 |
Bulletins Story:
UEFA'S FLAWED "HOME GROWN" PROPOSALS: GROUNDHOG DAY COMES
ROUND AGAIN
|
Date:
09.02.2005
|
Emboldened perhaps by its success in reducing the number of
matches in the Champions League, UEFA has thrown down the gauntlet
to its leading clubs by insisting that clubs' 25 man squads
submitted for its competitions should contain at least two players
trained in clubs' own academies and two players who have been
reared nationally (i.e. spent at least three years between the ages
of fifteen and twenty one as a registered player in the relevant
country).
This figure will rise to four in each category in 2008/9 with
the effect that from that date (but not before), clubs will be hard
put to avoid actually fielding some home grown players (thus
restricting opportunities for others) at some stage in their
matches if they are to comply with the rules that UEFA has laid
down.
Having failed to achieve specific legislative exemption for
sport, UEFA must hope to benefit from a number of ill judged
challenges to governing bodies' perfectly legitimate bans on
players who have failed drug tests and similarly sensible
restrictions on multiple club ownership by single entities.
However, it is very doubtful whether the "sporting exception"
created by the European judges to dismiss such challenges will
stretch so far as allowing an impediment to free movement of
players. There is no 'de minimis' exception to restrictions
on movement and no exemption is available under the competition
rules in such circumstances.
UEFA says its goal is to achieve "competitive balance" and stop
the rich clubs hogging the talent. Precisely the same
argument failed to justify the nationality based quotas condemned
in Bosman: it is therefore difficult to see how it would not suffer
the same fate if challenged again. In rejecting the
competitive balance justification for quotas based on nationality,
the European Court of Justice Advocate General pointed out that
this objective could be achieved in a number of different and less
restrictive ways. This was echoed by the European Court who
noted the absence of a player draft system in soccer. UEFA's
difficulty is that none of the clubs who really count would
tolerate any of the measures used by US sporting leagues to achieve
competitive balance such as player drafts or wage caps.
A major factor in creating competitive imbalances is the way in
which clubs who gain access to the Champions League earn far more
than their less fortunate brethren. UEFA is over a barrel
here as well. If it divvies up the money across the board
more equally to benefit non participants, the major clubs will pull
out - something that is open to them if they don't like UEFA's
proposals. To avoid the trouble of setting up their own
competitions, it is likely that a legal challenge will be mounted -
possibly through the medium of an aggrieved player. If UEFA
loses Bosman II, its days will surely be numbered.
What is more, it is unclear how the goal of competitive balance
would actually be promoted by UEFA's proposals. Already, the
competition to recruit talented youngsters for club academies is
intense. If UEFA's scheme is implemented, this competition
will only intensify and inducements for very young players to sign
up or move on will become greater still. In this process, it
is inevitable that the clubs with the deepest pockets will be able
to monopolise the home grown talent just as they do at the moment
(e.g. Manchester United).
It is therefore difficult to see what UEFA hopes to achieve in
promoting the scheme - especially as major domestic leagues are
unlikely to follow suit.
Stephen Hornsby
243
e-bulletins are for general guidance only. Legal advice
should be sought before taking action in relation to specific
matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts
referred to are those reported as found by the Court. Please
note that past bulletins included in the Archive have not been
updated by any subsequent changes in statute or case
law.
<< back to ebulletins
|