Comments on: Thoughts on the 6+5 Rule Expressed in Terms of Handel’s Water Music

By: A.

A. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:04:00 +0000

FIFA should brace itself then.

By: ursus arctos

ursus arctos — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:18:24 +0000

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.

By: A.

A. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:30:17 +0000

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.

By: ursus arctos

ursus arctos — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:12:21 +0000

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.)

By: A.

A. — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:26:09 +0000

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.

By: ursus arctos

ursus arctos — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:00:34 +0000

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.

By: A.

A. — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:51:03 +0000

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?

By: A.

A. — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:41:25 +0000

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?

By: ursus arctos

ursus arctos — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:19:21 +0000

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/sports/fifa-shown-eu-red-card-player-quotas/article-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.

By: A.

A. — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:50:25 +0000

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?