6+You're an Idiot

EDIT: After Googling "6+5 Rule," it made me realize that confirmed idiot Sepp Blatter, not confirmed idiot Michel Platini is the champion of this rule (though Platini wholeheartedly supports it). My mistake. I'm not going to go through and change the finer points of the argument because it still holds true. It works for everyone, not just European clubs. The rule still holds for American Jozy Altidore (or any other world player): American soccer is stronger if Villareal develop Jozy while, probably, Spanish soccer is a little weaker. Just substitute FIFA for UEFA and enjoy.

A lot of smarter people than me have presented more well thought-out arguments against (and, occasionally, for) Michel Platini's controversial "6+5 Rule" which will require all clubs to start with at least 6 players of domestic origin (I do not know how the rule applies to naturalized citizens and I'm too lazy to look it up--I assume that if Eduardo were to go play in the Croatian league, he would be considered as part of the 6 despite being born in Brazil but I'm not sure) supplemented by no more than 5 foreign players. There are merits to the system. I will not say, out and out, that it's totally retarded which is what I'm rather inclined to do. It could be a huge windfall for England--the FA would gain a significant advantage over clubs (by forcing them to develop talent for the national team) without having to make any decisions of their own or catch any backlash.

But that is precisely why Platini's proposal makes no sense. Why should UEFA care? If a league doesn't want to foster quality domestic players, isn't that their prerogative? Shouldn't this be a directive that comes down from an individual association (i.e. the FA says that we are putting a mandate out that we want to emphasize the development of domestic players so anyone who plays 6 English from the start gets free cookies!) rather than a Europe-wide declaration? I hardly see how it is in the direct interest of UEFA to promote this because such a plan will benefit some European nations while hindering others. In theory, such a plan would help large nations like England whose top youngsters are being pushed out of clubs by foreign players. But, I think the elimination of the current system would actually hinder smaller nations. Under current guidelines, the top players from less fashionable European nations move to other leagues where they are thrown in with other international talent. Take, for example, Nicklas Bendtner, the Danish forward for Arsenal who signed for the club in 2004. He gets the chance to develop in a stronger league against stronger competition and, by moving to England, makes available another development spot available for a Danish player at a Danish club. In essence, small nations get the best of both worlds--the Danes (for example) can develop their own talent as well as benefiting from other nations freely and willingly developing Danish talent. This closes the achievement gap between the richest nations (both in terms of talent and in money spent on a national team) and the poorest.

(Sidebar: there is a whole argument about the richest leagues plundering talent from the poorest and how these poor leagues/federations would be better off if they were able to keep the talent at home. That's the market--if a player is good enough and he plays in a shit league where he doesn't get paid, he's going to move. And while it might work against a nation on the club level, I think it absolutely works for them on a national level.)

I suppose it could be argued that Platini is doing this not with international football in mind but instead with club football in his crosshairs. Ostensibly, I suppose, he could argue that he's trying to even the playing field on the Champions League/UEFA Cup level but all that stuff is so fubar (because of earning gaps, distribution to lower leagues, etc), the 6+5 rule is about the last change that he needs to worry about making.

Anyway, in the same vein as this (and the real reason I wanted to post), I found this on the Guardian website after Idiot McFuckbag (Sir David Richards, Chairman of the Premier League) declared that the Premier League is damaging England. I would go so far as to argue that it's not (with 9 English players in the squads of the two English Champions League finalists) but that's not what's so remarkable about this little gem. Though they don't come out and say it in their feature, "Premier League v. England Timeline," what the Guardian is hinting at is that, somehow, someway, there is a connection between the events which happened in the Premier League and those that happened with the England team. Someone forgot to explain to the Guardian staff the difference between causality and coincidence. Take for example:

"May 1992: The Premier League is established as a limited company three months after top-flight clubs resign from the football league. First Premier League season begins in August

June 1992: A 2-1 defeat to Sweden in Stockholm means England fail to advance past the group stages of Euro'92, just two years after they reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in Italy"

Yes, that's right, the Guardian staff is suggesting, ever so gently, that somehow the Premier League--BEFORE IT HAD EVEN PLAYED A GAME--ruined England's chances to get to the knockout rounds of Euro 92. Yep, this entity which, I would argue, didn't actually exist except in the minds of a bunch of football executives and lawers until the first game was played, caused Per Tomas Brolin to score an 82nd minute winner in Stockholm.

Or, if they're not meaning to draw causation, they are simply saying "England was in the shitter then, they're in the shitter now!" which makes the whole article pointless.

They go on for a while, hinting that the number of foreign players in the Premier League hitting 250 had something to do with England going out of Euro 2008 qualifiers three months later and similar ridiculous shit but I'm too angry to even get into it. As David Cross once said, "It's called coincidence you fucking hippie freaks."