Player migration and opportunity: Examining the efficacy of the UEFA home-grown rule in six European football leagues

Abstract

The introduction of UEFAs home-grown rule occurred for the start of the 2006–2007 season with the full quota in place from the 2008–2009 season, which imposed quotas on European clubs. From 2008, clubs are required to have at least 8 players classified as home-grown in the 25-player squad, up from 4 in 2006–2007 and 6 in 2007–2008. This study examines the efficacy of this rule across the six major European leagues (England, France, Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain) in relation to playing opportunities (minutes played and appearances) between 1999 and 2015. This was also examined in relation to age. Since the home-grown rule was introduced for the six nations hosting the major leagues, the rule had different impacts by nationality. Only Germany saw significant increases in the proportion of minutes played by their players when comparing the periods before and after the home-grown rules were imposed. Holland, albeit seeing a slight decrease overall, saw significant increases for playing time for under 21s and 22- to 25-year olds. England and Italy were the two nations where statistically significant decreases in indigenous playing opportunities were recorded since the home-grown rules were introduced.

Keywords

Association football Bosman ruling nationality

Introduction

A recent study about the impact on indigenous players from the launch of the English Premier League (EPL) in 1992 indicated that there had been a major change in the nationality of players playing in the EPL.¹ The study demonstrated that over 20 years of the competition (to 2011–2012) there was a significant downturn in the opportunities available for English players, i.e. those eligible to play international football for England. This conclusion was based on the total appearances made in the EPL and the overall number of players in the league. One limitation identified within the study was that, although the methodology was more in-depth than previous studies of this nature, it did not take into account the quality of the appearance, i.e. the number of minutes on the pitch. Furthermore, despite outlining the developing issue of playing opportunities within the English game, this issue was not fully investigated in comparison with other European leagues.

This study aims to analyse and compare player opportunities using the following parameters: nationality, number of players, appearances, minutes played and player age for six major European leagues (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France and Holland) between 1999 and 2015. The analysis also focusses specifically on the efficacy of the ‘home-grown’ rule, introduced incrementally by UEFA between 2006 and 2008,² for the nations included. The rationale for using these six competitions is developed in the literature and detailed in the methodology.

Literature review

Two major factors changed the nature of player migration in world football in the 1990s; the Bosman ruling and the withdrawal of quota rules. The Bosman ruling prohibited clubs from withholding player registrations following the conclusion of a contract, which empowered players with greater potential with regard to freedom of movement. The old quota rules restricted the amount of players clubs were permitted from outside of their National Association.

Further to the changes in the 1990s, there have been two major additional changes to the rules governing elite football clubs since 2006; the ‘home-grown’ rule, phased in over three seasons from 2006 to 2007² and UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations (FFP) from the 2013–2014 season.³ Concerns emanating around player development were a catalyst for the introduction of the home-grown rule by UEFA, which had the intention to protect playing opportunities for indigenous players, particularly younger professionals. Previous authors^4,5 argued that the expectation from UEFA was that the legislative rule changes would act as a panacea to increase the profile and value of young home-grown professionals. It was anticipated that this raised profile would create a culture of development where elite clubs increase their interest, investment and resource into internal talent development programmes. The value of home-grown players, it was hoped, would increase due to this intervention by Europe’s governing organisation. There were, however, concerns raised around this rule due to conflicts with European Union laws on the freedom of movement.⁶

The rule changes regarding governance of the game come against a milieu of greater commercial investment in elite football, particularly at the very top with the expansion and popularity of the UEFA Champions League, and lucrative domestic TV deals. For example, in 1983 the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) paid £2.6 million for the elite division television rights, compared to Sky paying £1.314 billion for the television rights between 2007 and 2010.⁷ The three-year deal for the 2016–2017 season to 2018–2019 was almost four times this figure at £5.136 billion.⁸ Prioritising player development and maximising commercial revenues may not necessarily be symbiotic for different stakeholders. It could be argued that there is a dichotomy that has been widened by the greater rewards and finances involved.

The expansion of the UEFA Champions League, arguably the world’s premier club competition, has resulted in advanced financial rewards and, in terms of player development, also adds another layer to this debate. For players, the lure of elite clubs in the countries with the most qualifying places for the competition, and the rewards available, means that those leagues offer the most routes into the competition for players. Furthermore, the relaxed rules on non-indigenous players have opened up European football to different nationalities. For example, in the 2014–2015 group stages of the competition, the last season in this sample, Riach⁹ outlined that only Spain (75) had more Champions League players than Brazil (68). Germany was third (with 51), followed by France (37), Portugal (34), Italy (26), Argentina (24) and Holland (22). England was ranked ninth (21 players), despite being one of the three countries (with Spain and Germany) currently allocated the highest number of entrants (four), with a guarantee of three-group stage places. Notwithstanding Europe’s premier club competition, the role of elite player development is likely to be harnessed across the entirety of the domestic leagues, rather than just the top clubs that play in the Champions League. Gardner and Welch (p. 776)¹⁰ highlight the ability of Europe’s elite clubs to qualify regularly for the UEFA Champions League. This means that they can ‘control the top playing talent whose nationality is largely irrelevant,’ and this has an impact on the development opportunities available at the top clubs.

In 2008, for the first season when the most stringent home-grown quota was in place (eight players in a 25 man squad), it has been outlined¹¹ that the English top division had the highest proportion of non-indigenous players registered (not appearance data) at 63%, compared to 51% in Germany, 41% in Spain and 36% in Italy. Interestingly, their analysis linked elite leagues with national team performance, and concluded that the Bosman ruling appeared to have a greater negative impact on domestic development in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden. England was deemed not to have seen a greater negative impact compared to other nations. Despite this assertion, Italy won the World Cup in 2006; Spain did so in 2010 and won the European Championships in 2008 and 2012. Furthermore, the authors concluded (p.19)¹¹ ‘the average impact on the “big six” countries was fairly small … these six leagues as a whole, have not been greatly affected.’

Binder and Findlay¹¹ also concluded that there was no evidence that England was affected negatively. They suggested that England’s deficiencies on the international stage were due to performance in critical points in individual matches, rather than due to a limited number of talented players. In a separate study in Belgium,¹² it was concluded that the quality of the top-flight championship teams had deteriorated due to the outward migration of the better players to clubs with larger budgets, paying higher salaries. This had a negative effect for Belgian clubs competing in European club competitions, where clubs were less competitive compared with clubs from the ‘Big Five’ countries. This scenario suggests a lower level of exposure to the elite European competitions for players playing outside of the main leagues.

Concerns regarding player development in the upper echelons of the games governing organisation were cited as the rationale behind the rule changes. Studies suggest issues with player development are more pronounced in some countries. Green¹³ suggested that English professional clubs invest an estimated £40 million annually into their youth academy programmes. However, the residual impact on the elite league is minimal for this investment. As Slot¹⁴ highlighted, only a small number (25–30) of young English players (23 or under) were entering the Premier League each year. This limited trend of new players to the league continued to 2011–2012 alongside the overall decline in English players in the English top league since the EPL’s inception.¹ This study outlined that English players accounted for just over a third of all appearances (37%) in the twentieth season (2011–2012), compared to just over two-thirds (69%) in its first year (1992–1993).

The UEFA home-grown rule was phased in over 3 years, first implemented in 2006–2007, with full regulations in place at the start since the 2008–2009 season, where eight home-grown players are required in a 25 man squad, increased from four in 2006–2007 and six in 2007–2008.¹⁵ The ruling is applicable across all the major leagues, and has been in place in full for seven seasons (to 2014–2015). As highlighted in a previous study,¹ the term ‘home-grown’ does not necessarily mean indigenous to the country in which they are employed. The ruling states that if a player is ‘trained by their club or by another club in the same national association for at least 3 years between the age of 15 and 21’ then they qualify under the home-grown rules in the country they are employed.¹⁵

The key phrase in the ruling is ‘regardless of nationality.’ Cesc Fabregas (Spanish – when at Arsenal, England), Leo Messi (Argentinian – at Barcelona, Spain) and Cristiano Ronaldo (Portuguese – when at Manchester United, England) are high profile examples of players that qualified as home-grown at clubs, which were outside of their national association. This part of the ruling, albeit designed to protect opportunities for younger players in their own national association competitions as a whole, means it is not a measure that can ring-fence opportunities for indigenous players.

Part of the problem in the English game found by previous research¹ was that English players were not replicating their international counterparts and going outside of their indigenous league. In essence the EPL acts as a silo for young British players, which exacerbates the problem the English face compared to their European competitors, where outward migration is much more prominent. This is examined in the results and discussion. It is not to say that international player migration is negative for player development. If a national association can produce a pool of 30–40 top level players then the national team could be competitive, but this is arguably more likely with a larger base, with increased competition for places. Furthermore, it was suggested that coaches within youth academies viewed that migrating players from overseas can have a beneficial impact on other players.¹⁶ This was termed as ‘feet-exchange’ where overseas players have a positive influence on the technical skill of other players. It was identified in the study that if indigenous players were not making the transition from the academy to the first team it was because they were not good enough. Ensuring indigenous players are of the requisite quality is the responsibility of the host system, not the players migrating into it, was a concluding point of their study.

Cross-nationality migration in football has accelerated since the Bosman ruling and, allied with the increased financial rewards, has seen changing recruitment strategies which has an impact upon the opportunities made available to indigenous players. Europe is the core of football, in financial terms, accounting for 80% of the revenue generated in world football.¹⁷ The so-called ‘big five’ European leagues, with the enhanced revenue and greater entry into the elite competitions, are also at the forefront of international player migration.^18–20 The recruitment strategies of the ‘big five’ leagues were examined,¹⁷ which demonstrated that between 2004–2005 and 2008–2009, the number of indigenous home-grown players reduced from 60% to 55%. Another demographic change in European club football is the national origin of managers in the elite leagues, with more managers working outside of their national association, which has resulted in changes to the nationality of players recruited.²¹

Player migration occurs on different levels, with three different levels of trade.²² First, players moving between clubs in the same nation; second, players moving between clubs from different nations but in the same continent; and third, players moving between clubs from different continents. Migration within football has been shifting across these levels of trade, from trading between nations close to each other to trading across continents.¹⁹ Some migration between countries is to be associated with historical ties;^23,24 although in the modern era there are few international boundaries when it comes to player transfers.

The overall objective of this study was to extend the analysis in the study by Bullough and Mills¹ to look at the volume of the playing opportunity between 1999–2000 and 2014–2015 (16 seasons). The results expand the analysis by adding two extra layers (minutes played and age), broadened across six leagues. The aims of this study were: (1) to compare playing statistics in the national leagues for England, Spain, Italy; Germany, France and Holland, in relation to both their ‘home’ league and in the other five leagues; (2) to aggregate playing data from nationalities outside these six leagues; (3) assess the impact on indigenous players of UEFA’s home-grown rule across the six European leagues; and (4) analyse player age within those six leagues to examine opportunities for younger players. This method of assessing opportunities for players across the major European leagues allows comparison between nationalities and leagues since 1999.

Method

The study by Bullough and Mills¹ outlined that the nature of the analysis in terms of player development had focussed more on the starting line-up, or the squad, rather than the performance-related data. That study aimed to analyse player development in England by collating the number of appearances rather than the number of players as a percentage of the squad due to a gap in this area of study. This study is an extension of that original work, both in terms of focus (pan-European) and detail (including minutes played and age).

Other published research around player development or analysis of opportunity has employed different approaches to measure efficacy. Methodological approaches have calculated the percentage of home nationalities in starting line-ups;²⁵ the composition of the squad players’ nationality;²⁶ and the number of appearances.¹ As noted earlier, the home-grown rule relates to the make-up of the competition squad players (25), not the starting line-up (11) or the match day squad (18). Bullough and Mills highlighted this in 2014 (p. 639):¹ ‘this particular stipulation means that clubs could, in theory, largely circumvent the rule by including home-grown players (in the 25 man squad) without the intention of playing them.’ Analysis of player numbers and age, appearances and minutes therefore become key determinants to illustrate how each league and country compare.

Using appearances alone, however, does not give an indication of the quality of the opportunities for young players in terms of minutes played, which is a more accurate measurement of the type of playing opportunity. Furthermore, more detailed analysis may act as a more robust indicator for understanding career development by nationality/league, new entrants to the league and changes in player migration.

Sample

The sample for the study involved six major European leagues: England (EPL), Spain (La Liga), Italy (Serie A), Germany (Bundesliga), France (Ligue 1) and Holland (Eredivisie), from 1999 to 2015. The rationale for the selection of these six leagues was supported by previous research. Binder and Findlay (p. 8)¹¹ outlined these nations as ‘the so-called “Big Six” countries with the strongest domestic leagues, the highest average attendance, and apparently the greatest percentage of foreign players.’ For all 16 seasons included, the following details were collated; player name, player nationality, player age, club attached to, league played in, season played, number of appearances and minutes played.

Overall, this produced data from 1840 squads and 13,332 different players from 144 nationalities. The playing data totalled 915,874 appearances during the 16-year period and 65,639,678 min of play. At the end of the 2014–2015 season, four leagues consisted of 20 teams (England, Spain, France and Italy), with Holland and Germany having an 18 team league. This is important as the two leagues with 18 teams has 74 fewer fixtures each season than the other four leagues, or 1184 fewer over the 16-year sample period, which has an effect on playing opportunities. Italy increased its competition size from 18 to 20 teams for the 2004–2005 season, as did France for the 2002–2003 season. It is important to bear this caveat in mind when comparing domestic statistics for Holland and Germany (4896 fixtures each) and, to a lesser extent, Italy (5710 fixtures) and France (5858) compared to England and Spain (6080).

Data analysis

Statistics for the nationality variables generated data for each season, in each league. The data for each country are compared between seasons using appearance data and minutes played, with additional clusters of seasons created to examine changes in the rules, for example the impact of the UEFA rules on home-grown players since 2008–2009. For those players indigenous to the six leagues under investigation, the age of the player (at the start of the season) was also recorded.

Results

The overall playing data shows that the six nations included in the study recorded the top six aggregated appearances and minutes played over the 16-year sample, although the difference between nations is significant. For example, Spanish players made 50,095 more appearances and 3,368,754 more minutes on the pitch than the sixth ranked nation, England (see Table 1). Furthermore, England, despite being one of the nations with 20 clubs in their league (with 1184 more fixtures played over the 16-year sample compared to an 18-team league), rank lower than the nations hosting an 18-team league.

Table 1.

Aggregated playing data by player home nation (1999–2015).

	Appearances		Minutes		Ave. minutes per appearance
	Sum	Rank	Sum	Rank	Ave.	Rank
Spain	111,979	1	7,928,242	2	70.80	54
France	109,879	2	8,093,916	1	73.66	30
Italy	99,952	3	7,253,345	3	72.57	35
Holland	90,840	4	6,505,266	4	71.61	45
Germany	66,095	5	4,801,622	5	72.65	34
England	61,884	6	4,559,488	6	73.68	28
Brazil	39,322	7	2,863,052	7	72.81	32
Argentina	32,332	8	2,319,620	8	71.74	44
Belgium	14,974	9	1,074,835	9	71.78	43
Portugal	11,187	10	795,895	10	71.14	48

When the six countries are further evaluated by splitting playing time between the domestic leagues for that national association and in the other five leagues, the data outline disparities between nations. Previous research¹ cited the issue around the English Premier League acting as a silo for English players, and Figure 1 demonstrates that this issue is exacerbated when compared with other nations. In terms of minutes played by English players outside the EPL in the other five leagues, England recorded only 19% of the next lowest total (Germany) and just 3% of the highest total (France). Coupled with the finding that English players recorded the fewest minutes in their domestic league, the level of playing time is behind their European counterparts. This disparity becomes even greater when one considers that the German and Dutch players compete domestically in an 18-team league compared to 20 teams in England.

Figure 1.

Minutes played at home and in the other five leagues (1999–2015).

Efficacy of the home-grown rules

The introduction of the home-grown rule was designed to protect opportunities for home-grown players, although the major issue with the ruling, as explained, surrounds the ‘regardless of nationality’ element. The following analysis looks at the efficacy of the rule changes. Overall, from 1999 to 2015, indigenous players from the six leagues included in the sample accounted for 59% of all appearances and 59% of minutes played. Before the full home-grown rule was introduced (1999–2008), it was 61% of appearances and 62% of minutes and this reduced to 57% (for both measurements) in the seven seasons since its inception. This suggests that, at a headline level, the rule has not increased (or protected) the proportion of playing opportunities made by players from the six major European leagues. However, the impact has been different depending on nationality, both in terms of playing opportunities in the league in their own national association, and in the other five major leagues. Figure 2 outlines the change in the appearances made by nationality at ‘home’ and in the other five leagues for the 7 years since the full home-grown rule was in place, and the 7 years beforehand.

Figure 2.

Change in appearances (2001–2002 to 2007–2008 vs. 2008–2009 to 2014–2015).

Although the proportion of appearances made by indigenous players to the six leagues reduced by 4 percentage points overall, this differs by nationality. Comparing nationalities against themselves, and not accounting for age or minutes played, three nations saw an increase in the number of appearances made by their players in their home league (Germany Holland and Spain), with Germany and Spain, along with France, seeing an increase in the number of appearances made in the other five leagues. England and Italy saw reductions in appearances made by indigenous players in their domestic league and in the other leagues. Although Figure 2 outlines how nations have performed against themselves, it does not take into account the overall volume (i.e. Italy appear to fare worse than England in Figure 2 but recorded over 38,000 more appearances across all 6 leagues, Table 1). This is discussed in more detail later.

When continuing to analyse the proportion of appearances made in players’ own national association, there are subtle differences. Regarding the age of players when they play, in the Eredivisie (Holland), 30.3% of all appearances made by Dutch players were aged 21 or under, which is almost double that of Serie A (Italy) at 15.8% (Table 2). The Italian league saw almost a third of appearances by Italian players over the age of 30 (31.1%), which is much greater than Holland and Spain (19.5% and 19.3%, respectively).

Table 2.

Proportion of all appearances by players in their domestic league (1999–2015).

	Proportion of nations appearance spread
	Under 21	22–25	26–29	30–34	35+	Total
England	26.3%	27.4%	24.4%	18.2%	3.7%	100%
France	23.4%	28.0%	27.3%	19.2%	2.1%	100%
Germany	23.6%	29.9%	25.2%	17.7%	3.6%	100%
Holland	30.3%	28.5%	21.7%	15.9%	3.6%	100%
Italy	15.8%	23.5%	29.6%	25.9%	5.2%	100%
Spain	20.3%	31.7%	28.8%	17.2%	2.1%	100%

The spread of the age where players from each nationality appear in their top division suggest that the demographic profile of players differ between leagues, with Dutch players more likely to play in the Eredivisie under the age of 25 (58.8%) compared to Italian players in Serie A (39.3%). However, a clearer indicator of this is the proportion of minutes played by indigenous players in their own domestic league as a representation of all minutes played, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Proportion of minutes played by players in their domestic league (1999–2015).

	Under 21	22–25	26–29	30–34	35+	Total
England	5.7%	11.8%	11.3%	7.8%	1.2%	37.9%
France	7.9%	17.6%	18.0%	12.0%	1.4%	56.8%
Germany	6.9%	15.4%	14.0%	9.0%	1.5%	46.8%
Holland	13.6%	19.1%	14.7%	9.8%	2.2%	59.4%
Italy	3.8%	15.7%	21.3%	17.4%	3.2%	61.3%
Spain	7.0%	20.1%	20.7%	12.3%	1.6%	61.7%

Table 3 outlines that on a league-by-league basis between 1999 and 2015, four leagues have seen the majority of minutes played by players from their own nation (Spain, Italy, Holland and France). Two leagues saw the opposite with the Bundesliga (Germany) at 46.8% and the English Premier League at 37.9%. Dutch players aged under 21 have a significantly higher proportion of time on the pitch in the Eredivisie compared with the other five nations (13.6%).

The effect of the home-grown rule for these six nations, specifically regarding whether the rule is protecting or enhancing opportunities for home-grown players, is outlined in two ways, first using the difference between the first year of the home-grown rule with the most recent in Table 4 and second, using the mean scores across the two periods (pre and post) (see Table 5). When comparing the change between the first year of the full home-grown rules (2008–2009) with 2014–2015 (Table 4), four of the six nations hosting the leagues has seen a statistically significant decrease (applying the Z-test) to the proportion of minutes played by indigenous players to their leagues. At the under 21 level, two countries saw a significant increase (Holland and France) and Germany had a marginal increase, albeit not significant (+0.0014%). England, Italy and Spain all saw significant decreases at the under-21 level and overall.

Table 4.

Proportion of minutes played in domestic league 2008–2009 vs 2014–2015.

		2008–2009	2014–2015	Sig.		2008–2009	2014–2015	Sig.
England	U-21	5.17%	4.15%	Yes	All	37.25%	36.24%	Yes
France	U-21	6.79%	10.39%	Yes	All	54.40%	51.16%	Yes
Germany	U-21	7.51%	7.51%	No	All	41.73%	47.47%	Yes
Holland	U-21	13.10%	21.53%	Yes	All	54.68%	65.27%	Yes
Italy	U-21	3.17%	3.40%	Yes	All	61.84%	45.03%	Yes
Spain	U-21	6.79%	5.86%	Yes	All	62.93%	58.58%	Yes
Total	U-21	8.79%	8.20%	Yes	All	67.03%	50.22%	Yes

Table 5.

Proportion of minutes played pre and post home-grown rules (1999–2015).

	Under 21		22–25		26–29		30–34		35+		Total
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
England	7.1	3.9	12.6	10.7	10.7	12.1	8.0	7.5	1.7	0.6	40.1	34.9
France	7.8	8.0	18.3	16.8	19.8	15.8	12.3	11.6	1.1	1.8	59.2	53.9
Germany	5.0	9.2	13.2	18.2	14.6	13.2	11.5	5.8	2.2	0.7	46.6	47.1
Holland	11.3	16.6	17.6	21.1	16.0	12.9	12.0	7.0	2.8	1.4	59.7	59.1
Italy	4.6	2.8	18.7	12.2	24.8	17.2	17.5	17.2	3.2	3.3	68.8	52.8
Spain	7.3	6.5	21.3	18.6	20.8	20.6	11.8	13.0	1.3	1.9	62.5	60.7
Total	7.6	8.0	18.4	17.9	19.7	17.7	13.7	11.8	2.2	1.8	61.6	57.2

Although comparing the first and last season gives an idea of the direction of change, mean scores across the seven seasons compared with the period before arguably provides a clearer picture of the impact, and can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5 indicates a failure of the home-grown rule to protect indigenous opportunities in some nations, whereas in others the results are more positive. As the rule is applied ‘regardless of nationality,’ this is the major flaw that does not protect the nations hosting the major European leagues. England and Italy are the two nations where the rule has had limited efficacy. England, in particular, has an organisational dichotomy between the national governing body (the Football Association) having limited influence or control over the top league (controlled by The Premier League). Across the six leagues, only German players are recording a higher proportion of minutes played in the Bundesliga since the rule changes, by half a percentage point. This is compared to percentage point decreases (overall) of –16 (Italy), −5.3 (England and France), −1.8 (Spain) and −0.6 (Holland). For younger players (under 25), only players representing Germany and Holland have recorded higher proportions in terms of average minutes played (9.1 and 8.8 percentage points), with Italy (−8.3), England (−5.1), Spain (−3.5) and France (−1.3) all seeing a reduction.

Analysing the impact on playing time is one approach to examine the efficacy of the rule change and, although the volume of time is important, the average time spent on the pitch is also important as an indicator of the quality of each appearance. The average number of minutes played by indigenous players from each of the six nations is presented in Table 6 comparing pre home-grown rules with post, split by age.

Table 6.

Average minutes played (1999–2000 to 2007–2008 vs 2008–2009 to 2014–2015).

	Under 21		22–25		26–29		30–34		35+		Total
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
England	68.1	60.1	75.9	72.8	77.2	75.1	77.2	73.4	75.3	67.0	74.9	71.9
France	63.8	62.9	74.3	72.8	77.2	75.7	76.9	74.8	82.1	74.9	74.5	72.6
Germany	63.2	65.5	72.3	73.8	74.3	75.4	75.2	73.8	77.1	78.3	72.7	72.6
Holland	64.7	63.6	74.0	69.7	77.0	71.1	76.9	72.0	77.8	73.6	73.9	68.8
Italy	57.8	56.8	72.2	71.8	75.1	73.7	74.6	74.1	76.5	74.3	72.8	72.2
Spain	65.1	60.5	69.8	70.1	71.7	73.6	75.8	71.9	75.1	75.6	71.0	70.6

Table 6 shows that the average amount of time spent on the pitch for each appearance made has slightly decreased for all six countries since the rule change. Combined with the proportion of minutes played decreasing for five of the six countries (excluding Germany, see Table 5), the influx of non-indigenous players continues to impact upon the volume and the quality of the playing opportunity for the hosts of Europe’s leading leagues. This occurrence is more pronounced for the youngest players (under 21s) as, although the average number of minutes played by indigenous players has slightly risen in Germany (2 min), the other five nations have seen a decrease in the average minutes played: England (by 8 min), Spain (5 min); France, Holland and Italy (all 1 min). This is largely similar for 22- to 25-year olds too, with marginal increases for Spain and Germany, and marginal decreases for the remaining four nations. Although English players record the lowest aggregated appearances and minutes played, alongside their minimal integration into other major leagues, their average time spent on the pitch was the highest before the home-grown rules were introduced (74.9 min per appearance). This, however, reduces to the fourth highest average since 2008. This points to a decreased level of opportunities for English players in the last seven seasons, and when they are playing, there has been a decrease in the ‘quality’ of the appearance, which from a player development perspective is an unhealthy combination.

When looking across all 144 nations represented in the six leagues, 65 countries have seen an increase in the proportion of minutes their players record since 2008, 53 have seen a decrease and 26 have remained the same (summarised in Table 7). Four South American countries are amongst the top 10 nations, which have seen the greatest increase in the proportion of appearance their players make (Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Uruguay). Four European (Slovenia, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria), one Asian (Japan) and one African nation (Senegal) are also in the top 10 in terms of increases. When analysing the nations seeing a decrease overall, the four with the greatest decrease are league hosts (Italy, England, Holland and France).

Table 7.

Change in overall proportion of minutes played (pre vs post rule change).

	Top 10 gains			Top 10 losses
1	Argentina	0.60%	1	Italy	−1.94%
2	Colombia	0.49%	2	England	−1.31%
3	Slovenia	0.42%	3	Holland	−0.75%
4	Chile	0.40%	4	France	−0.64%
5	Belgium	0.37%	5	Australia	−0.36%
6	Uruguay	0.32%	6	Czech Republic	−0.25%
7	Switzerland	0.31%	7	Ireland	−0.24%
8	Japan	0.30%	8	Russia	−0.20%
9	Austria	0.30%	9	South Africa	−0.18%
10	Senegal	0.29%	10	Denmark	−0.15%

Furthermore, when analysing countries in the top 30 nations (in terms of aggregated playing time) for the average playing time for under 21 s, the highest improvements in average playing time was seen by Croatia (8 min increase), Scotland (7 min), Wales (5 min), Serbia (4 min), Denmark and Uruguay (both 3 min) and Portugal (2 min) rather than the league hosts.

Career longevity is also a key parameter of the development of elite players that play at the top level. Measured by the average number of seasons players play in the six leagues, the proportion that play in one season only, and the proportion that have played in twelve or more seasons (75%) can be used to examine the career longevity of elite players. Although older players in the sample played prior to 1999–2000, and younger players may have only made their debut in the 2014–15 season, these two limitations are the same across all the six countries.

The longevity analysis suggests that, based on the 16-season sample, English players are the least likely of the six nations to only play in one season (19.3%) compared to French nationals as the highest (25.4%). French (5.2%) and English (5%) players are the most likely to play in more than 75% of the 16 seasons, albeit for England based on a much smaller number of players (868) (Table 8). Italian players, although one of the two countries (with England) who have seen a decrease in playing time since the home-grown rules were introduced, have the highest average in terms of seasons played per player (4.08 seasons). When compared with countries where over 50 different players had made an appearance in the major six leagues (N = 42), it shows that five of the six league hosts are amongst the top 20 (Germany are 21^st) for the average number of seasons per player, and are all in the top seven for the proportion of players playing for only one season in a major leagues (Czech Republic interrupt the group in fifth), as presented in Table 9. This suggests that imported players from outside the six major nations are more likely to be recruited and subsequently transferred or not used than their indigenous counterparts.

Table 8.

Career ‘progression’ – number of seasons played between 1999 and 2015.

	England	France	Germany	Holland	Italy	Spain
Total players	868	1406	1084	1360	1343	1575
Total seasons played	3216	5482	3740	4840	5230	5746
Average seasons	3.70	3.90	3.45	3.49	4.08	3.65
% 1 season only	19.3%	25.4%	25.0%	22.8%	20.5%	22.8%
% 1 or 2 seasons	35.8%	39.8%	40.7%	39.1%	35.1%	38.1%
% 12+ seasons (75%)	5.0%	5.2%	2.7%	2.8%	4.5%	3.1%

Table 9.

Average seasons and percentage of single seasons (1999–2015).

Rank		Average Seasons	Rank		% one season
1	Mali	4.41	1	England	19.3%
2	Ivory Coast	4.34	2	Italy	20.5%
3	Italy	4.08	3	Holland	22.8%
4	Ghana	3.98	4	Spain	22.8%
5	Senegal	3.91	5	Czech Republic	24.6%
6	France	3.90	6	Germany	25.0%
7	Australia	3.79	7	France	25.4%
8	Czech Republic	3.79	8	Mali	26.5%
9	Ireland	3.78	9	Ivory Coast	26.8%
10	Tunisia	3.78	10	Tunisia	27.5%
12	England	3.70	39	Greece	44.3%
14	Spain	3.65	40	Austria	45.1%
18	Holland	3.49	41	Hungary	45.9%
21	Germany	3.45	42	Turkey	54.6%

Discussion

The headline results across the six major European leagues suggest that the home-grown rule has been largely ineffective in protecting indigenous player opportunities for those six nations. A simple reason for this is the ‘regardless of nationality’ part of the ruling, which reduces its effectiveness. This is not to suggest that young footballers are not being produced by these six countries, as the evidence shows that they are, albeit a smaller proportion of the playing sample, playing for a slightly shorter average time per appearance. Two nations stand out in terms of success. First, Spain, as the nation which has had the most success in terms of increasing the number of appearances by players playing in their own elite league (La Liga) and in the other five major European leagues (see Figure 2). Second is Holland, the stand out nation in terms of providing (and increasing) player opportunities for younger professionals. Two nations have seen a negative impact since the home-grown rules began, England and Italy, which coincide with a longer term downward trend in the proportion, volume and duration of their elite professionals playing time. Notwithstanding this, Italy won the World Cup two seasons prior to the implementation of the home-grown rules.

As outlined by Bullough and Mills,¹ circumventing the home-grown rules in their current format is quite straightforward, both from a selection and recruitment perspective. First, home-grown players can be named in the squad to comply with the quota rules, but not necessarily play in the team. Second, clubs can bring players into clubs from different nationalities so that they spend 3 years in the country between the ages of 15 and 21 and become home-grown in the country of that club, some of whom are purchased in high value transfers. It could be argued that the rationale for UEFA’s original decision to implement these rules, rather than being designed to protect individual nationalities, is designed more to protect the position of its entire affiliate nations and thus European football’s position in the world game, rather than the individual countries hosting the main leagues. With European football being the financial core of the world (80% of revenue),¹⁷ and the host of the premier club competition (Champions League), protection and control of the most lucrative commercial opportunities and maintaining the position of prestige may be at the forefront of their priorities.

Conclusion

The UEFA home-grown rule was designed to increase the profile and value of young home-grown professionals, with the creation of a development culture where interest, investment and resource into internal talent development programmes increased. The value of home-grown players, it was hoped, would increase due to this intervention by the governing organisation. Table 9 outlines that imported players from outside the six major nations are more likely to be recruited and subsequently transferred or not used than their indigenous counterparts. However, as the data suggests, in the 7 years since the rule was fully introduced in 2008, the opportunities for players from the six major European leagues have not been protected. For three of the six nations, playing time has decreased for indigenous players in their home league (England, France and Italy). Although Binder and Findlay¹¹ suggested that the impact of Bosman on the ‘big six’ leagues was small, the results here suggest that there has seen a decline in some countries, particularly England.

There are a range of studies that highlight the problems with player development and specifically youth development, but effective solutions are less well researched, particularly in terms of successful implementation. Clubs must comply with employment and migration laws around the free movement of labour within the European Union. The Bosman ruling also enhances the opportunities to move clubs and nations. These two legislative requirements alone mean it would be difficult to implement a stricter quota rule, and removing the ‘regardless of nationality’ would also infringe employment law in Europe. The results show that the impact has been different depending on the nationality, and clearly Holland and Spain in particular appear to have increased their ‘market share’ of playing opportunities. The statistically significant increase in the proportions of minutes played by young Dutch players is a result that demonstrates that there can be positive developments. Notwithstanding this, the Eredivisie was found to be the least competitive on most parameters of the six leagues examined here,²⁷ therefore it could be argued that it is easier to introduce young indigenous players in this environment, rather than a more competitive league with higher financial risk and reward.

An example of one method to protect indigenous players emanated from the Chairman of the English Football Association with the suggestion to introduce a more stringent system for players from non-EEA countries (European Economic Area), based on stricter proportions of the international matches they have played in the previous 2 years.²⁸ The FA outlined that the application of this revised process would, in the previous five seasons, have resulted in one-third of players being refused a work permit. However, as stated previously, the premier competition in England is not controlled by the governing body, thus making this more difficult to implement. Furthermore, as shown in Table 7, the countries producing the greatest increases in the proportion of players are widespread (four South American, four European, one Asian and one African nation). At present, there are 30 EEA nations and one provisional member (Croatia), covering 34 football associations (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are independent nations). These nations generated 73% of all appearances and 74% of minutes played in the sample. Therefore, the efficacy of such a limitation on non-EAA players would be limited to trying to control the migration of a minority of players and playing time. Furthermore, if players from outside the EAA region were restricted, and the indigenous players replace them, the standard of elite European football may decline if their places are taken by inferior players.

Ultimately, the modern game is a commercial product; therefore governors of the elite leagues are interested in creating the most commercially viable product to sell to broadcasters, sponsors et al. This creates an organisational ideology that is not necessarily aligned or mutually exclusive with indigenous player development, but player development regardless of nationality. If the indigenous players are of a lower quality, and their inclusion consequently impacts upon results that threaten the generation of (or protection of) this revenue, clubs and managers at the elite level will prefer players that are ready ahead of those that are still developing. Balancing this pressure from a commercial perspective is a salient issue in the modern era of player development in professional football. The home-grown rule is, in its current form, unlikely to change player development strategies in Europe.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express gratitude to graduate research assistants Louise Hobbs and Liam Brown for their assistance with data collation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bullough

Mills

. Give us a game: Evaluating the opportunities that exist for English footballers to play in the English Premier League. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2014; 9: 637–650.

UEFA. Protection of Young Players, 2005. http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=943393.html (accessed 1 November 2014).

UEFA. Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition, 2010. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf (accessed 1 February 2012).

Vaeyens

Coutts

Philippaerts

. Evaluation of the “Under-21 Rule”: Do young adult soccer players benefit? J Sports Sci 2005; 23(10): 1003–1012.

Reilly

Williams

Richardson

Identifying talented players. In: Reilly

Williams

(eds). Science and soccer, London: Routledge, 2003, pp. 307–326.

Hardman

Iorwerth

. Player quotas in elite club football. Sport Ethics Philos 2014; 8: 147–156.

Dejonghe

Opstal

. Competitive balance between national leagues in European football after the Bosman case. Rivista Diritto Econ Sport 2010; 6: 41–61.

The Premier League. New UK live broadcast deal good for all English football, 2015. http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2014-15/feb/110215-premier-league-uk-live-broadcasting-rights-good-for-all-levels-says-scudamore.html (accessed 12 March 2015).

Riach J. English players not invited to Europe’s Champions League party, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/dec/11/champions-league-english-players-europe (accessed 11 December 2014).

10.

Gardiner

Welch

. Bosman - There and back again: The legitimacy of playing quotas under European Union Sports Policy. Eur Law J 2011; 17: 828–849.

11.

Binder

Findlay

. The effects of the Bosman Ruling on national and club teams in Europe. J Sports Econ 2011; 13: 107–129.

12.

Kesenne

. Belgian football: A comment. J Sports Econ 2007; 8: 1–5.

13.

Green

. Every boy's dream, London: Bloomsbury, 2009.

14.

Slot O. The next Rooney or Richards? The pool is shrinking before our very eyes. The Times, 3 January 2007, pp. 73–90.

15.

UEFA. Protection of young players, 2014. http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=943393.html (accessed 12 March 2015).

16.

Elliott

Weedon

. Foreign players in the English Premier Academy League: ‘Feet-drain’ or ‘feet-exchange’? Int Rev Sociol Sport 2010; 46: 1–15.

17.

Littlewood

Mullen

Richardson

. Football labour migration: An examination of the player recruitment strategies of the “Big Five” European football leagues 2004/05 to 2008/09. Soccer Society 2011; 12: 788–805.

18.

Maguire

Pearton

. The impact of elite labour migration on the identification, selection and development of European soccer players. J Sports Sci 2000; 18: 759–769.

19.

Magee

Sugden

. The world at their feet? Professional football and international labour migration. J Sport Soc Issues 2002; 26: 421–437.

20.

Cornelissen

Solberg

. Sport mobility and circuits of power: the dynamics of football migration in Africa and the 2010 World Cup. Politikon 2007; 34: 295–314.

21.

Storey

. Football, place and migration: foreign footballers in the FA Premier League. Geography 2011; 96: 86–94.

22.

Maguire

. ‘Real politic’ or ‘ethically based’: Sport, globalization, migration and nation-state policies. Sport Soc 2008; 11: 443–458.

23.

Richardson

Littlewood

Nesti

. An examination of the migratory transition of elite young European soccer players to the English Premier League. J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 1605–1618.

24.

Maguire

. Sports labour migration research revisited. J Sport Soc Issues 2004; 28: 477–482.

25.

Gratton

Solberg

. The economics of sports broadcasting, London: Routledge, 2007.

26.

McGovern

. Globalization or Internationalization? Foreign Footballers in the English League 1946–95. Sociology 2002; 36: 23–42.

27.

Ramchandani

. Competitiveness of the English Premier League (1992–2010) and ten European football leagues (2010). Int J Perform Anal Sport 2012; 12: 346–360.

28.

The Football Association. Work permit changes will benefit English football, 2015. http://www.thefa.com/news/thefa/2015/mar/england-commission-update-work-permits-fa-chairman-greg-dyke#blSVf0oMsU55BfkU.99 (accessed 12 March 2015).