

The Big Downside of 6+5
By: Daryl | May 9th, 2008
Yesterday, I posted about Sepp Blatter’s determination for 6+5 (no more than five foreigners on any team, but you know that by now, right?) and how that was going to make greedy Premier League chief exec Richard Scudamore cry. I was sort of in favour of the idea, mostly because I’d love to see Richard Scudamore cry. But some insightful comments on the post persuaded me otherwise.
I still believe 6+5 would make European football a lot more even. There’d be no more Champions League semifinals with 75% Premier League teams for example. And 6+5 would make each league a lot more reflective of the actual talent in that country. But the huge downside is that while the money would stay in Europe, the flow of talent coming to Europe would slow to a trickle.
Right now, even in you’re born in the poorest of nations, there’s still almost nothing to stop you playing for a big, rich European club. That’s the dream that fuels talented young players in all parts of the world. But as soon as there are limits placed on foreigners, that dream is diminished. So 6+5 essentially denies talented footballers from poorer nations the opportunity to earn the same wage, and achieve the same success as someone born in a wealthy football country. Basically Justin Hoyte would have a more successful career than Kolo Toure, which just seems insane.
It also denies spectators the chance to truly see the world’s best footballers. It’s reasonable to assume that certain superstars who give us so much pleasure with their talents right now, wouldn’t be on the big teams and so wouldn’t be playing in front of a global audience.
You could argue that the cream always rises to the top. But you can also argue that 6+5 puts obstacles in the way of the ceram rising to the top. Take Leo Messi for example. Would Barcelona have taken a gamble on a young Argentinean kid with a growth deficiency if 6+5 was in place?
Those five first team spots will be so precious, clubs aren’t going to take as many risks. And maybe Messi would have made it. He’s an exceptional talent. But I’d still argue that certain quality players would fall through the net and never get the chance to shine for big European clubs if there were only five first team spots available on each team. So why make it even harder for those players?
And though 6+5 would increase equality between European leagues and European club teams, it would undo a lot of the progress towards equality in international football. Take Didier Droga for example. Born in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire but moved to France with family at the age of five. To play in the French league (as he did with Le Mans, EAG and Marseille) Drogba would almost certainly have had to pledge his international future to France. Great news for France. Horrible news for Côte d’Ivoire.
So it’s probably good news that the EU voted against Blatter’s 6+5 plan by 518 to 49 yesterday. Pretty overwhelming. The EU argument is that 6+5 contravenes freedom of movement for EU workers, and instead favour UEFA’s more realistic proposal to set a quota for homegrown players trained by the club, regardless of nationality.
The freedom of EU workers maybe isn’t the best reason to oppose 6+5. A footballer can earn a decent living in most EU countries. But 6+5 effectively constrains the movement of players from the rest of the world entering the money-filled arena of European football, denying them the chance to shine on foreign fields and denying us the pleasure of watching them do it.
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
|
Comments | Add your comment
-



Great post, Daryl; I agree completely. I’d actually go a bit further, since I think the “dominance” of the Premier League has been a bit overstated. Two Champions League winners in four years is hardly an unprecedented level of success.
Posted from
United States

-



The 6+5 rule says that you can only 5 foreign nationals on the pitch. You can have as many foreigners as you want on the bench. So I don’t think this would necessarily stop overseas talent. It might make clubs think a little bit before handing out wads of cash, but if there’s a talented foreign prospect that a club likes, nothing will stop you them buying him. Maybe they can’t play him all the time, but they still have him available.
Actually, I don’t think rule would change much in regards to overseas talent. Right now, most European leagues have some sort of rule in place - in France for example, you can only have four non-EC players in each club (EC being Europe and other countries that have agreements with France). Until last year, there could only be three non-EU players on the pitch for Spain (though now that designation has also extended to certain African countries). I believe Italy has something similar as well. The only way for foreign players to get around that is to get a European passport, which takes four or five years depending on the country.
Interestingly, Blatter’s rule will have a bigger impact on players from smaller European leagues like Portugal, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. So these leagues will be able to retain more of their players. Of course they’ll still lose their star players every year, but they won’t lose as much “just good” talent like they do now.
What strikes me as funny is that so many people are only seeing the negative of this rule, the “5″ part of it. But the other mandate, that six players have to be domestic, is a good thing. And not just for England, but also for countries like Turkey, France, and Germany, as well as clubs in Spain and Italy. Being forced to field six domestic talents is difficult for just one club - imagine when 20 clubs have to do it. So that would really accelerate youth development across the league.
I’m not against the 6+5 rule in principle, but I think Blatter needs to come up with something that doesn’t violate the principles of the EU.
Posted from
United States

-



Sepp Blatter is a dinosaur. He’s not going to stop globalization, no matter how hard he tries.
Devil’s advocate, though. What’s the difference, on a practical level, between 6+5 and the MLS limits on foreign players?
Posted from
United States

-



Laurie: that the US ain’t the EU?
Unless the US agreed on some sort of “freedom of movement” stuff with other nations like Mexico, Canada etc. I think Europe is the only place where Blatter’s plans won’t fly. Australia’s soccer league has quotas on foreigners as well AFAIK.Posted from
United States

-



Inara makes some good points about the 6+5. It’s very true that it’s not 5 places on the roster, but “on the pitch” (however, I wonder how the fine tuning with subs would be done). So some young players would make it to Europe, with players like Leo Messi perhaps getting onto Barça’s roster without a problem. But would Messi have ever played in a 6+5? I mean, look at Barça 2006 (pretty much when Messi got his first starts, not just cameos)… Between Ronaldinho, Eto’o and Deco being natural first picks, but also Belletti, Van Bommel, Giuly, Marquez, Motta, Larson, Gio, Edmilson and Sylvinho also fighting for a place amongst the “5″… Would Rijkaard have started Messi so often? I’m not sure.
As for the leagues’s requirements, I’m sorry but you’re quite wrong… France allows any player of the EU, the Cotonou agreement area (pretty much the whole of Africa, as well as many Carribean and Pacific states), and players that can prove french ancestry (i.e. people who can find a grandparent that lived in France or any of their colonies is accepted). So yes, outside that, you can only have 4 foreign players. But that’s what? Brazil, Argentina (when they don’t have an EU passport), North America and Asia. Not exactly a very restrictive policy, I’m afraid. Spain also has the same Cotonou agreement… Touré isn’t a “foreign” player for Barcelona, because Ivory Coast is part of the Cotonou agreement. Again, not -that- restrictive. Dos Santos, Edmilson and Silvinho don’t count as “foreign” players… Italy’s system is even more warped. Not only do they have the Cotonou agreement, but they have a system where clubs can “buy” the foreign player’s places from other clubs. So little clubs in lower divisions sold off two of their three spots to the big rich clubs like AC Milan, Juventus and of course Inter. Thus, Inter have (IIRC) 11 “foreign” spots on their side, meaning they can field -any- 11 players in the world. Even 11 Chinese players. As you can see, it’s a long shot from a 6+5 in all these leagues.
As for “passport-acquiring”… Portugal can require only one year of residence if the player has portuguese ancestry, Belgium requires only two years of residence, and Bulgaria require also only two years of residence. Didn’t you wonder why Arsenal, Chelsea, Blackburn, Manchester United, Porto and Celtic all have “partners” in Belgium, and sent often 4-5 players from asia/africa/south/north america there each season? Well, now you know.
As for your “conserving talent” argument… I’m not convinced. Even England, I don’t see how they had more talent in the past… After all, between 1972 and 1992 England never got pas the first round of the Euro, and they didn’t even qualify in 1972, 1976 and 1984… England didn’t qualify for the World Cup in 1974 or 1978, nor in 1990. It’s lots of noise for nothing about England’s “non-qualification”. As for France, I can’t see how you imagine a 6+5 would increase French talent… France didn’t qualify for a single Euro between 1964 and 1976, didn’t qualify for the World Cup 1986 and 1990… And since the bosman ruling in 1995, have gone on to win the World Cup, lose in the final on penalties, and win a Euro. I must be missing something on “conservation” of talent.
The 6… I don’t see it as a good thing. Do you think Anelka will be better if he goes back to Bolton (”good, but not good enough for Chelsea’s 6+5″), and plays with players who are mid-championship level at best? What’s worse, he’ll probably be under more pressure to perform than those other players, because they know that Bolton needs to field them to fill the “quota”… Anelka playing with players like that isn’t good for him (I find it hard to imagine that the quality of opposition you face day in day out in training doesn’t play a part in your overall level), isn’t good for France (hell, if he’s not improving, France is missing out), not good for Bolton (why should they play this crap English guy just because he’s “english”)… I can’t see who could find it good. Except the “english” player, who gets a large salary for not much skill.
I strongly believe that the best should play. I’m all for a quota of home-grown and club-grown (that word doesn’t exist, but it conveys the idea) players, like clubs have to list for the Champions League rounds (23 players, 5 that started in country, 3 that started in club). But I don’t believe that FIFA should be trying to force managers to play people based on non-sporting criteria. After all, if a club has 4 injured english players, how logical is it that they field 4 youth players just because they need the quota of english players? How is it fair on the non-english players?
However, what I believe FIFA should do is promote federation-run academies. If the FA wanted to have a good england side, they’d set up a “school of football” for players 13 to 18 (loan them out for the last year, or until their 20, that’s just technical details). But don’t be a bigot and limit it to “english” players. Nope. Just keep it to local players. If the FA set up an academy, not only would they be able to benefit from any talent they discover (imagine Wenger paying the FA £4M instead of paying AESJ Beveren the same amount for a 19-year old player), but they’d also provide a base for the england squad to be built upon. Certain clubs like Manchester, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea (I hope they’ll not be the only ones though) will continue their youth academies, partly out of the hope of finding a gem, partly out of pride and tradition. I know such a system might lead to clubs like Everton stopping their youth academy, but I believe that if the FA wants to take a step, it’s the right one. The French federation set up the INF Clairefontaine and 8 other “élite” federation academies, and although it opened in 1988, the INF really took flight in the 1990s. A quick look at the talent they’ve produced should convince anybody it’s a sane solution : Gallas, Henry, Anelka, Aliadière, Ben Arfa, Diaby, Saha, Rothen… And that’s just Clairefontaine. Each year, 6-7 players graduate from each academy, and even if only a few of them become full internationals, they’re all quality players, and they are partly the reason why the french league doesn’t have so many foreigners.
Sorry for being long… I hate it, but when I start writing an idea, I can’t control myself… T_T Sorry.
Posted from
France

-



We should probably set up a Knowledge Base Offside to conserve Shazback’s comments. Though as a Germany fan I have to nitpick: Germany beat France in the 1986 World Cup Semi final and Germany beat England in the 1990 World Cup semi final so they must have qualified for those.

Posted from
United States

-



Great comment by Shazback.
I agree that quotas, if they are to exist, should be based on whether a player has come out of a team’s youth system rather than which nationality they are (especially given how problematic the nationality question is for some teams). For example, like UEFA’s current quota system for European competitions.
It encourages clubs to develop their own talent and doesn’t place senseless limits on how they may do so.
(No one’s going to try and tell me that Leo Messi is less Barca-bred than Cesc Fabregas just because one of them is Spanish.)
Posted from
Australia

-



Indeed, Jan. I got my years muddled up. I was thinking it was USA 90 for some strange reason… Yes, France failed to qualify for Italy 90 and USA 94 (not Mexico 86 where they were 3rd), and England failed to qualify for USA 94, not Italy 90 (with Gazza’s tears… (;-;)).
Posted from
France

-



Shazback: I wasn’t talking about the national team but clubs from smaller European leagues, who lose even mediocre players to wealthier leagues. The international aspect of football in this case doesn’t interest me as much since it’s only England that needs help. A rule like that 6+5 would mean that Portuguese, French, Dutch, etc clubs keep more of their players. I really should have clarified though. Again, I’m not very interested in international football, so for me, a domestic player simply means a player who came through that country’s footballing system (so like Kanoute, who represents Mali, still received his footballing education at Lyon, or Drogba, ). It’s a distinction that UEFA makes, though that’s not what Blatter was talking about (this is where I disagree with Blatter). So Messi, who came up through Barca, should still be allowed as a “6″ at Real Madrid for example because his education as a footballer took place domestically in Spain.
Also, Messi and Barca are a very specific case. They are a star studded side, but most teams aren’t like that. Besides two or three other teams, Messi would have easily been one of those “5.” Same goes with Anelka and Chelsea. The thing is, if there is a restriction, all those good players who can’t get a start at one of the very top clubs would move to clubs like Bolton and Everton. So that would mean an increase of quality players at those kind of clubs, which would make them more competitive. In essence, you would have less talent hoarding. And like I said, since clubs can still have as many foreign players as they like, that won’t stop those players from improving and getting better to be one of those five. And don’t forget subs, etc.
There is no reason that those “6″ players have to be mediocre. The whole point of forcing them to play means that the expectations and level in quality will also rise in academies all over the country. It’s a mentality thing right now. Most topflight clubs have academies, but some don’t trust their youngsters (meaning English clubs). So I don’t think that a federation run academy would make things better for them unless they have to field those players. You could have quotas on homegrown players, but that would create the same issues as with the 6+5 in terms of which players could play and which ones couldn’t (spots designated as academy take up space that could go to someone else).
As I said, right now, the Cotonou agreement means that South America ’s players are considered foreign. Spain only last year relaxed their definitions of foreign to allow Africans to not count against that rule. True that residency makes things easier, but that’s why Blatter is upset. Because this system of getting EU passports makes it easier for foreign players to not be considered foreign. That’s the whole point of the 6+5 - to counteract this loophole (fyi, I’m not advocating anti-immigration policies or anything, and for what it’s worth, I think that everyone should be entitled passports if they fulfill residency requirements).
I think at the end of the day, it just depends on how you look at the situation. I don’t want to see global football. I want to see domestic leagues represent the country they’re in. But for some, that’s not important. So I can see why they would see the 6+5 rule as unfair.
And for what it’s worth, this 6+5 rule would hurt Lyon, the club I support, since many of their players aren’t French nationals. But I would accept that if it meant that more players stayed in Ligue 1, which would mean that since there would be better players, the league quality would rise.
Posted from
United States

-



Inara… Let’s take a case study.
Say the 6+5 had come into practice, and we’re looking at the French league.
Players from abroad that are “off-contract”/surplus due to 6+5 rule : Saha, Anelka, Malouda, Vieira, Makélélé, Thuram, Escudé, Zebina, Silvestre, Faubert, Sagnol, Chimbonda, Traoré, Diaby, Queudrue, Christanval, Ehui, Itandje, Plessis, Le Tallec, Distin, Pamarot, Mvuemba, Songo’o, Mvoto, Taarabt, Dervite, Sibierski, Cygan, Mavuba, Butelle, Signorino, Luccin, Delporte, Pignol, Berson, Courtois, Dacourt, Biabiany, Giuly, Gourcuff, Ba, Lepillier, Konko, Diakité, Meghni, Malonga, Ismaël, Krebs, Kornetzky, Traoré, Pfertzel, Basilla, Abardonado, Veigneau, Dom…
Add to that list players who aren’t french, but who trained in france, and keep in mind that with a 6+5, “big” clubs will all be reducing their number of foreigners. So Henry might not come back to L1, nor Saha. After all, they might find a club in Serie A, La Liga, Ukrainian Premier League or the Russian Superleague that would be more then happy to greet them.
However, many “top” players are clearly CL material. Henry, Saha, Malouda, Anelka, Vieira, Makélélé… Can you imagine them going to mid-table clubs? Or do you think they’d prefer to come back to France, join Lyon and play in the CL?
Because that’s the risk : Lyon (since we’re looking at the French League) would have first choice on all these players. Not only because Lyon’s sporting prospects are far more interesting than, say, Lens’, but also because Lyon are (and by far) the richest club in France… Ok, Lyon might lose Benzema (although, with a 6+5 system, he’d have to be able to break into the 7-8 foreign player group of some really big clubs), but if they get Henry, Gallas, Makélélé, Anelka and Malouda in return, then they’re not going to cry for too long. However, clubs like Lens, will they see their squad get better? Lyon will be getting great french players, but they’ll be letting foreign players leave. So “French talent” won’t spread down the league. On the contrary, Lyon will just increase the distance between them and the other sides.
Poorer clubs will have it bad… They can’t sell their players for so much (the market for french players abroad will be vastly reduced), so they’ll end up selling to Lyon, because it’s pretty much the only offer they get. That’s how football was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Big clubs just bought each year the best players from lesser clubs, meaning that even though the talent stayed “in the league”, the stronger sides. Just look at perhaps one of the all-time greats of French Football : J-M Larqué. Started out in Pau (L2), and after only one season, was snapped up by Saint-Etienne on a big contract (Saint-Etienne was heavily funded by Casino, pretty much France’s Wal-Mart of the 40s, 50s, and 60s). Sure, he “stayed in the league”. And he helped Saint-Etienne to seven league titles in 11 years. Without any other reason than the simple fact that Saint-Etienne had bucketloads of cash to splash around. Same for Hervé Revelli, also snapped up after one year in a junior league by Saint-Etienne. Or Rocheteau. Or… The list just goes on and on. Look at Bez’s Bordeaux side. They just bought the best players. Same for Tapie’s Marseille. With the 6+5, you’d be reverting to that kind of system. Probably not completely, but with fewer foreign players, there would be a lot more pressure on the big clubs to buy the best national players.
Lyon, Bordeaux, Marseille… They’d have 12-13 great national players. And probably 6-7 very good foreign players. But would that be a better representation of “French” football? I mean, without being a wild nationalist, you’ve got to recognise that the French national team is one that isn’t very related to “France”… From Boumsong born in Douala (Cameroon), to Evra born in Dakar (Senegal), but also Makélélé, Mandanda or Vieira… And also a certain number of players who although they were born in France, aren’t of French ancestry and didn’t live for long in France (Trézéguet, Rami, Higuain [he refused, however])… Now look at England’s national squad. Where are the people born abroad? Ok, there’s Owen Hargreaves. But that’s it. Where are the people that lived abroad for the best part of their life? Again, Hargreaves… And that’s it.
Why such a difference? Because of what’s called “sporting eligibility” under FIFA Article 15 of its Statutes. To have a parent born in England, or to have two grandparents born in England is the -only- way to be eligible for England. Whilst France can play people like Makélélé, who just came to live in france when he was 4 because his parents migrated to France, England can’t. Should we start allowing England to play anybody that has lived in England? I fail to see how it would make the league in any way representative of the country…
To illustrate this point… Look at Lyon. If France had the same footballing eligibility rules as England, then Benzema and Ben Arfa wouldn’t be eligible for the French NT. Nor would Govou. That’s also part of the question. France has a lot of talent that comes from immigration. If you think the league should represent the country, then do you want these immigrants to not take an important part in the league?
I think that if clubs had to present a list of 25-odd players at most, with 2 club-grown players at least, and 5 league-grown players, then we’d be going in the right direction. Nationality is definately something of the past in Europe (for clubs), and I find it’s all for the best. If a club wants to take pride in their “identity”, then they can (Athletico only fields “Basque” players). But having a logic of saying you have to limit the number of foreign players is pretty ridiculous. I find that to be able to watch club football that is completely different from international football is a good thing. 30 years ago, Liverpool sent 8 of their players to the England squad, Man U 4-5, Arsenal 3-4, and that’s pretty much it. Saint-Etienne, Nantes and Monaco provided 70% of the French NT in the 70s, and Bayern pretty much had the West German starting XI. Some people (Like Mr Blatter) are nostalgic of such times, but I’m not. I find that watching Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Eto’o, Puyol, Deco, Valdes, Marquez, Milito, Zambrotta, Abidal, Touré, Henry, Bojan, Gudjonsen, Van der Sar, Brown, Scholes, Hargreaves, Park, Evra, Carrick, Rooney, Ronaldo, Ferdinand, Tevez, Giggs, Nani, Fletcher and Silvestre taking part in the European Champions League semi-finals makes it not only a more interesting competition, but also… More European.
Posted from
France

-



Well there was a similar rule in place for a few years in the early nineties right after Bosman. The previous regulation of only three foreigners in squads was amended to three foreigners maximum on the match squad.
But you make some pertinent remarks regarding what a new restriction would mean to overall import of players into Europe. Have to agree with that fully and also the point about Messi (and by extension, the other foreign kids such as Dos Santos) and the Barcelona academy is spot on.
@ Shazbak: I didn’t know England has an internal rule as you describe. It’s an abomination. If you’re a citizen of a country and have not played for another country as per FIFA regulations, you should be eligible to play for your nation.
Posted from
Australia

-



Shazback: I don’t have time right now to respond to your entire post, but I just want to mention one thing. I think we’re not understanding each other. When I said football should represent the country it’s in, again, I’m not talking about nationality but about styles. I stated that my definition of a domestic player was one who came up through that country’s football system. That for me is a domestic player regardless of where he was born or who his parents are. Makelele was born in Congo and yet chooses to represent France while Sissoko was born in France and yet chose to represent Mali - regardless, they are still “domestic” players. As I said, I’m not looking at this from a nationalistic perspective. So for example, if a French kid moved to Germany and came up through German youth ranks, he should qualify as a German domestic player. That’s where he received his footballing education.
Also, I still don’t think you got my point with the talent distribution of a 6+5. Right now you can say that Lyon is the best club, but again, if those rules apply, Lyon can’t offer as many starting places either, so they will have to move to clubs like OM and PSG, and eventually, Bordeaux, etc. So eventually, that talent would distribute. Lyon can’t maintain that monopoly either (nor can they afford it).
Posted from
United States

Leave a Reply
If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse ourCommenting Guidelines.










