Leave The Capitol: Foreign Player Limits Come to Bulgaria

By: Dan | June 17th, 2009

One of the major issues that invariably comes up as part as proposed reforms to the game is a return to the days of limits on foreign players. The current incarnation under discussion is the 6 + 5 rule. Usually, these limits are discussed in terms of the larger leagues as a punitive imposition from above, as opposed to something that would be adopted willingly. So, Bulgaria’s recent declaration of a self-imposed limit on foreign players (3 non-EU per squad) and CSKA Sofia’s proposal to field an entirely Bulgarian team should reignite the discussion about this topic. Amid the usual summer transfer scramble, it’s not too surprising that this piece of news is being reported very much in brief.

Because the issue of foreign players has so often focused on the Premier League, the circumstances that exist in England have become the standard template for discussing this issue. For starters, the insularity of English football when it comes to foreign players is legendary. England never experienced a steady, natural integration of foreign players over the years, which created a twofold problem. First of all, the development of the game in England occurred in something of a vacuum, which meant when foreign players did eventually arrive, that they would immediately be placed in an adversarial relationship with the prevailing ethos. Secondly, from the perspective of the fans, having foreign players arrive as a mass influx served to depersonalize them to an extent. This was only exacerbated by the arrival of foreign managers like Arsene Wenger, Rafael Benitez and Jose Mourinho, who introduced tactics and methods that, for England, were far from traditional. These managers have often claimed that English players are not suitable for the demands their respective systems require. The end result in England, where the top clubs are essentially international corporations, staffed internationally, that happen to be based in English cities represents the most extreme conclusion of the current status quo.

The situation is somewhat similar, on a smaller economic scale, in countries like Bulgaria. Far too many times, foreign players have been used as a combination of quick fix and cheap alternative, without enough thought given to integrating them into an existing structure. When this occurs en masse, and success does not result, ‘the foreigners’ as a group are blamed.

In my opinion, the ideal application of foreign players is a supplement to a base of domestic players; think of Gullit, Rijkaard, and Van Basten at Milan or Laudrup, Romario, Koeman, and Stoichkov at Barcelona. The influence of foreign talent is obviously not limited to big stars at big clubs; Ipswich Town’s success in the late 70s and early 80s was inspired, in part, by Dutch imports Frans Thijssen and Arnold Mühren. Regardless of the club involved, in these positive cases, there is a tangible benefit for both sides. Transcendental talents are given the opportunity to perform at the highest possible level, or as in the case of Thijssen and Mühren, there is a cross-cultural exchange.

Given that there are, generally, a lot of positives involved in the international movement of players, it’s important to establish what benefits limiting movement have to offer. From a practical standpoint, limiting player movement has three principal aims: to encourage the development of local talent, to prevent hoarding by the most powerful clubs (although there is nothing preventing them from hoarding domestically) and to protect the players being moved from exploitative practices. In the last case, one would have to admit the possibility of local exploitation by clubs secure in the knowledge that limits on player movement would make losing the player less likely. Obviously, this is not a simple issue.

The development of local players and the hoarding of players by big clubs are issues which are often intertwined with each other. Arsenal is the most notable example, as their practice of signing underage players away from international clubs which can not legally offer the players a contract is both famous and infamous, especially as the clubs involved are often not compensated for their loss. With limitations on foreign players in place, Arsenal’s vaunted youth system would be put to use developing domestic/local talent, and the clubs currently losing players might gain something other than a quick payday out of their own work.

The local players issue is often tied to the fortunes of the national team. Indeed, one of the reasons cited in regards to the new policy is the flagging fortunes of the Bulgarian national team, who have not qualified for a major tournament since Euro 2004. In some ways, it’s obvious to understand and empathize with the football authorities’ administrative view of club football as a mere component of the wider national football landscape, and with their desire to improve the national side, but there are some fundamental problems with the assumption that clubs exist, even in part, to serve the interests of the national team. The assumption that national teams are ipso facto weakened by a large contingent of foreign league players is, also, not entirely sound.
Spain, Italy, and France, who host a large number of foreign players without harm to their national teams, benefit from having cultural links, both footballing and real life, with the native countries of many of their foreign players.

I believe that the best way to approach the national team issue is to view it as a byproduct of local development. The real issue is the encouragement of a more organic type of team building, which would potentially put more skilled players in the hands of more clubs, increasing the overall level of European competition. Alas, outside of Bulgaria, this discussion will stay on theoretical terms, so it will be very interesting to see if the fortunes of Bulgaria’s clubs and national team improve over the next few seasons.