Foreign Quotas, Could They Happen Legally in the Premier League?
Here at Pitch Invasion, we think limiting the number of foreigners on Premiership teams would do nothing to help England, and quite possibly would make us even worse (if that’s possible). But the debate over quotas rumbles on. One of the arguments against it comes from those who simply laugh it off as absurd due to European Union law, one of Sepp Blatter’s crazy ideas on a par with shorter shorts for female footballers.
As World Soccer magazne’s Brian Glanville puts it, “There is no debate. The battle with the European Union was long lost, however gallantly fought for years at UEFA by the late Artemio Franchi. The EU rules, alas, clearly state that there be freedom of movement for all workers across the countries of the Union. And footballers, whatever some fans may think of a weekend, are classified as workers.”
Rules, though, can be changed.
In a wide-ranging interview in the Scotsman today, David Taylor (UEFA’s general secretary), stated that the rules could be changed.
Taylor seems to hint there might be a way around the European legislation that would, at present, scupper such a rule. “We’re talking to the European Union and to national governments at the highest level on matters like this,” says Taylor, a lawyer by profession. “For the first ever time in the European Union reform treaty, there’s a reference to sport and a reference to the special characteristics of football. Now, we have to define what those special characteristics are, but we want to find schemes which are acceptable within the framework of the EU. Of course, there are fundamental freedoms, but what we’re saying is, sport is different.
“For example, the transfer system in football – that doesn’t happen in any other walk of life, but it’s accepted in football. So why can’t other things be accepted? If we leave things entirely to the free-market system, then almost everything can be challenged. And where would they be challenged? In the courts. Which are the last place we want to have sports rules decided. You could ultimately get penalty decisions challenged in court – you could take it to ridiculous extremes.”
Likewise, if national teams can impose restrictions on eligibility – a principle that provides the bedrock of international football – then why not clubs?
“Exactly,” says Taylor. “On the face of it, you could say, under EU law, national teams should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of nationality. That’s why the untrammelled, the unfettered application of EU law to all aspects of sport is itself absurd. What we’re saying is: the politicians need to do more for us. And don’t leave us entirely at the mercy of the free market.”
Personally, I still can’t see why European footballers should not be subjected to the vagaries of the free market. There is nothing stopping talented English players going abroad to learn their trade if they can’t get into Arsenal’s first team. In fact, they’d be better footballers for it. But it seems like this actually might be a more realistic possibility for the future than writers such as World Soccer’s Brian Glanville realise.
Edit: See the comments for arguments in support of Glanville’s point and against Taylor’s claim from ursus and, uh, myself (we are happy to help correct ourselves).
About the Author
Tom Dunmore is the founder and editor of Pitch Invasion. Follow him @pitchinvasion on Twitter.
Email this author | All posts by Tom Dunmore
You might also like:
|
|
|
|
|
I’m with Glanville.
The fight for recognising a “sporting exception” to EU freedom of movement rules has been going on for two decades, and Franchi lost that battle at a time when the commercial interests in favour of maintaining freedom of movement among club teams were nowhere near as strong as they are now.
The EU has recognised “cultural exceptions”, but the sporting case (especially when applied to the likes of the G-14) is much weaker, and whereas I can see a possibility of their being some grandstanding, the chances that a quota system would a) pass and b) survive the inevitable legal challenge are exceedingly small.
I would think, though, that if (a) happened, we would at least be in the throes of a major debate, which Glanville rules out.
But The Times’ report last week on the European Commission’s analysis seems to concur with you that the reform treaty does not provide the opportunity for (a) to happen.
So it seems Glanville is probably right, which makes one realise Taylor was just grandstanding for the crowd. The interview is still quite interesting anyway, though.
The nature of the “legislative” process at EU level is such that major debates are often completely invisible to those who are not directly involved.
The Treaty doesn’t shut the door formally (EU treaties hardly ever do), but it does mean that the Treaty (assuming it is ratified, which is far from a foregone conclusion) won’t be the means for any formal recognition of a sporting exception.
The inner workings of the EU have always been a mystery to me. That’s probably why I only got a 2:2 on my essay on the Single European Act my second year at university.
One of the interesting oddities of the EU legislation is that it prevents discrimination between countries but not within them. Arsene Wenger, for instance, had strongly argued that his import policy is to some considerable degree a result of the fact that either UK law or FA regs (I forget which) prevent him from taking on any English schoolboys who don’t live within a 120-minute radius of the Emirates. Which means he can take Fabregas, but would have been prevented from approaching Rooney.