Uefa president wants transfer reforms to end big club domination

[love4ffc]

Read full artical here.  http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/39355514

The head of European football wants to change the transfer system to stop big clubs "hoarding" the best players.

Aleksander Ceferin, president of European football's governing body Uefa, says a "luxury tax" on rich clubs and squad limits could also help to stop elite clubs dominating the game.

He said the "excessive concentration of talent with a few teams" had to change.

"Uefa has a duty to protect the whole of football and not just the elite," Ceferin told a conference in Lisbon.

The Slovenian lawyer, who was elected to the role last September, told a conference in Lisbon that Uefa needed to address a "decrease in competitive balance" within European club football.

"We need to assess whether the transfer market is the best we can do," he said.

"We cannot be afraid to touch it. We do have to examine new mechanisms like luxury taxes and in particular sporting criteria like squad limitations and fair transfer rules, to avoid player hoarding."

He did not give any further details on what he meant by luxury taxes or fair transfer rules, but added that Uefa could work with global governing body Fifa to make changes to the transfer market - or do so via its own licensing regulations.

Some of Europe's smaller leagues have complained about big teams signing up their best players at a young age, only to immediately send them on loan elsewhere.

In the Premier League, Chelsea had more than 30 players out on loan earlier this season, while in Italy champions Juventus have more than 50 players loaned out.

Ceferin also said Uefa would set up a new division entitled "Protection of the Game" to tackle doping, corruption, violence and match-fixing.

[MJG]

Squad size is the way to go.
Loads of data on players used at all ages so they will be able to come up with max size for teams.
I think a team that has first team & U23 squad could get away with somewhere in region of 40-50 players maximum. U18 squads become harder to fix but we have 77 players listed in various places as Fulham players across all age ranges.

31 players 21 or above
9 players 19-20
14 at 18 years old.
23 at 17 or younger

[Carborundum]

Seems a sensible fellow. 

[Dixie]

Something needs to be done imo

As long as clubs like Chelski and Man City are offering big money, players will follow that money rather than stay loyal to a club which doesn't have the same financial clout. Even if that means not playing e.g. Roberts

Is there a limit on the number of professional contracts that a club can have at any time? If not, then perhaps that would be a good way to go - a limited number of under 16's, under 19's, first team squad etc.

You can understand why the big clubs do what they do, they have scouts all over the place looking for the next big talent, but often those players don't realise their potential for one reason or another, so they need 5 or 10 of them in the hope that 1 or 2 come good
It must also be tricky for the players, I guess they want to do their best for the team they are loaned to, to show their parent club what they are missing, but it's not where they think they should be... Roberts signed for Man City and he ultimately wants to be playing for them not Celtic

How about ditching the loan system and putting a limit on the number of players signed to any club? That should make a difference!

[toshes mate]

Seems a sensible fellow. 

+1

Encouraging, especially if the guy has/gets the backing to follow it through

[nose]

also, reduce the number od substitutes per match! that would have a very real effect.

[bobbo]

Sounds good but the big guns will find a way around it. They have through time .

[filham]

Seems a sensible fellow. 

+1

Encouraging, especially if the guy has/gets the backing to follow it through

Like what I am hearing but the big clubs will resist it all the way.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Bans on tobacco advertising are a good example of something designed to restrict the big firms but which actually served them very well, by preventing smaller companies using advertising to build a public profile that could rival theirs.

"Bans on tobacco advertising are a good example of something designed to restrict the big firms"?

Restrict the big firms? Surely the bans are designed to reduce the incidence of smoking, not to encourage competition.

[toshes mate]

"Luxury taxes" and "fair transfer rules" sounds like more of the same. No thanks.

That isn't what caught my eye though, Statto, and to be fair he didn't actually expand his ideas on what taxes and rules they might be.  What impresses me, and is a good start after years of neglecting the problem of big club domination, is the guys stated aim to protect the whole of football and not just the elite, and to bring proper competition back.  He is, for sure, not the first person to have shouted about it but he does hold some power and if he can do something concrete to change football or make a difference then I would back him if he comes up with things that will carry through his stated aim.   A part of that may be to uncover the myths about FFP, transfer windows, player contracts, squad sizes, loan regimes, media money, and so on.   The malaise was compounded in England by the foundation of the Premier League and it is going to take a decade or so to unravel the mess to make the game more competitive and make the money get to where it is really needed.  We may even see the back of the obviously unfit for purpose owners of football clubs there are around the country.   He may make no difference at all, but I'll live in hope until he fails.

[bill taylors apprentice]

By the time any good ideas get through the focus groups, committees, consultants etc etc not to mention the top clubs lawyers it will be a watered down and ineffective like most things, that's how things normally go!

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

toshes mate i agree it's good he's thinking about it but "luxury taxes" in particular can only really mean a small number of things and none of them fall outside the narrow thinking the football authorities have done on this sort of thing this far IMO

IMO it will take something radical; they need to fundamentally change the way clubs are incentivised

why limit squad sizes? why not just go all out and say any player over 18 not included in the 25-man PL squad is automatically released by the club

any player aged 18-24 who doesn't make at least 15 competitive appearances in a rolling two-season period is automatically released by the club

dramatically change the international system so clubs losing players in the manner we lost Dembele get a lot more than the 0.5% (or whatever it is) of any future fee we get for each of the 4 yrs we spent developing him

no loaning-out an 18-24 year old player in any two consecutive seasons

etc etc

or to be honest something even more radical than any of that (i don't have the answers!)

I am all for making some radical changes to make to game more competitive but measures require some thought.

Yes, reducing the number of players on a club's books is a good idea but what about the consequences for the player who signed a contract with the club suddenly finding themselves 'released'. If you mean by that that the 'big club' pays off his contract in full then fair enough. If you mean that the player is made redundant and just gets the normal redundancy pay then that hardly seems fair.

Also why make a cut off at 21 with the u23s PL2 league?

Something else that should be addressed is the contracts and compensation for young players developed in the club in general, not just when they go internationally. Clubs like Fulham have not got value for Dembele or Hyndman and could lose out on Sessegnon and others. The developing club should be allowed to sign on their young players on longer contracts and the compensation should be based on long-term value not the cost of developing any old player as it seems to be at the moment.

[toshes mate]

IMO it will take something radical; they need to fundamentally change the way clubs are incentivised

why limit squad sizes? why not just go all out and say any player over 18 not included in the 25-man PL squad is automatically released by the club

any player aged 18-24 who doesn't make at least 15 competitive appearances in a rolling two-season period is automatically released by the club

dramatically change the international system so clubs losing players in the manner we lost Dembele get a lot more than the 0.5% (or whatever it is) of any future fee we get for each of the 4 yrs we spent developing him

no loaning-out an 18-24 year old player in any two consecutive seasons

etc etc

or to be honest something even more radical than any of that (i don't have the answers!)

I like your bombastic style and I actually wholeheartedly agree that if it could be done it would be like releasing oxygen to a sport that has been smothered for yonks.

Perhaps if he can drum up the necessary support from people who make football what it is - fans - and we get to establish that no matter how big the following is of the big boys it is nothing compared to genuine football people who have been marginalised by money.   We need more people like you saying there can be no short cuts to the remedial treatment needed to clean up the game on a truly broad perspective.   You make many useful contributions on here and you see the game through what seem like genuine eyes.  That is what we need - people to speak about what they see and why it is wrong and not continually close their eyes and minds to the problem.

It will not happen overnight but if some momentum can be started then we could get to see the real purge of the sport that is essential.

[toshes mate]

Bans on tobacco advertising are a good example of something designed to restrict the big firms but which actually served them very well, by preventing smaller companies using advertising to build a public profile that could rival theirs.

"Bans on tobacco advertising are a good example of something designed to restrict the big firms"?

Restrict the big firms? Surely the bans are designed to reduce the incidence of smoking, not to encourage competition.

Yes. But the point is their intended, ostensible purpose was one you'd have expected to harm Silk Cut, Benson & Hedges et al, when their actual effect was to benefit those firms. Not perfectly analogous to FFP I admit, but similar in that respect at least. maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it.

It is actually a good analogy of the way society works.  A legal drug in the hands of big companies who'll challenge politicians to criminalise it and have an even bigger problem on their hands when the tobacco cartel starts to demand money with menaces from law enforcement agencies who have no way of tackling either supply or demand.  It is a reasonable point, IMO, Statto.

[Twig]

The main thing is that this guy has recognised a problem, expressed a desire to confront it and started a debate.  What the final solutions will be (if any) remains to be seen but he has my wholehearted support for the sentiments he expresses.