spirit of the rule, designed to give Italians a chance, since you are really an American, growing up in America through the American basketball system. So, how does that make sense?
2. England cannot legally restrict players from other countries. I wouldn't see for a minute how they could stop a citizen born in the UK (e.g., from Scotland) from playing in the English league (i'm not surprised when the idiots at fifa don't understand the unique circumstances of British football and political structures, but a Briton doesn't?) There is a Welsh team playing in the PL (and one in the second tier; how do they plan to deal with that?) We know they cannot stop citizens from the other 27 countries of the EU from playing, that is the law.
At the end of the day, if one uses quotas to determine playing spots, all that will do is dilute the quality of the games. England is stronger at football than Italy is at basketball, and to think they need a leg-up is frankly hilarious and ridiculous. Someone over there needs to not take the lazy way out and do some work (as I noted in another comment, go down to Southampton to see how young talent is nurturedand developed.)
@swans, re point one. I have two words for you: Giuseppe Rossi. Raised in New Jersey, nationalized for the Azzurri, though often derailed by injury. Look, now EVERY country is willing to offer citizenship to talented players. Only recently, the talk of what country would score Adnan Janusaj.
But as long as even one EU country is promiscuous in offering citizenships to players, the whole boat is leaky. Right now, Belgium is particularly unfinicky, and the, um, relationship betweek Chelsea and SK Lokeren is particularly suspect.
Football's insistence on not changing nationalities once senior nationality is established is in stark contrast to the Olympics, where athletes have regularly changed passports between Olympiads.
But as long as even one EU country is promiscuous in offering citizenships to players, the whole boat is leaky. Right now, Belgium is particularly unfinicky, and the, um, relationship betweek Chelsea and SK Lokeren is particularly suspect.
Football's insistence on not changing nationalities once senior nationality is established is in stark contrast to the Olympics, where athletes have regularly changed passports between Olympiads.
1
England already has a restriction on foreign players (from the non European countries) that very few countries have. Work permits are only given to players who have played a certain percentage of their national team games. Regularly players from non European Union countries are denied visas because of that. The English league is attractive because it is more balanced than other leagues and that is because it has a system of distributing TV money that gives more money to weaker teams than say Spain
3
This article ignores far too many aspects that contradict its statement.
What about the insane PL ticket prices? What about exploding costs for TV rights? What about the fans that abandon their megalomaniac teams, to fund new clubs in a grassroots movement?
And it also ignores that the PL had no team among the final 8 of the Champions League this year.
And the only CL winner from the PL within the last 6 years, was Chelsea, with the worst performance in decades.
Or shall we mention that the Premier League is far behind Spain in the UEFA ranking and will most likely drop behind the Bundesliga soon?
I'm sorry, football is slightly more than about how much players earn and how much money some sheiks and oligarchs are willed to spend for their toy clubs.
Personally I'm far more impressed about what Belgian football achieved in the past years, than about anything that the Premier League managed to achieve.
What about the insane PL ticket prices? What about exploding costs for TV rights? What about the fans that abandon their megalomaniac teams, to fund new clubs in a grassroots movement?
And it also ignores that the PL had no team among the final 8 of the Champions League this year.
And the only CL winner from the PL within the last 6 years, was Chelsea, with the worst performance in decades.
Or shall we mention that the Premier League is far behind Spain in the UEFA ranking and will most likely drop behind the Bundesliga soon?
I'm sorry, football is slightly more than about how much players earn and how much money some sheiks and oligarchs are willed to spend for their toy clubs.
Personally I'm far more impressed about what Belgian football achieved in the past years, than about anything that the Premier League managed to achieve.
11
Sadly most casual fans don't have that point of view. Many great players come from the Belgian league which feed into the top leagues in Europe. I am one that believes that ownership should be local/country specific and that in order for a national team to be successful their best players must play substantial minutes in their domestic league.
I give German national team as example number 1
I give German national team as example number 1
1
One of the lures EPL has for me is the level of play which is truly world-class. No doubt this has been possible by importing talents from all corners of the globe. With any restrictions on number of foreign players, the league will surely lose me and I am sure many more like me across all continents. I have always had a problem with Indian Premier League in 20/20 Cricket because of this very reasons They allow only 4 foreign players per team for a single match. I have had to watch Bhatia bowling for KKR when Brett Lee watched from the sidelines.
2
The headline is a bit hyperbolic, no?
Harry Kane looked great against Lithuania. Right, they are the 94th ranked team in the world.
Against Italy, Kane looked quite like the average footballer he is when compared to the world's best.
As a whole, English players just aren't technically or tactically good enough to warrant such high ticket prices and TV contracts. Hence the influx of TV money, Oligarch and Petrodollar owners have brought us to the state of the modern game in England.
The undeniable fact that the England NT can't win anything is that their players just aren't good enough, pure and simple.
It has nothing to do with the influx of foreign players in the PL or Championship.
Foreign players have certainly made the Premier League more watchable. If they weren't in the PL, the league would be unwatchable for me.
If I want to watch the best I watch La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc.
I never drank the Kool-AId that the Anglo press was serving about the PL being the best league in the world.
It is sad that so many Americans have.
Harry Kane looked great against Lithuania. Right, they are the 94th ranked team in the world.
Against Italy, Kane looked quite like the average footballer he is when compared to the world's best.
As a whole, English players just aren't technically or tactically good enough to warrant such high ticket prices and TV contracts. Hence the influx of TV money, Oligarch and Petrodollar owners have brought us to the state of the modern game in England.
The undeniable fact that the England NT can't win anything is that their players just aren't good enough, pure and simple.
It has nothing to do with the influx of foreign players in the PL or Championship.
Foreign players have certainly made the Premier League more watchable. If they weren't in the PL, the league would be unwatchable for me.
If I want to watch the best I watch La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc.
I never drank the Kool-AId that the Anglo press was serving about the PL being the best league in the world.
It is sad that so many Americans have.
8
You are wrong about literally everything you say. Kane was average against Italy? You obviously didn't watch the match.
The truth hurts, don't it?
BTW, I watched every minute of the Italy match.
BTW, I watched every minute of the Italy match.
"It is sad that so many Americans have."
What do you care what others watch? I think top to bottom, the PL is the best league, the most interesting and most balanced. Bundesliga was great, but now it it's Bayern Munich's world, the rest of the league just lives in it.
And, please, don't make it like Spanish, Italian and German leagues are not chock-full of other nationalities. The three most widely known players in La Liga are Portuguese, Argentine and Welsh. Non-Germans make up a majority of Bayern Munich's 25-man roster.
And, to your original point: was Harry Kane supposed to score a goal in every game? Plus, it was a friendly, who cares?
What do you care what others watch? I think top to bottom, the PL is the best league, the most interesting and most balanced. Bundesliga was great, but now it it's Bayern Munich's world, the rest of the league just lives in it.
And, please, don't make it like Spanish, Italian and German leagues are not chock-full of other nationalities. The three most widely known players in La Liga are Portuguese, Argentine and Welsh. Non-Germans make up a majority of Bayern Munich's 25-man roster.
And, to your original point: was Harry Kane supposed to score a goal in every game? Plus, it was a friendly, who cares?
Like most premiere league fans, I know that the top teams are owned by Hedge Funds or Middle Eastern sheiks for their investment benefit rather that purely for sport. And we know that this requires top global players to attract the world viewership and the dollops of TV money that comes with that. But we also care passionately about our national teams which are not (mainly) profit focused and which serves as an important locus of national pride. And there is little doubt that the huge influx of foreign stars has limited the playing exposure for current and potential national team players. It is one of the unfortunate side effects of a globalized game. Now what do we do about that?
6
Premier League is the best! The second of the interactives on this site shows the relationship between FIFA Ranking and the number of players from a country over time: http://datatante.com/?p=546. Its particularly fun to look at the trajectory of Belgium.
1
The problem is EPL is run on pure capitalistic system; no salary cap, no revenue sharing, free agency ..
NFL, the most american of the american sports, on the other hand is run on socialism. Revenue sharing, salary cap, limited free agency over seen by the big brother NFL HQs.
But EPL can't really make changes like NFL can. The rules of Football are governed by FIFA.
Otherwise, EPL could change the rules by by having four quarters instead of two halves, video replay for the referees, cheerleaders and rating/revenues will shoot through the roof. Just imagine. Free kick. Take a comericial break, was it offside?-lets go to commercial break while the refs decide, player down on the pitch-bring in the cheerleaders and take a commercial break, half-time- bring in the pop stars..
NFL, the most american of the american sports, on the other hand is run on socialism. Revenue sharing, salary cap, limited free agency over seen by the big brother NFL HQs.
But EPL can't really make changes like NFL can. The rules of Football are governed by FIFA.
Otherwise, EPL could change the rules by by having four quarters instead of two halves, video replay for the referees, cheerleaders and rating/revenues will shoot through the roof. Just imagine. Free kick. Take a comericial break, was it offside?-lets go to commercial break while the refs decide, player down on the pitch-bring in the cheerleaders and take a commercial break, half-time- bring in the pop stars..
2
"economists say that’s good for the players, their countries — and for England (...) this expert consensus has largely failed to shift public opinion."
It might economically good, but less so for the national team that competed quite well in the international tournaments around 1990.
It might economically good, but less so for the national team that competed quite well in the international tournaments around 1990.
2
OK, so how do you explain that the English missed the WC finals in 1974 and 1978 (and, oh, by the way, they only qualified in 1970 because they were defending champions) when the league was overwhelmingly English?
Not to pick on you personally, it's just that this argument put forth by the English football authorities is so completely stupid and illogical.
Not to pick on you personally, it's just that this argument put forth by the English football authorities is so completely stupid and illogical.
3
This article is overly simplistic, and misses key points:
1. Every country has a duty to develop home grown talent.This is true of any industry.
2. Owners of football teams (or most professional sports teams) do not always behave like rational business people, often buying foreign talent simply because it is easier than developing their own talent, in a quest to win now.
3. Many articles have been written about how the majority of professional clubs in europe operate in the red, usually due to the previous point. See the fate of Parma, once a european champion, now bankrupt.
Developing home grown talent, rather than buying Brazilian players because it is sexy to think you have found the next great Brazilian player would greatly counteract this trend.
4. No fan of footbal respects the FIFA ranking. England being ranked in the top 10 does not make up for consistently poor performances in European and World Finals. There are byzantine workings behind those rankings.
The best international players, yes, should play in the best clubs. Anywhere.
The mediocre international players probably arent worth it.
Developing home grown talent serves the financial benefit of the industry and maintains the health of individual national teams.
1. Every country has a duty to develop home grown talent.This is true of any industry.
2. Owners of football teams (or most professional sports teams) do not always behave like rational business people, often buying foreign talent simply because it is easier than developing their own talent, in a quest to win now.
3. Many articles have been written about how the majority of professional clubs in europe operate in the red, usually due to the previous point. See the fate of Parma, once a european champion, now bankrupt.
Developing home grown talent, rather than buying Brazilian players because it is sexy to think you have found the next great Brazilian player would greatly counteract this trend.
4. No fan of footbal respects the FIFA ranking. England being ranked in the top 10 does not make up for consistently poor performances in European and World Finals. There are byzantine workings behind those rankings.
The best international players, yes, should play in the best clubs. Anywhere.
The mediocre international players probably arent worth it.
Developing home grown talent serves the financial benefit of the industry and maintains the health of individual national teams.
14
I agree, Germany limits to number of non-Germans in their leagues, that is how they developed their players and won the world cup.
Anthony: Like all other EU states, Germany may put no limit on players holding a passport from any of the member countries. Some are strict in issuing passports to those born abroad, others are extremely lax (Belgium springs to mind). But once an EU passport is obtained, the holder can play as if a national in any of the 27 member nations, which include 8 of the top 10 leagues in Europe, Russia and Switzerland excepted. A look at the Swiss team reveals top players with Chechen-Albanian heritage, and a number of other birthplaces, including Johan Djourou, born in Africa.
Germany, like the EPL, can only limit those from outside the EU.
Germany, like the EPL, can only limit those from outside the EU.
4
The problem with English Soccer is English fans. In demanding an entertaining but tactically unsound brand of play they handcuff the national team and England based clubs so that again no English teams are in the round of eight in the Champion's League Tournament.
2
Against Lithuania Kane was brilliant. Against Italy, a much stronger team, he was marginalized and ineffective. Sort of like the ENT.
3
The quality of the product has gone up.
But the ticket prices have skyrocketed and the passion and atmosphere has gone out of the game in England.
But the ticket prices have skyrocketed and the passion and atmosphere has gone out of the game in England.
7
Dozens of Steven Girard like players? Great technical skills but slow as molasses. See ENT at 2014 World Cup. Uninteresting.
1
Steven Gerrard slow as molasses? I guess you never saw him play before the previous year or two. His ability to breeze by other midfielders at full gallop while controlling the ball was always one of his greatest attributes.
Are Raheem Sterling, Harry Kane, Theo Walcott, and Ross Barkley uninteresting? Not in my book.
All that being said, Greg Dyke is being foolish. The influx of foreign players has turned the Premier League, as noted in this article, into the most compelling league to watch worldwide. Different styles, cultures, and technical abilities coalescing (though sometimes not working) in any given side in the league make it a fantastic watch. It may not result in an England World Cup title, but neither would taking the league back to primarily English players.
Are Raheem Sterling, Harry Kane, Theo Walcott, and Ross Barkley uninteresting? Not in my book.
All that being said, Greg Dyke is being foolish. The influx of foreign players has turned the Premier League, as noted in this article, into the most compelling league to watch worldwide. Different styles, cultures, and technical abilities coalescing (though sometimes not working) in any given side in the league make it a fantastic watch. It may not result in an England World Cup title, but neither would taking the league back to primarily English players.
1
The United Kingdom would be a formidable football power; the fact that Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland all play in world soccer as separate countries means that every World Cup, the talent on the islands is diluted across four different teams.
13
There is also the Scottish League which draws money and talent away from the Premiership.
Football is tribal. The England football team will still be there when The United Kingdom is long gone.
1
You mean out of millions and millions of people in the "islands" you can not get 44 decent players to man each of those countries and have decently competitive teams? "Diluted talent" nice try.... I give you points for originality.
Forget Football, have you been to London lately. It seems as though the English are in a declining minority. What is the long term effect of this on their Nationality, we have already witnessed incredible brutality in their country caused by non-English iimigrants and their England born children. I would think it is time to examine closely what it means to be English, France and the rest of Europe should also look into their own consciousness and decide what kind of nationalism they are leaving their children.
6
I don't think your rhetoric is entirely helpful, scaremongering helps nobody.
5
Forget scaremongering, it's time for a loud wake-up call before it is too late. We have concluded England is a scary place to visit. Go walk through Hyde Park on any Sunday afternoon.
6
Your comment is nothing but thinly veiled racism, pure and simple. I hope the majority of the fine people of England and around Europe do realize that they absolutely depend on immigrants, given declining birth rates.
10
Yep, globalisation has been soooo lovely for English footie fans: Arsenal season ticket price up 335% since 1992 (http://thearsenalhistory.com/?p=8148) and up 1423% since the corporatisation of sport first took hold in 1980. More "ain't greed is good for us" rubbish from myopic economic reporters.
5
“We are simply not giving young domestic talent sufficient opportunities at the highest level of English football.”
then why doesn't young domestic talent go abroad? globalization works both ways.
then why doesn't young domestic talent go abroad? globalization works both ways.
17
@thomas bishop
One reason they don't go abroad is because the other top European Leagues in Spain, France, Italy and Germany favor their own players. Why? They want strong national teams in international competition.
One reason they don't go abroad is because the other top European Leagues in Spain, France, Italy and Germany favor their own players. Why? They want strong national teams in international competition.
6
We have to realize that opportunities are limited, for instance, Germany limits to number of non-Germans in their leagues, that is how they developed their players and won the world cup.
1
Yes. France has a very good farm system. Many of the young players leave to play elsewhere in the EU, especially, the England, Spain, Italy and Germany.
As with just about everything else in life, there are many ways to look at this trend: On a positive side, a restriction on the number of players from another country (or, for that -- another continent) might well serve young domestic talent hoping to break into the big leagues, and thereby foster the sport from an earlier age at home; like the German Budesliga.
On the other hand, it is precisely this type of reckoning that gives rise to some of the most virulent racist xenophobia that has become ever more apparent at games these days. Hard problem. Tough call.
On the other hand, it is precisely this type of reckoning that gives rise to some of the most virulent racist xenophobia that has become ever more apparent at games these days. Hard problem. Tough call.
4
Your comment is slightly misleading - there is no restriction on the number of foreign players in Germany. However, to your second point, unlike the English federation, the German league has invested much more heavily in youth academies and player development, which is at least part of the reason why the rate of Germany players in the Bundesliga is higher than it is for Englishmen in the EPL. In other words, openness is not the only problem, it's a lack of development and thus competitiveness starting at youth levels.
3
The Bundesliga argument doesn't hold water... if you look at Bayern Munich's current squad, 13 of the 25 players are not German. And, for the past few seasons, they have been beating around the rest of the Bundesliga like a rental car. So, clearly the path to success is Bundesliga is not through a predominantly German team.
However, what the Germans do right is develop talent. This is what England needs to do if they want to improve.
However, what the Germans do right is develop talent. This is what England needs to do if they want to improve.
1
@Swans-while I agree about Bayern whipping on the rest of the Bundesliga like a red headed mule, you also can't dismiss that 3 of Bayern's best 14 ( granting Gotze only as either a starter or one assumed sub) were plucked from prominent competitors, Manuel Neuer from Schalke and Gotze and Lewandowski from Dortmund. It not only strengthens Bayern, but weakens their competition at the same time. Had Dortmund not had a disastrous season, and is almost guaranteed a year out of the Champions League, Rumminegge might well have followed through on his thinly veiled threat to meet Marco Reus' release clause and scoop HIM up too.
2
"The fans arguably are beneficiaries, too. They get to watch better players and better games, and their hometown teams are among the giants of global soccer."
Two points:
First off many fans have become disillusioned with the sport because of the skyrocketing ticket prices in England, prices that essentially exclude working class fans and have totally transformed the atmosphere at matches.
Secondly, fans are fundamentally not aesthetes. They want for their club to win matches. The financial stratification that has occurred in the globalized Premier League means that for most clubs, the chances of winning a championship are basically nil.
It may be arguable that fans are beneficiaries, but that argument is getting progressively weaker.
Two points:
First off many fans have become disillusioned with the sport because of the skyrocketing ticket prices in England, prices that essentially exclude working class fans and have totally transformed the atmosphere at matches.
Secondly, fans are fundamentally not aesthetes. They want for their club to win matches. The financial stratification that has occurred in the globalized Premier League means that for most clubs, the chances of winning a championship are basically nil.
It may be arguable that fans are beneficiaries, but that argument is getting progressively weaker.
24
Indeed, it is no longer the 'peoples game' unless those people are affluent. For example, when I was a kid I used to have a paper round and that money enabled me to go and watch the football - Unless those kids get around £100 a week these days, match days are out of the question (Premier League).
1
RE: ticket prices
Supply and demand ... high demand for limited supply = increase in prices. That's Macroeconomics 101.
If the clubs cut ticket prices in half, where would they find the seats to put all the additional people who now would buy tickets? More likely, the seats would be bought at 50 quid and sold for 100, tidy profit to the seller. Why would a club want that, and how would that improve anything?
Supply and demand ... high demand for limited supply = increase in prices. That's Macroeconomics 101.
If the clubs cut ticket prices in half, where would they find the seats to put all the additional people who now would buy tickets? More likely, the seats would be bought at 50 quid and sold for 100, tidy profit to the seller. Why would a club want that, and how would that improve anything?
2
Your first point is spot on. But your second one runs contrary to my experience. I have met few fans who don't find other pleasures in following their clubs other than simply winning. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any more fans of most clubs in England. And there are. People follow clubs and invest aspects of themselves in clubs for all sorts of reasons, many of them based on aesthetics, which I take to mean the beauty of the game when it is played excellently or spiritedly, or both. Sure there are those who only care about wins and losses, but I really don't think those types truly qualify as fans, at least not to the extent that I'd empathize with the insane inflation of ticket prices.
Let's remember that prior to the Premier League, England's national team was pretty terrible in the 1970s and 1980s.
They did not win or go deep in the Euros or World Cup in either decade. In fact England failed to qualify for the World Cup tournament in 1974 and 1978.
Nominally English teams did win the European Cup 7 times between 1970 and 1984. (They were banned from Europe after the Heysel disaster in 1985). However, these English teams were mostly a mix of Scots, Welsh, Irish, English, with a couple of foreign players perhaps. They were not all English players.
They did not win or go deep in the Euros or World Cup in either decade. In fact England failed to qualify for the World Cup tournament in 1974 and 1978.
Nominally English teams did win the European Cup 7 times between 1970 and 1984. (They were banned from Europe after the Heysel disaster in 1985). However, these English teams were mostly a mix of Scots, Welsh, Irish, English, with a couple of foreign players perhaps. They were not all English players.
3
The first noticeable sign of soccer globalization that I recall was in Milan in the late 1980s when the Inter Milan v AC Milan Derby was more like an international between Germany (Brehme, Matthaus & Klinsmann, playing for Inter) and the Netherlands (Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard playing for AC Milan) About that time some soccer commentator, paraphrasing an oft-used cliche, observed "Italy is a nation of midfielders." A few seasons later, AC Milan's globalization reached the point where at one time, its squad consisted of eight current or former world cup captains (e.g Laudrup, Baresi, Weah, Papin)
3
If English players want more opportunity there are leagues around the world that would be glad to have them. But as many folks know, there are scant few English players in other top leagues (Spain, Germany, Italy, France, etc.). There's plenty of global opportunity if they're willing to travel. Who was the last, great English player outside England? How long ago? Liam Brady? Gary Lineker? 10-20 years ago? That really speaks volumes.
8
Well yeah....apart from Liam Brady is from the Republic of Ireland!
5
spot on comment. Let's also point out that England has failed to win the World Cup since 1966, long before the current wave of globalization. But while there have been limits in the past, it's really nothing new: Puskas and Di Stefano (sp) at RM, Cruyff at Barcelona, Maradona and many more have long had had dramatic impact on the game while playing away from home.
Liam Brady is Irish
So, instead of rethinking their development academies and training methods, England solution is to ban foreigners to make it easier for their domestic players (who are already overpaid)? No wonder they haven't won anything since 1966.
If they're going to kick out foreign players, then I hope they lead by example and kick out foreign owners, foreign sponsors, and foreign fans as well. I'm sure the players will love watching their salaries plummet and the fans will enjoy watching second tier soccer.
This is discrimination, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if the discrimination is based on race, religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. It's actually not a surprise given that the English FA, coaching ranks, and even referees are dominated by English white males.
This is great news for the MLS as, over the next 5 - 10 years, it could replace the Premiership as the number one soccer league in the world.
If they're going to kick out foreign players, then I hope they lead by example and kick out foreign owners, foreign sponsors, and foreign fans as well. I'm sure the players will love watching their salaries plummet and the fans will enjoy watching second tier soccer.
This is discrimination, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if the discrimination is based on race, religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. It's actually not a surprise given that the English FA, coaching ranks, and even referees are dominated by English white males.
This is great news for the MLS as, over the next 5 - 10 years, it could replace the Premiership as the number one soccer league in the world.
5
You really made me laugh with your idea that the MLS might become the number one league in the world within a decade.
Currently it isn't even among the top 20 and your national team relies on players from Europe, with some distant US roots. Often enough from teams in second leagues.
And besides, they don't intend to ban foreign players, they just consider to change some limitations for foreign players. Huge difference.
Currently it isn't even among the top 20 and your national team relies on players from Europe, with some distant US roots. Often enough from teams in second leagues.
And besides, they don't intend to ban foreign players, they just consider to change some limitations for foreign players. Huge difference.
2
@hoodriveroneill: two words define why MLS will never be a top league in quality: Salary Cap. Did you see that the average wage in England's second division is the equivalent of US$ 721K? Contrast that in the 2014 season, the MLS salary cap was $3.1 million, for TWENTY players, DPs excepted, a maximum of 3. And non DPs had a MAXIMUM salary last year of $387k, barely half the average in the English Championship. To make an even more stark comparison, the salary of Theo Walcott, a squad player for Arsenal, would fund THREE MLS squads, DPs deducted.
MLS' attendance figures are impressive. The quality of play is not. And before we laud MLS as one of the world's great leagues, can one of its teams even win the Concacaf Champions League, and be the best in our own confederation. Montreal is very much in with a chance, but, ironically, while they were the worst team in the Eastern Conference, they got into the tournament not by anything they did in MLS, but by winning the Canadian Cup. They then beat out Red Bulls in group, who were in because they had won the MLS Supporters Shield.
MLS' attendance figures are impressive. The quality of play is not. And before we laud MLS as one of the world's great leagues, can one of its teams even win the Concacaf Champions League, and be the best in our own confederation. Montreal is very much in with a chance, but, ironically, while they were the worst team in the Eastern Conference, they got into the tournament not by anything they did in MLS, but by winning the Canadian Cup. They then beat out Red Bulls in group, who were in because they had won the MLS Supporters Shield.
Hoodriveroneill: excellent attendance aside, the MLS will never be one of the top leagues in the world due to a simple, self-imposed limitation, the salary cap. The article notes that in the English Championship, their second division, the *average* salary exchanges to $721,000. For non designated players, the MLS maximum salary was (last season) $387,000, barely half the AVERAGE in the english second tier. And the salaries of two entire MLS squads, DPs aside, or 40 players, would be more than covered by what Arsenal pays Theo Walcott to be a squad player. See the problem? Even counting DPs, no MLS side has a n aggregate salary equal to what either Wayne Rooney or Yaya Toure earns, which is still well below the Crissy Rons or Leo Messis of the world.
Let's wait and see if Montreal can be the first MLS side to be Champions of Concacaf (in the current CCL format) before we dream them to be world class quality, shall we?
Let's wait and see if Montreal can be the first MLS side to be Champions of Concacaf (in the current CCL format) before we dream them to be world class quality, shall we?
The English Premier League makes a fortune selling TV rights throughout the World. That money is used throughout all the English Leagues. If Premiership clubs began fielding sub standard teams to meet quota requirements, that revenue will begin to decline.
Also, when clubs such as Liverpool, Tottenham and Manchester United sold their key non-English players, their performance declined.
Would be English superstars can only improve by being around the best players in the world. Being around quota imposed English players won't cut it.
Also, when clubs such as Liverpool, Tottenham and Manchester United sold their key non-English players, their performance declined.
Would be English superstars can only improve by being around the best players in the world. Being around quota imposed English players won't cut it.
14
I grew up playing soccer and love the game, however, let's get real. Professional football is part of the entertainment industry, that's all. The kind of jingoism referred to in this article pretends that there is some consequence to which national team is "best" or which nation "leads" the world. Let's keep English soccer for the English, etc, etc, just sounds archaic, and to my mind pointless.
21
-----
no it was not. there is comprehensive evidence of the game being played in medieval times in italy, Spain, Portugal. the english have won one....one...world cup. they are hardly soccer
giants....italy has won 4, brazil 5, germany 3.........