THERE is a good case for haranguing UEFA's insistence that clubs limit
the number of ''foreigners'' in their tournaments, and the major clubs
throughout the Continent make full use of the logic to pester the
authorities for change. Their claim, that it is basic discrimination to
bar employees from earning their legitimate keep, is hard to combat, and
yet there is a very reasonable argument to be made in favour of the
official attitude.
The 39,000 folk who made Old Trafford a memorable place to be on
Wednesday night, when Manchester United slammed Galatasaray 4-0 in the
Champions' League, would give testament to the contribution to the
evening's entertainment made by four young Englishmen, Simon Davies,
Gary Neville, David Beckham, and Nicky Butt.
Alex Ferguson himself thought they were magnificent, even if their
valiant efforts could not prevent United's failure to reach the quarter
finals of the competition, and by their display they have made a mark in
the first team which guarantees them consideration for places in the
future.
The chances that they would have done so, had it not been for the
foreigners rule in Europe, are slim. Even Ferguson, who is more willing
than others to give youth its head, would baulk at playing as many as
four young men in the same premiership side, except in emergencies, but
the UEFA rule leaves him with little option but to find Englishmen to
slot in around the Cantonas of his squad.
There is a certain irony in the fact that this very Scottish Scot has
to think English in Europe, but many chaps from Govan have had to learn
to be adaptable. While Ferguson would argue strongly that he should have
freedom of choice when he sends out his team, the fact is that the
success of his graduates from the United youth sides is clear evidence
that UEFA are maybe doing the young and promising players of Europe a
big favour.
It is the European body's argument that clubs throughout the Continent
must give the youth of their home country the chance to make progress in
the game, a sentiment with which most close observers of the business
would empathise. And if UEFA correctly has been criticised for bowing to
the lobbies from the rich and mighty in the past -- hence the
exclusivity of the Champions League -- this time they deserve some kudos
for holding the fort against the barrage of Italians, Spaniards et al.
The truth is that if UEFA abandoned their policy and permitted a
free-for-all, the clubs would benefit most in keeping with their riches.
The billionaire Italians and Spanish would be able to buy the best and
stock up with back-up supplies to allow them to dominate the game even
more comprehensively than they have done to date. Maybe some German
teams and others, like Manchester United and Rangers, could get enough
of a slice of the market to make an impact, but they would be struggling
to match the very wealthiest.
Much worse than the prospect of a rich man's cabal ruling the game for
the foreseeable future, however, is the effect such a scenario would
have on the teenage talent in the countries where the millionaire
mentality prevails. How many promising young men would be left
floundering in reserves or less wealthy sides, knowing that they would
never be able to prove themselves at high level, knowing they would
almost certainly never even get the chance?
There would be created an elite band of itinerant mercenaries,
superstars who would be able to sell their skills around the continent,
inevitably discouraging aspiring talents from believing they could
achieve their ambitions to play for the best.
Maybe one or two of the extraordinarily gifted might just make it, but
an enormous number of apprentices would be lost to the game.
All of this may be painting too bleak a picture of a future with no
reins on the top clubs, but at least those who get exceedingly animated
about UEFA's ''unfairness'' should recognise that there is some merit in
their attempt to protect the game as a whole.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article