Why would you implement a new rule that you now will be overturned in the courts? That’s what FIFA did today with their 6+5 ruling which is trying to limit the number of foreign players on a given club. The EU has already made it clear that it violates EU labor laws. So why forge ahead with the new rule? I really don’t know but some say this is actually an attempt to create more parity between rich and not-so-rich teams. I also don’t get why it was so overwhelmingly approved given it’s chances of actually having some effect. To me in reinforces the view of FIFA as an old-boys network. The Economist covers this well here. The NY Times also covers it but gets part of the story wrong. They assert:
Beyond the legal issues, there are also questions of sport at stake. Does this sort of competitive protectionism really help develop domestic players? Some in soccer believe so. Or do players benefit from the increased competition with players from abroad? Clearly the influx of foreign players has boosted Europe’s top leagues. But has it also hampered England’s success while boosting Manchester United and Chelsea’s fortunes?
Well, there is no credible proof that England’s success has been hampered because the EPL has taken off and that there are more foreign players in the league. There are lots of great English players as evidenced by 10 of the 22 players starting in the Champions League final. Why the England team is not as successful as it should be is another question and most likely unrelated to the number of foreign players in the EPL.
