Argument: It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues

Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent.

Candidate 1: "There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step."
Candidate 2: "The youngsters from poor nations who excel in Europe do so because of their move, not irrespective of it. It is a fallacy to suggest that all players develop in a vacuum, that their ability is irrespective of their development opportunities. For the best youngers in poor and under-developed nations, being poached by the rich European clubs is a way out, a means to realising their obvious talent. Taking away that source risks wasting not only a precocious young talent but also denying him the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, it can be expected that the poached youngsters will give back to their host countries, in the form of national team appearances and domestic league endorsements, later in their careers."
Candidate 3: "Competition would actually improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs can buy up all the best global players and so dominate domestic competitions – often no more than two or three teams have a real chance of winning the big European leagues. This makes tournaments predictable and boring, while clubs become the playthings of billionaire owners. Even international club competitions like the European Champions League are now dominated by just a few teams – in 2008 three of the four semi-finalists and both finalists were English. Forcing clubs to develop home-grown talent would level the playing field, make money less vital, and give more teams a chance to compete for top honours. This would inadvertently drive players to get better, because there would be fewer short-term fixes available to a team’s poor form."
Candidate 4: "The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58..."
Candidate 5: "Sporting organizations, of which FIFA is merely a more powerful example, cannot and will not be permitted to introduce a rule that denies otherwise-qualified persons from maximizing their income by moving overseas. Furthermore, and regarding the six-plus-five criteria specifically, the five foreigner-limit applies only to those which are not home-grown, encouraging the bigger clubs to look abroad for younger talent to bring into their academies. Once in the academy, they will gain home-grown status and therefore not count as one of the five foreigners. Therefore, FIFA’s proposal does not fix the problem but exacerbate the fears of exploitation."
Candidate 6: "Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society."
Candidate 7: "Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born."
Candidate 8: "The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most home-grown ones. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. It also is an indictment on the school programs in place and youth football as a whole. It has little to do with a lack of opportunity at club-level, for clubs will always look locally for cheap, ready-made talent. They are forced to look overseas because foreign-born players are proving to be better bets. Furthermore, these foreigners thereafter assist the few local-born players who have made the grade. Therefore, if you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will actually weaken both club football and the national team."

Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.
