Compelling Soccer

Last week, news broke about the Premiership instituting a home grown player quota on it's squads starting next year. What does that mean? In short, every team in the Premiership is required to name a 25 man roster at the end of each transfer period (August and then in January) in which no less than eight players are "home grown".

Naturally, I had questions about it. A mandate on "home grown" players? I tried to imagine what it would be like to see such a rule implemented in baseball, hockey or basketball here. What if MLB decided that 15 home grown players were necessary per team. What would that do? It seemed strange at least and a bit xenophobic at worst.

But after seeing the report that English clubs were one of the biggest losers financially, the FA decision starts to come into focus.

Basically, the Premiership just put an import ban on their league in hopes to make money, or rather save money now and make money long term. It has nothing to do with improving the long term state of English soccer or trying to get more English players into the Premiership. (Though that may end up happening as an end result)

The biggest proof of that is the wording of what "home grown" means. What does this ban do? Let's lay out the situation.

It requires that a squad have at least eight players who spent three years with an English/Welsh club, youth squad or otherwise, before their 21st birthday. This is not respective of nationality, i.e., it does not matter where they are from. According to this you have have been from Manchester, New York, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo or Timbuktu. If you were in an English system for three years before you turned 21, you count.

That should tip you off as to the real reason for this deal even before the financial news broke. If it was about getting more UK players in then Scottish and Northern Irish players would have been acceptable. But they're not even excepted. If a player is from Scotland and comes up in Rangers' academy, he doesn't meet the requirements. Heck if he's from London and he does that, he doesn't make it. It's not about where they're from, it's about who owns their rights when they turn 21.

Or in other words, who owns their rights when they become immensely profitable.

That particular aspect won't be apparent right away, but I suspect that it will turn out to be the driving factor in the long run. Why, I'll get to in a moment. But first, let's examine the immediate benefit to English clubs not named Chelsea or Liverpool.

-It lessens the market for foreign based transfers

This is simple supply and demand. Limiting the number of slots you can spend on foreign developed players artificially lowers demand. If you had 25 slots for them before and only have 17 for them now, then while your pool stays the same, your need decreases. In theory, that drops the demand and should drop prices for players. At the very least, it lessens effect of the big clubs being able to spend for whoever they want. In time they'll find their way around it, but in the short term, it will require some balancing by the clubs up against the quota.

Second, by potentially limiting the demand and cutting big club spending, it means less clubs will have to splurge major dollars to compete. Realistically to get to the level of the big four clubs quickly, you were going to have to drop money. Serious money. Man City this summer money. And that can lead to financial ruin in better times, let alone in this worldwide economy.

No league wants to see one or more of its teams collapse financially. Artificially preventing teams from having to spend money is a means to do that.

-It inflates the price of English based players

This relates to the long term goal as well, but in the short term it causes more demand for a player who has been in the English system. If you want to to meet this quota, you have two options. One is to promote internally from your own system. Rafa Benitez has already hinted Liverpool lacks this capability as one of the critiques of the mandates is that it doesn't give teams enough time to adjust. According to Rafa, the English developmental system isn't capable of producing top flight talent right away. His argument is a poor one because as my English co-worker points out, "it's the same for everyone", so the failure of the system isn't something that concerns Liverpool if everyone has trouble with it.

But the trick is that you don't have to promote internally from your own system. Home grown merely means grown in England. So what's to stop Rafa from spending the money he might have spent on a Spanish or French player on an English player instead, to meet the quota?

And that, ladies and gents, is exactly what hierarchy wants.

Inflating demand allows for inflation of prices. The demand for English based players goes up and the price for said players go up. This also relates to both a short term and long term effect:

-Money Stays in League

If you have to buy players based in England then the Premiership is requiring that a portion of your budget is spend in house. You are required to buy from our store. Simple as that. Now teams can always end up spending more money on foreign based players and go for cheaper English based ones, but that they are required means that in theory, more money than before will stay in house. Realistically, if Liverpool (and I focus on them not because I'm a fan but because Chelsea is facing a transfer ban) has money to spend and are not allowed to spend it on a foreign player, they will spend it on the best English one they can get.

More money stays in house. Rather than England's transfers making other leagues richer, their transfer system helps re disperse the funds amongst the other teams in the Premiership. Plus, long term there could be an influx of money from teams outside the league. Why?

-More opportunities for English based youngsters

Again this is not to suggest for English kids, but for kids who are in the English development system. This alludes to the point I made earlier about the age being put at a point where the players were cheap and are now starting to get expensive.

Basically, this method forces teams to use more players they developed. If a greater number of them get opportunities in the Premiership, a greater number, in theory, will stand out. Eventually those players will be sold, either to another English team or to a foreign squad. If there are enough good ones that do get expensive, then you get one of two things happening.

1. Your players are so good, you don't need to go elsewhere to spend money. Transfer dollars stay in house.

2. Your players are so good they have a massive market elsewhere. Other league's transfer dollars come in house.

The quota requires someone in England use a lot of cheap players they developed. The big clubs won't have to as much since they can afford to just buy a player who was developed by another English team. But it doesn't matter in that case, since to get those players they will have had to buy them from another English squad. Again, two possibilities exist:

1. Big team develops it's own good, cheap players. With it's own good players, it has less of a need to spend money. Money remains in house.

2. Big team can't develop it's own English based players. It has to buy them to make quota. Money is transferred but remains in house.


Overall, what I found odd and suspicious a few days ago makes a whole lot more sense to me now. I actually find it intriguing and am curious to see if the things speculated here actually pan out for the Premiership in the long term.