New rules that force clubs to play more youngsters
should benefit the national team but some managers are not
happy
It is in the
soul-searching aftermath of an England failure at a major
tournament that thoughts invariably turn towards the next
generation, the young players who will one day, at long last, drive
the nation to glory. The debate, however, can lead to further
introspection. In the Premier League
years, with clubs' squads
bloated by overseas players, where is the opportunity for homegrown
talent?
Things could be about to change or, at least, a step is to be
taken in what is hoped will prove the right direction. As of this
season, following Premier League legislation that has been some
years in the making, clubs will be forced to include eight
homegrown players in a senior squad of no more than 25.
Homegrown players are defined as those having been trained at a
club or clubs in England or Wales for three years before the end of
the season in which they became 21.
Homegrown players do not have to be English. Cesc Fábregas, for
example, Arsenal's Spain midfielder, qualifies, having moved to
north London as a 16-year-old. It ought to be pointed out, though,
that of the 300 scholars currently at Premier League academies (the
16-18 age group) 245 are English.
Under the new legislation, clubs
are also permitted to register and play an unlimited number of
under-21s. The theory is that when injuries and suspensions bite in
the senior squad, managers will have to turn to youth. It is
expected that particularly over the second half of the season,
substitute benches will be dotted with academy players.
If clubs cannot fill their quota
of eight homegrown players, then their senior squads will be short.
The champions Chelsea, for example, only have five homegrown
players (John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Ross Turnbull and
Michael Mancienne). As things stand, the manager, Carlo Ancelotti,
will have to name a senior squad of 22 and opportunities will
increase for his under-21s. That the players most likely to step up
are Gaël Kakuta, Fabio Borini, Jeffrey Bruma and Patrick van
Aanholt – in other words, overseas youngsters – is a moot point,
and one reflected at other clubs. English players, though, must
embrace the competition.
"We'll reflect on this regulation in five or 10 years' time and
think it was exactly the right thing to do," said Huw Jennings, the
Fulham academy director. "It's not just about the England team,
although that is the focus after the World Cup, it's about young
players, who are the long-term lifeblood of the game and it's about
strengthening the Premier League. Young players should emerge on
merit, not because of tokenism, but if we have fewer players in the
squads it will create more opportunities."
It is hoped the new regulations will have pluses that go beyond
the encouragement of homegrown and academy players and provide
clubs with the incentive to continue investing in their
youth-development programmes. They might also discourage them from
stockpiling senior players and so offer an economic benefit.
"While the sporting factor of encouraging youth development was
the main driver behind [the new regulations], it is anticipated
that there will also be financial benefits in operating with a
smaller pool of contracted players and a higher number of young
players developed in England," said Mike Foster, the Premier League
general secretary. "It is also hoped that a by-product of the new
system will be a bigger pool of players for England to choose
from."
But not everyone is convinced. "They mess about with everything,
don't they?" said the
Tottenham Hotspur manager, Harry Redknapp. "And what difference is
it going to make? It's no different really. If the young players
are good enough, they'll come through. And if you're having to play
them just because they're young and English but they're not good
enough, then the league won't improve. They've got to be good
enough, wherever they're from.
"You might also get some kids who
get in the 25 and then put their feet under the table and don't
work on their game. You've got to deserve to be in there, rather
than just having them for the sake of it, token
players."
One of the principal arguments
against the legislation is that it could leave players over the age
of 21 out in the cold. If they are not named in the 25, they cannot
play until squad changes are permitted in the next transfer window.
The Manchester City
manager, Roberto Mancini, has 32 senior players at his disposal –
following the sale of Javier Garrido to Lazio today and he is under
pressure to sell seven of them before the end of August.
"I am quite surprised the players' union accepted this rule as
it could put many players out of a job," said the Arsenal manager,
Arsène Wenger. "They want to fight against unemployment but they
stop us employing footballers. There is no room to move [in the
transfer market]. Is 25 enough, given the injuries? It is an
artificial rule that I don't like."
"One of the worries," added Jennings, "is the premium that will
be placed on the movement from club to club of players who qualify
as homegrown. Their price will be driven up, there would be an
inflated view of them and I don't think that is healthy."
Concerns have also been expressed about clubs effectively
stockpiling their under-21 players to guard against selection
crises, rather than loan them out to gain the first-team minutes
that can be vital for their development at that stage. It is not
always possible to insert instant recall clauses into loan
deals.
Yet it ought not to be forgotten that it was the clubs who voted
in the legislation at their September meeting of last year. "I've
heard that the [club] owners are only interested in the product,
but they sanctioned this," said Ged Roddy, the Premier League's
director of academies. "They recognise that if we can develop our
own players, then we have a much stronger product. We want to get
more homegrown players into our first teams. The more we do, the
more chance we have of an outstanding England team in the future.
This is more than a half-step forward."