Post by Macmoish on Sept 2, 2010 6:25:07 GMT
David Conn/The Guardian
Premier League's homegrown rule will give English youngsters a chanceClubs have begun to realise they cannot chase the dream by spending wildly
So, Premier League clubs must limit themselves as of now to 25-man squads, eight of whom must be "homegrown", a new dawn of encouraging youth which joins one or two other initiatives the Premier League once vehemently opposed, then belatedly introduced. It was so with the "fit and proper person test", the very idea of which was for years derided as naive and unworkable, but which now represents the cornerstone of the Premier League's claim to protect its clubs from takeover by fantasists or fraudsters.
The reaction when Uefa announced its 25-man squad limits for clubs in its competitions from 2006-07 was within spitting distance of rabid. David Dein, the then vice-chairman of Arsenal, who have a distinguished record of trusting in young players – mostly from France, Spain and Africa rather than Islington – argued famously, that the rule would "damage the product".
The arguments ran that the rule would weaken clubs' squads, homegrown players would not actually feature in the first team, clubs would poach more youngsters from around the world – which was a bit rich, considering Premier League clubs are prime culprits for doing just that. The core reason for the vehement opposition was more fundamental and ideological: the English clubs, highly commercial, resented any interference with their freedoms. It was a gut reaction, too, resenting Uefa for getting above itself and actually acting like a European governing body, with views about the game's development.
Gradually, over the past tumultuous and debt-soaked years, clubs have come round to seeing that a few well-chosen regulations may not be quite the end of the world. No one suggests this rule heralds a revolution, in which English youngsters will suddenly be granted far more opportunities in first teams. It should be noted the Premier League's definition of homegrown is looser than that of Uefa, which requires all eight to have been in a club's own academy for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 21. The Premier League has the same age and time period, but the homegrown players can have done their time in any English club's academy, so the top clubs can make their numbers by buying players in. Nevertheless, this is acknowledged to be a start.
Money, of course, is at the heart of it, because clubs have begun to realise they cannot continue to chase the dream by wildly spending. "It is a good idea for cost-control," a Premier League spokesman said. "Clubs see that their future financial viability rests with producing young players, and this is a signal that they intend to invest more heavily in their academies."
The general calm in this summer's transfer market, apart from Manchester City's Abu Dhabi rush, is said greatly to spring from clubs needing to comply with the 25-player limit. And while the Premier League will not say its prime duty is to the England team, the rule's introduction is fortuitously well-timed, after the agony of watching the zombified national team crash out in South Africa. That failure led to a more public excavation of the immovable fact that the Premier League was allowed to come into existence , breaking away in 1992 from sharing its money with the other three divisions, primarily because its clubs promised more players, and fewer games, would improve the England team. Two years before that, England reached the semi-final of the World Cup in Italy, with players who had largely come through the lower divisions and even non-league football. Eighteen years on, no one can sensibly argue the England team has improved compared with other countries' sides.
The introduction of this rule may not lead to a dramatic improvement – it is true that homegrown does not mean English, and being named in a squad does not mean you will play. It should, though, mean that overall, more English players will have a chance of breaking through.
The rule is not the answer, then, but a sensible step. Its introduction has a wider value, too, demonstrating to the Premier League that it does not have all the answers, and that those campaigning for a better way to run the sport may not be so ridiculous after all.
www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/sep/01/25-man-squads-premier-league
Premier League's homegrown rule will give English youngsters a chanceClubs have begun to realise they cannot chase the dream by spending wildly
So, Premier League clubs must limit themselves as of now to 25-man squads, eight of whom must be "homegrown", a new dawn of encouraging youth which joins one or two other initiatives the Premier League once vehemently opposed, then belatedly introduced. It was so with the "fit and proper person test", the very idea of which was for years derided as naive and unworkable, but which now represents the cornerstone of the Premier League's claim to protect its clubs from takeover by fantasists or fraudsters.
The reaction when Uefa announced its 25-man squad limits for clubs in its competitions from 2006-07 was within spitting distance of rabid. David Dein, the then vice-chairman of Arsenal, who have a distinguished record of trusting in young players – mostly from France, Spain and Africa rather than Islington – argued famously, that the rule would "damage the product".
The arguments ran that the rule would weaken clubs' squads, homegrown players would not actually feature in the first team, clubs would poach more youngsters from around the world – which was a bit rich, considering Premier League clubs are prime culprits for doing just that. The core reason for the vehement opposition was more fundamental and ideological: the English clubs, highly commercial, resented any interference with their freedoms. It was a gut reaction, too, resenting Uefa for getting above itself and actually acting like a European governing body, with views about the game's development.
Gradually, over the past tumultuous and debt-soaked years, clubs have come round to seeing that a few well-chosen regulations may not be quite the end of the world. No one suggests this rule heralds a revolution, in which English youngsters will suddenly be granted far more opportunities in first teams. It should be noted the Premier League's definition of homegrown is looser than that of Uefa, which requires all eight to have been in a club's own academy for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 21. The Premier League has the same age and time period, but the homegrown players can have done their time in any English club's academy, so the top clubs can make their numbers by buying players in. Nevertheless, this is acknowledged to be a start.
Money, of course, is at the heart of it, because clubs have begun to realise they cannot continue to chase the dream by wildly spending. "It is a good idea for cost-control," a Premier League spokesman said. "Clubs see that their future financial viability rests with producing young players, and this is a signal that they intend to invest more heavily in their academies."
The general calm in this summer's transfer market, apart from Manchester City's Abu Dhabi rush, is said greatly to spring from clubs needing to comply with the 25-player limit. And while the Premier League will not say its prime duty is to the England team, the rule's introduction is fortuitously well-timed, after the agony of watching the zombified national team crash out in South Africa. That failure led to a more public excavation of the immovable fact that the Premier League was allowed to come into existence , breaking away in 1992 from sharing its money with the other three divisions, primarily because its clubs promised more players, and fewer games, would improve the England team. Two years before that, England reached the semi-final of the World Cup in Italy, with players who had largely come through the lower divisions and even non-league football. Eighteen years on, no one can sensibly argue the England team has improved compared with other countries' sides.
The introduction of this rule may not lead to a dramatic improvement – it is true that homegrown does not mean English, and being named in a squad does not mean you will play. It should, though, mean that overall, more English players will have a chance of breaking through.
The rule is not the answer, then, but a sensible step. Its introduction has a wider value, too, demonstrating to the Premier League that it does not have all the answers, and that those campaigning for a better way to run the sport may not be so ridiculous after all.
www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/sep/01/25-man-squads-premier-league