The English Premier League’s new player rules will benefit the England national team in the long run
From the 2010/11 season the EPL will essentially require 8 of out of 25 players to be ‘home-grown.’ This does not necessarily mean that they have to be of British nationality and the rule is designed to fight against the irresponsible transfers of recent weeks and perhaps to reduce the strain on Football teams budgets rather than improve the national side. But will it benefit the England national side?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
FA Chief Executive, Richard Scudamore, has argued that the new rules on 'home-grown' players will raise demand for youth players, encourage development of academy facilities, and, hopefully, "make buying home-grown talent more attractive." (http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1797582,00.html) Whilst the potential growth in youth transfer fees will certainly rise, the prospect of improved conditions and educational levels of the new band of future stars might be under threat. Nonetheles, Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe is right to argue that the new regulations "will encourage clubs to develop and bring through young talent and help ensure clubs are financially stable." (http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1797582,00.html) This, in turn, will bring through a new generation of more experienced, more developed, and, hopefully, more mature players ready for international duty.
Players get better with even greater players around them if football clubs aren't aloud to buy does players then the league will not only suffer but the national team as well. They do not only learn from each other but make football more entertaining which will get young people more intrested to sign up for the academy in the first place. In the long run such inforces can make players change leagues and if your not playing with the best you won't have a prayer of becoming the best.
The newly appointed youth director for the EPL, Ged Roddy, has rightly argued that the new rules "will give extra incentive for clubs to invest in youth development. The intention is to make a better return from investment in youth, to transition more players from the youth team to the first team. To make rather than buy is the intention." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/14/premier-league-richard-scudamore-squads) This obvious implications for the development of the England national team do not need repeating.
The argument that there is limited opportunity for young English players to break into first teams is a misguided view of the situation. The simple fact is that if a player is good enough, he will make it. Simple as that. Rooney broke into Everton's team at 16. Walcott, Johnson, J.Cole all broke into their respective first teams at an early age as well. Players such as Gosling and Rodwell at Everton have broken into the first team recently as well. This highlights the fact that if they are good enough then they will play. What good will it do clubs or players if someone who is ultimately not good enough is made to play just because of a need to fill a quota. The loan system is a perfect way of seeing if a player has the potential to succeed at a lower level if need be to see how they develop. For example, Scott Sinclair and Michael Mancienne at Chelsea are being loaned out to other premiership clubs in order to gain experience. If they light up the premiership, then no doubt they will be able to break into the Chelsea squad once they return.
Moreover the strength of the Premier League, as we have seen in the last decade, does not equate to a better standard of national team. In the late 1990's in France the league was of a poor standard by international standards with squads largely made up of young frenchmen and talented foreigners, particularly from Africa. Yet, whilst almost all of their international players were playig football outside of France they won both the World Cup (1998) and European Championship (2000). These measures, whilst well intentioned, cannoy be seen as a guarenteed blueprint for more British players playing regular Premier League and Champions League football. Football is now a market and the market will dictate how many young players make it.
Reduces Squad Depth and Playing Staff Numbers
The new rules, whilst good for youth development, will force clubs into major restructuring of their playing staffs, and certainly a reduction in overall squad numbers. The top sides, often accused of "stockpilling" players, will be especially affected. Supporters of teams outside this group will rejoice no doubt. But the new rules will cause sides like Liverpool, with 56 registered professionals, will have to let many of those players go. This will result in less, not more, English youth players gaining experiece in the top flight of European football, surely having a negative impact on the national sides' capacity.
Of course raising the minimum number of players will force the owner manager to play English players. In fact it may not go far enough since Spain's first division is 77 percent Spanish It seemed to help Spain Germany and France so why wouldn't it help England. They could also make half of the squad for every game be English this would of course protect the development of english players without impeding the overbearing rules set out by the e.u.
The real problem with English football is the same problem with many countries where the unscrupulous owners are only interested in money. They will take any player who will help them for the moment but will not invest in their own countries future.
As for the poor teams that will have to lose thier valauble stock piles I think it only fair .
Some managers will argue that these players are not ready for the 1st. division but who is until they are given a chance. Spain has already chastised England for this very problem. It is obviuos to everyone else in the world the only defense for this is strictly economic. Yes in the short term clubs will suffer a little not winning the league or champions title but if you could make the final in 4 or 8 years i think your club support would go up. You should look to the current football powers and see how their first divisions are run.
The only word for what has happened to English players in the premiereship is marginalism. And if it keeps up i think that England will have a very hard time qualifying for any tournamment.
The potential impact on young players being thrown into the first team may, according to Scottish FA Chief Executive Neil Doncaster, result in those players "struggling to deal with the hard knocks of the real world when they are loaned out or transferred to clubs in the lower leagues." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8255883.stm) Moreover, the "underserved kudos" attributed to youth players "created a comfort zone" that will likely deteriorate the calibre available to the England national team.
It is better to learn about football when you're young so why not bring young players into the first team. Look at the young players who are excellent footballers after being thrown into the first team. Wayne Rooney - one of the best footballers in the world,starting his career for Everton when he was 17 and moving onto play for Manchester United at the age of 19. Rooney then won the Premiership 3 time, Champions League once and two league cups. He also has a clinical shot. Michael Owen - a Liverpool legend who started his career at the age of 17, scoring goals whenever he wanted to.
What do you think?