The Football Lawyer: Southampton are the type of club that could lose most from Greg Dyke's latest quota plans

The FA chairman's proposals come with problems

The FA chairman, Greg Dyke, launched his England Commission with the express purpose of bringing more English youngsters into the top flight (Getty)

It’s probably the biggest story in football law at the moment, and so far it’s no more than a document. Greg Dyke, the chairman of the Football Association, is doing his best to increase the competitiveness of England’s national team, and one of the measures that he has proposed is a restriction on the number of non-EU players in the domestic game. His suggestion has already met with concern from the Premier League, many of whose stars come from far further afield than Europe, and there are already indications that the majority of its clubs are unhappy with these plans.

Among Dyke’s recommendations, there are two which are particularly eye-catching. First, that each squad should increase its quota of homegrown players from eight to 12; and secondly, that to be considered homegrown a player must have trained in the UK for three years by the age of 18 (the current threshold is 21). As a lawyer, my immediate thought is of the tougher controls we will now see on the work permit process, which has already become subject to a more stringent test in recent months. (Of course, it is still a while until we see how all this is applied in practice.) African and South American players need not worry too much, though: those who make it to the Premier League are generally of a very high standard, and they can remain optimistic.

Interestingly enough, one of the clubs believed to have raised an issue with Dyke’s plans is Southampton, an outfit who have done very well by scouting superbly around the world. With their cosmopolitan squad, they stand to suffer most from this new state of affairs, and they are in many ways a model organisation for the modern, globalised Premier League. They have managed to blend local and international talent to excellent effect, in the process competing ably with clubs with far greater resources. The proposed restrictions will make them compete more in the transfer market for English players, who are typically far more expensive than their foreign counterparts. As a result, they may see the gap widen again between them and the Premier League’s biggest spenders.

As a football fan, my concern is whether Dyke’s proposals address all the right areas of the game in sufficient depth. A few years back, there was an article in the Guardian which I think identified the root of the problem. I will quote it at length here, because it’s all worth reading:

“Three years ago an official report concluded that coaching is the "golden thread" leading to international success, but new Uefa data shows that there are only 2,769 English coaches holding Uefa's B, A and Pro badges, its top qualifications. Spain has produced 23,995, Italy 29,420, Germany 34,970 and France 17,588.

“Between them those four nations have provided eight of the 12 finalists at all the World Cups and European Championships since 1998. England, meanwhile, have not appeared in a tournament final in 44 years.

“There are 2.25 million players in England and only one Uefa-qualified coach for every 812 people playing the game. Spain, the World Cup favourites, have 408,134 players, giving a ratio of 1:17. In Italy, the world champions, the ratio is 1:48, in France it is 1:96, Germany 1:150 and even Greece, the Euro 2004 winners, have only 180,000 registered players for their 1,100 coaches, a ratio of 1:135.”

To his credit, Dyke is well aware of this issue, and has recently directed hundreds of millions of pounds towards grassroots coaching. (Though some might argue that the targets in relation to UEFA licences could be much higher still, the FA has at least made a start.) More immediately, though, he has a difficult balance to strike. On one hand, he wants to improve the national team by giving English players more opportunity in the domestic league. On the other hand, he will realise that many of those players will have benefitted a great deal from playing alongside some of the world’s very best footballers. The challenge for him, as Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has noted, will be to avoid lessening the standard of the game on display. Wenger has been especially forceful in his critique, stating that “I personally would support hugely to pay super people who think about how we can produce players from five years old to 20 years old to be as good as they can be rather than protect them through wrong mediocre rules….The best must be the best. That’s why I will fight against it. I have very little power but I don’t think the idea is right.”

Whilst Wenger’s words may sting, Dyke should take heart from the example of Southampton, apparently the most insistent of his critics. They have shown that it is possible, with relatively little investment, to produce stars not only for their own team but to be sold on at considerable value. If his changes go through, then this will put a greater onus on their academy, but they have shown they have an excellent formula: one which, if they continue to be as successful, others will imitate to the immense benefit of England’s national team.

John Blavo, an FA-registered lawyer, is the founder and Senior Partner of Blavo & Co; a law firm with expertise in several areas including sport, tax, commercial, immigration and employment law. John advises several leading footballers both in the Premier League and abroad.