Thoughts on the 6+5 Rule Expressed in Terms of Handel's Water Music
The modern symphony orchestra is a bizarre historical formation, a kind of living museum of half-forgotten anxieties about the future development of music. What had been the orchestra's rapid evolution in size, instrumental makeup, and professional organization came to a relatively abrupt halt toward the end of the nineteenth century, at a moment when conservative and classicizing forces, alarmed at what they perceived as the abandonment of tradition in favor of increasingly unwelcome innovations, succeeded in investing the form of the orchestra as they understood it with an unprecedented transhistorical prestige. A series of conventions that had little basis either in necessity or in historical practice—the placement of the second violins on the near left of the conductor; the prohibition against applauding between movements—were elevated to the status of absolute rules as a bulwark against a modernity that they could oppose but not prevent.
As a result, the twentieth century's conception of what it would anachronistically call "classical music" was heavily determined by a set of standards which had their roots neither in the life of the present moment nor in the original intentions of the composers whose works formed the bulk of the repertoire. Handel's Water Music, for instance, was written to be played by a small baroque ensemble that could float on a barge on the Thames. Subsequent generations adapted the work to be played in the groups and on the instruments that were common to their time. In the twentieth century, however, the work continued to be performed as it had been in the late nineteenth, by the large, slow, burdensome Romantic orchestra that had by then been universally accepted as the authoritative medium for almost all European art music.
What can be said about this is that while the Romantic orchestra frequently produces performances of extraordinary beauty, it also makes a certain kind of nostalgia inseparable from the act of playing or listening to music. Music was performed this way once, it says, at a moment when things were as they should be. Things are no longer as they should be, but these sounds played with this authority can offer a glimpse of the vanished golden age. For me, at least, it would be senseless to deny that that (ultimately false) nostalgia lends a powerful secondary attraction to, for instance, the recordings of Otto Klemperer. At the same time it would be senseless to deny that the ossification of the orchestra and its repertoire has robbed them both of their social vitality: one has a sense, almost always, of hearing something that is already over rather than something that is still underway.
There have, recently, been interesting challenges to the orthodoxy that produced this condition. It may be worth noting that the most commercially and critically successful of these have been the ones devoted to recreating the conditions of even older and more authentic performances, and not the ones devoted to discovering whether it might be possible to renovate the old traditions in light of the way we live now.
As a member one of these period groups, I can safely say that Baroque period performance is a lie, mere submission to the tyranny of 'authenticity,' as is Blatter's attempt to bring back the 'good old days.'
I ruin everything…
Richard's comment is the official Cliff's Note version of this post.
Anyway, lie or not, I could listen to Baroque period performance all day, which may not be the case with watching football if Blatter gets his way…
Blatter will not get his way, at least within the EU. The proposal is nothing but grandstanding and an attempt to stake out a position from which FIFA and UEFA can continue their campaign for a "sporting exemption" to the rules on freedom of movement. Though the fact that the forces on the other side of the argument (particularly the big clubs and the financial forces that back them) have only gotten stronger since the last time such an exemption was seriously considered, I don't see them getting far.
And just to close to circle, the "cultural exemption" to those rules to which Blatter is trying to analogize happened to be established in the context of state funded classical orchestras.
What an interesting way of looking at this. As a classically trained flutist and a Pompey supporter, I hadn't thought of either in this manner.
I am against the 6+5 rule because I believe it restricts teams ability to improve themselves by acquiring or developing players wherever they find them. To say that Portsmouth has to hire English only players means that they don't win the FA Cup or even come close to finishing in the top half of the table the last two seasons. The ability to go get foreign born players meant Pompey could compete with the 'Big Boys.' You will see this even more as they enlarge their roster for the upcoming UEFA campaign.
I don't believe this will ever happen, especially in Europe. MLS has something similar, and you see it's not getting them anywhere, nor is it improving the national team. Most of the national team plays in Europe.
Ursus, Uefa internal regulations are already restricting player movements with its transfer windows so I don't know why another set of internal regulation limiting number of non national players would not be legal.
Plus, what has changed since the days of Bianchi in the EU that the special consideration given to football is now not viable?
From a strictly legal perspective, there is a huge difference between "proportionate" regulation of movement (i.e., it can only occur at certain periods during the year) and effectively banning it. The Commission doesn't have a problem with the former, it most definitely does with the latter (that being also the underlying principle for the Bosman decision), and has consistently expressed those concerns over the last several years.
Here's an example: http://www.euractiv.com/en/spo.....cle-172786. As noted in that article, the Commission has already endorsed the UEFA rules that focus on a certain percentage of players on rosters for UEFA competitions being "home grown", as those restrictions apply equally to EU citizens of any nationality.
I'm also confused about the Bianchi reference. Carlos Bianchi? The bicycle company? The point I was trying to make was that the EU has never recognised a "sporting exemption" in the same way that they have recognised a "cultural exemption", and my view is that it is less likely that they will do so than it was when the issue first came up (in relation to state subsidies for football clubs) about 20 years ago.
First of all I'm sorry for the "Bianch" mistake, I had meant Franchi (as in Artemio).
I'm not so sure that a 6 + 5 on the playing field is 'effectively' banning player movements or is discriminatory employment on the basis of nationality. Clubs would be free to employ and hence pay wages to as many non nationals as they wish but they would only be able to field 5 at any one time, which would be an internal regulation.
Employing and playing them on the field are surely two very separate issues, otherwise what's the basis of this 'home grown' token?
And what do these EU concerns stand with regards to National teams? Are not individual national federations employers or 'sub-contractors' of players and hence should be under the same regulations of freedom of worker movements?
A, that is a clever argument and one that I am sure FIFA will make in its discussions with the Commission and in any court case that results. However, I don't think that it is likely to be a winning argument, as a European court is much more likely to give weight to the serious "chilling" effect of 6+5 on clubs hiring nationals from other EU member states.
As to national teams, the current view is that they are ok because a) they are not players' primary employers (wages are a fraction of what clubs pay and in some cases are zero), and b) because they are officially or unofficially organs of the state and therefore exempt under the same principle that allows the French army to refuse German soldiers (for instance). Keep in mind that in many European countries, the national football federations are part of a state apparatus that is headed by a Sports (or Culture) Minister.
Apologies if all of this strikes you (and others) as being overly legalistic, but it's hard for a lawyer like me not to be when discussing an inherently legal subject.
There may well be a chilling effect but if you cast your mind back to '92 when the old regulation of 3 foreigners in squads was amended to 3 foreigners on the field (or some such), Milan and many other Serie A clubs took on quite a number of non nationals into their squad even though they could only play 3 at any one time.
That's true (and you should let Sepp know that you are available as an advocate for a "reasonable" fee), but the rule as proposed would apply to hundreds of clubs that don't have the financial resources of Milan.
At the same time, many of the clubs that do have such resources are now opposed to the introduction of any such rule (and not unwilling to make their views known, even in cases where there aren't such obvious "synergies" between the owner of one of the country's biggest clubs and its current prime minister.)
He's views have been known for a long time. Heck he would do away with international football altogether and just play a European super-league all year round if he had his way.
Indeed, though the difference is that he is now a member of the European Council (sniff) and has significant influence over the appointment of Italian members of the Commission.
FIFA should brace itself then.
Your comment