Why Brexit isn’t “Good for the England Team”

Why Brexit isn’t “Good for the England Team”

Anxiety over the economic impacts of Brexit
have plagued businesses in the UK, Europe and around the
world since the 2016 Referendum. The UK government’s lack of clarity and failure to negotiate a
smooth transition out of European Union has left
an immeasurable amount of potential impacts on businesses.
English football is not immune from these impacts, with the Premier League’s brand
as ‘the best league in the world’ through its multinational inclusion
of the best footballing talent under threat. Through the Maastricht treaty, and the subsequent
Bosman ruling in 1995, the Premier League has hugely
benefitted from the freedom of labour movement within the EU. Brexit, for obvious reasons,
would hinder movement.
EU players and those from European Economic Area countries will now likely be subject
to the same visa and work permit restrictions as players from
countries outside of the EU, making the criteria for signing
players stricter. According to football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire, this would potentially
push up the price of imports by “10 to 15 percent”
due to the extra paperwork. The FA, however, see Brexit as an opportunity.
The number of English players playing in the Premier League
has been negatively affected by the appetite for foreign players.During the inaugural Premier
League season in 1992-93, English players started 70% of
games. In the 2017/18 season, English players started just 33% of
games, a significant reduction and far less than the proportion of native talents in the
Bundesliga (47.1%), La Liga (58%), Serie A (42.8%) and Ligue 1 (53.2%).
In November 2018, the FA published its plan to reduce the current threshold of non-homegrown
players in a club’s 25-man squad from 17 to 13 by 2021
and have stated that these changes are regardless of any
specificities in a deal negotiated between the British government and the European Union.
The FA believe that Brexit would allow English players to
receive more game-time and, therefore, better development. The
Premier League has categorically rejected this view, stating that there is “no evidence
that stronger quotas than exist now would have a positive impact
on national teams”. While the FA’s argument seems logical it
is likely based on a series of ideas driven by confirmation bias.
The English national team has underperformed relative to public expectation since the inception
of the Premier League. This view was exacerbated
by the fortunes of the ill-fated ‘golden generation’ of the midto-
late 2000s. English clubs, littered with integral English players, were performing exceptionally
in European competitions. Between 2004/05 and
2008/09 there was an English club in every final of the
Champions League and an incredible three out of four in the semi-finals of 07/08 and 08/09.
The likes of Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Steven Gerrard, Frank
Lampard, Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Wayne Rooney were
all star quality players able to be decisive for the clubs on
the grandest of stages. For the national team, however, the group disappointed. Speaking
before the lowlight of the generation, the defeat to Croatia which
confirmed England’s failure to qualify for Euro2008, Gerrard
aired his views on England’s struggles: “I think there is a risk of too many foreign
players coming over, which would affect our national team eventually
if it’s not already. It is important we keep producing
players.” This theme of thinking was echoed by numerous
other figures in the game, including Sir Alex Ferguson,
Sepp Blatter, Michel Platini and the FA’s chairman Greg Dyke.
Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper’s Soccernomics highlights the problems with import substitution
in specific reference to English football. If
English clubs were allowed to discriminate against players from
foreign countries, they claim, the quality would decline due to not just factors relating
to quality, but motivation for native footballers; “If inferior
English players were handed places in Premier League teams,
they would have little incentive to improve.” Due to the transparent nature of football’s
labour market, economic theory dictates that, in the instance of
free labour movement, the best players naturally congregate in the best quality leagues due
to the meritocratic nature of football’s finances
and the promotion and relegation structure. Therefore, English
footballers’ have the distinct advantage of the world’s premier football competition
in their back garden; the highest development standard is set for them.
Szymanski and Kuper back up their hypothesis with statistics, comparing England’s performances
in the era of a ‘British league’, from 1968 to 1992,
with their performances since 1998 (deliberately leaving out the
1966 World Cup as it was an anomaly played exclusively at home). They found that ‘In
that first ‘British’ period up to 1992, England reached just one
World Cup semi-final, in 1990. However, that was an exception.
In those years, England reached the quarter-finals of major tournaments only four times in 13
attempts. By contrast, in the ‘international’ period
since 1998, they have reached four quarter-finals in just eight attempts.
Moreover, their win percentage at major tournaments jumped from 52% in 1968-1992 to 62% in the
‘international’ period The figures suggest that if anything, the
international league has been good for the England
team.”. Furthermore, Szymanski and Kuper’s statistical research took place before the
2018 World Cup, a tournament in which England reached the semi-final.
The Premier League’s claim that there is “no evidence that stronger quotas would
have a positive impact on national teams” certainly passes the eye
test. The very fact that the Premier League is so
fiercely competitive on a weekly basis both improves the
development of English-born players by setting a higher bar, but negatively affects the national
team in a way unrelated to talent development – exhaustion.
Wayne Rooney playing successive World Cups while
half-fit is a classic example. The Premier League’s competitiveness also makes clubs’
reliance on key players integral, sometimes in the form of rushing
them back from injury early. This can lead to severe drops in form
or reoccurring injuries, neither of which are particularly useful to the national team.
To combat exhaustion, the FA have agreed with the Premier League to introduce a ‘winter
break’, a ten-day hiatus in February, from the 2019/20 season
onwards. While this is a very short break in comparison to other
European leagues (for the 2018/19 season: Germany=22 days; France=16 days; Italy
=14 days; Spain=11 days), it is a significant step in the
right direction coupled with the scrapping of 5th round replays in the
FA Cup. It seems, therefore, that England’s ‘perceived’
underperformance less the fault of foreign imports in the
Premier League but more related to the unforgiving nature of the English football calendar and
managing squad harmony. Meaning, of course, that whatever
talent drain results from Brexit is unlikely to directly
linked to a dramatic improvement in the national team’s fortunes.

Comments (100)

  1. Rrrright they back up Thier facts with statistics but leave out the 1966 Cup yeah great statistics lads just pick and choose your statistics😂😂😂

  2. I don't think getting foreign players in the epl affects the England national team. The Fact that English players train and compete with foreigners for a starting spot in their respective teams. THE FACT that they are starters in a competitive team shows he is competent enough to play for his country

  3. But wait, can't the UK avoid the VISA's and work permits by doing the same as Switzerland? Not being part of the EU but yet belonging to the Schengen Space? That way, the UK could still benefit from the free circulation and at the same time not be part of the EU, thus not affecting any leagues!

  4. Oh fuck off TIFO football!!! So far on the left you make Giggs look right footed!! Scum!

  5. This is a complete lie. Brexit will benefit England in the long term when the development of homegrown players will increase.

  6. Honestly the only thing the FA has ever gotten right. But they actually need to put like a 6 foreign player limit in a match squad, not 13. 13 Is still more than half of a match squad. 11 starters and 2 subs. Just look at clubs like City and Chelsea. What have they ever done for English national football? Sure, Sterling (but he's a Liverpool product) and Hart? Then John Terry of course, but that was before Abramovich took over. Who would pass through this 13 player barrier today? Burnley? But that was before they went insane I mean hell, English clubs aren't even playing their own players. If they're not lost in a loan carousel, they go overseas to find glory in another bit more relaxed league where they can blossom. Sancho and Nelson are great examples of late. Because in Bundesliga, even though they have a similar problem, they still play the youth.

  7. I don't care for the better quality football. I want player from Manchester playing for United and City, I want players from London playing for Arsenal and Chelsea.

  8. Im not sure if you dont know or are just ignorant, but croatia has been in the eu for 6 years so the map at the beginning is outdated.

  9. Does anyone in this comment section actually care about politics?

  10. At best there's a lot in here that's misleading. The Economic theory quoted is hotly disputed. While almoat all economists would agree that competition can be good, this doesn't mean that protection is always bad for an industry. The Idea that strong competition gives English footballers extra incentive to do better is ridiculous. If I have a 10 year old son, and want him to be a professional footballer, the right way to do this is not to put him into the Man City squad so that he'll have the best competition, it's to put him in a league of other people his age so that he can improve his game while playing match football. Players such as Sancho have actively gained from moving to (slightly) weaker teams with less strong competition for places, getting the game time they need to grow as players. Few would argue that the league should be 100% British, but even a slightly lower proportion of foreign players may make it easier for young English players to break through

  11. could you explain how defensive football could work, because defensive managers have been less succesful as year pass
    Excpet for deschamps

  12. That argument about foreign players impeding homegrown players' careers is nonsense. England just need better youth academies like "La Masia", "INF Clairefontaine", or just learn from Germany (All countries should). The reason English clubs have more foreign players is probably because the foreign players are better than the English players. It's that simple. English players need to have a parameter to see how talented they are. If homegrown players are given privilege, they will only succumb to mediocrity because of lack of competition.

    In Mexico, we've tried to make a league system that favors national talent like "regla 10/8", which states that all teams should have at least 8 homegrown players (This is nonsense). Also, in 2009 for the first time, our federation implemented the U-17 and U-20 Mexican leagues (this was good actually). The results? On the positive side, Mexico has done well in youth tournaments. We won the U17 world cup in 2011, runner up in 2013, and fourth place in 2015. At the U-20 world cup, we got a third place in 2011. On the negative side, most of those players didn't become world class. Many of them don't even have a decent career. Oh yeah, and we still haven't passed the round of 16 at the world cup.

    In my opinion, the only thing that has been and will ever be fruitful is the way youth academies are organized. Just a few years ago, Pachuca, one of the most important clubs in Mexico, built youth academy installations that are probably one of the best in Latin America. The way they are developing players and seeking out talent is quite impressive. El Chucky lozano, Hector Herrera, and Erick gutierrez are good examples. Nowadays Mexico U-17 and U-20 is mostly composed of Pachuca players, and this wasn't because of regla 10/8. It was due to great scouting and training. Nothing else.

  13. Who cares we don't need the EU it's coming home

  14. Having said that about English players playing top opposition and developing against that, the sad truth is that many players aren't getting on the field in the first place, so something needs to be done to get the players onto field

  15. Yeah because the Cypriot league, which has the biggest % of foreign players in the whole of Europe, has really benefitted their national team hasn't it

  16. So in conclusion Chelsea are finished

  17. To me, the biggest counterpoint to the whole we need more English players starting is that back in when we had the highest percentage of English born players starting, we failed to even qualify for the 1994 world cup!

  18. Brexit means Brexit. Dont like it? You know where the door is.

  19. I’m torn on this. As a Sunderland fan most of the time we’ve been in the prem we’ve been shit. So most of the players we signed were lads who only cared about the money because Sunderland could pay much more than a French time in wages for example. These players didn’t care and were first to jump ship when we got relegated. All of our team now except for a few exceptions are British and Irish and see playing for Sunderland as a privilege. For example we have prem quality facilities and a massive fan base for league 1 plus the history of the club dwarfs most League 1 teams. As a result, they are so much more passionate and are there for the right reasons, especially because they might never play for a team of our size because of the level of ability they have. This is much more enjoyable to watch because the team works so much harder as they could before and the fans are much more involved in the team and they care for the players more and now looking back on our time in the prem we see players we used to love like Khazri, Borini, Kone and others as cunts. Also, we have good academy players and a good academy so if the quality of the prem gets worse because of Brexit, by the time we’re back we’ll have mostly a young, good and local team. A team who we can identify with aswell

  20. He is right GB should remain in EU becuase of football…………. In fact the vote on Brexit was becuase the public thought football would improve if they vote leave 🙂

  21. Sooner or later the money is going to make it hard to impossible for people to go to most of the games. Now do we need salary caps in all professional sports. Pretty much yes. Because after all most of the food eaten by them is mostly provided to them by their clubs or where they train. While for health care and treatment. That is also pretty much cover, going by how much money is coming into the clubs.

    Now how much is enough in terms of weekly wage. After tax, it should be around £1,000 to £2,000 per week depending on the player. Because just look at people who serve on the front line, work in general hospitals and other well respected or tough careers.

    At most some make around £20,000 to £45,000 per year, depending on hours and how far up they are up on the career ladder. Right what about singing on fee’s. £80,000 to £120,000 is plenty and to make sure players don’t always keep moving. They should be forced to stay at a club for a minimum of 2 years, unless of course they are sold or released.

    And lastly. Bonuses should be kept to £20,000 to £30,000 for winning a League. Because not only would it result in every player playing for the shirt and the fans. While on the money side, they would be more respected as well as not buying cars, items and houses as fashion statements. Right what about other bonuses. Winning a Cup or World Tournament should be around £20,000 to £40,000 depending on the competition.

    Next bonuses for goals if a player has a bonus for 30 goals a season. It should at max by £2,000, appearances set to £1,000 and unused appearances shouldn’t exist.

    Anyway what about the people who moan, that their careers are short. Well on the player side of things, it can go up to 45 in some leagues while in rare instances, it could go up to 48-50. However after their playing career, they have plenty of options.

    Enter anything that pays well for hard work, like sales for instance which is also a good career if you can make it up to the top. But most players once they retire either go into movies, coaching and management, scouting, sporting director or being on, either radio or TV. Anyway should salaries be also kept in none playing roles.

    Pretty much it should be lower for most by about 20-40%. But coaching, management and sporting directors should get 15-20% less. And for scouting roles, 25-30% less is a good number.

  22. Awful video! International tournaments were much harder to qualify for in the past, only 16 teams were at the 1970, 74 and 78 World Cups with only 8 teams at the Euros in 80 and 84 and even less before that. British teams dominated in European club football in the years before Hysel with only British players. You're either being dishonest, stupid or lazy.

  23. dear god, people are dumb

  24. well, you know what… BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

  25. the false assumption is that england will alone figure out football in a vacuum that can win a world cup. did anyone consider the foreign trainers in the premier league??? when talent flows freely the best rise to the top. English players for whatever have historically rarely played outside the premier league compared to the inflows from other nations. They refuse to leave to find better football when they can't play in the premier league and yet complain that they are importing too much talent. look at brazilian players. the desire to play is such that they actively nationalize for anyone to play in a world cup. this is a real desire to play the game for love, not some ultranationalistic nonsense driven mostly by the false assumption that because england invented football that they somehow are the most enlightened in its tactics and performance. what trash logic. they've won a single world cup. english expectations are the problem. they are playing exactly as to be expected given their quality currently and have never been better or more dangerous. and they are now packed with players that are immigrants like Raheem sterling who mark my words may end up being england's greatest ever player. what gerrard said was stupid as an illiterate plank and frankly a dog whistle for ultranationalists to absolve himself of his on-field failures.

  26. We need the Spine of the team playing in 1 or 2 clubs like in Germany or Spain. Like Liverpool and Chelsea Or 2 other top clubs. So that the players are used to playing together.

  27. Brexit isn't good for anyone

  28. english players…they don't want to learn any foreign languages do they? for now, they prefer to sit at home, and get paid so much more than youngsters in other leagues…the english national team will never perform well unless they get their 'englishness' back into their football culture…plus, they should have more players like sancho abroad…other foreign players know a lot about english football style, but english players don't really know about the continental style..coz they have never been there…owen, hargreaves, beckham, woodgate, mcmanaman…only mcmanaman seemed to settle well there, learning language…

  29. To be honest the FA have the right idea because homegrown talent is being ignored and obviously this impacts the English national team and the Scottish, Welsh and Irish national teams since a lot of their top quality players are rarely playing in the premier league anymore which is sad. We shouldn’t take this idea too far to where we are discriminating forgiven players but we should embrace the FAs approach to getting more British players a chance to succeed for their clubs.

  30. They should make a british national team

  31. We've got a very small pool from which to draw talent and we don't put enough funding/effort into developing that talent from a young age. The decline of the British empire following WW2 didn't help either as we've not got many other places to cherry pick talent from as is the case with some footballing nations

  32. This is a mirror contrast case of the Brasileirão.

  33. If you wanna know if quotas help the national team, ask my countrymen, the Turkish.

    There was a quota for years, and we sucked regardless. Only now that quota is lifted, young ones go abroad and they face better competition, national team is starting to rebuild.

  34. It's simple: wage caps for younger players. If it set to a level where mid to low ranked premier league teams and teams abroad would be willing to pay, young players would have no reason to sit in the reserves/academies of the big teams and would move elsewhere for game time. Gradually increase the wage cap every year of age until maybe 22/23 where there is no cap.

  35. Do a video about how the EU is the 4th reich

  36. Protectionism doesn't work, especially in highly compitive areas. If the Premier League would be to discriminate against foreign players in order to giver their native players more playtime, though their native players doesn't have deserverd it, it would lead to a less competive league and therefore even those native players, who made it to the starting positions would suffer because of less competive competition. On the other hand if you allow only the best to play, those who play are playing against the best wich in return results in better players. Protecting the weak would only harm the English national team.

  37. The way things are going because of the EU there wont be any indigenous home grown national teams anymore they will all be bastardized…

  38. Young English players should look to play abroad, even champions league teams such as Celtic, Ajax, Dortmund, Lyon. Its still high quality but just a differnt culture. All the foreigners do it in regards to playing in Europe, look at Brazil, Argentina, France, Spain and even Germany

  39. I disagree with some aspects of this video: The National Team hasn’t had a lot of success partially due to the FA when choosing names instead of talent and the fact that after Bobby Robson, we’ve yet to have a decent manager until Gareth Southgate. Also, when the Great English players first broke into their teams at the start of the PL, The volume of foreign players coming into the league wasn’t as high so they had a chance to develop in their own domestic league. Look how many good Dutch players there are, the Eredivisie is a weak league but because their youngsters have a fairly big chance of playing regularly they can improve and show their abilities. Some people have used Sancho as an example, do you not see that if Manchester City didn’t have practically an entire squad of foreign players that he would have been able to showcase his ability in the PL? We have so many talented players that will never get a chance and it’s wrong.

  40. This is a very backward way of thinking. The most technically gifted and intellectualy capable English player right now is Sterling and that is because he plays with the best of Europe. If anything this way of thinking is just quite racist.

  41. I'm just glad Gerrard said that 10 years ago and not now. He'd be wrongfully labelled a racist today.

  42. Lol from the title you know they made this video out of annoyance 😂😂

  43. The idea that the lack of a winter break negatively effects the Premier League teams is a red herring. How is it advantageous to play more games later in the season like they do in Spain? It's better to get the matches over with when there's no Champions League football, i.e. late December and January.

  44. It's simple… invest in the English youth and stop giving a crap about the players from outside of England

  45. Because brexit ain't good for no one

  46. Foreign players definitely improve the youth teams as well, there are loads of young players coming up who will benefit from the high standard of competition in the prem

  47. there is no development is English football. Teams don't rely on their academies. They just buy players when it suits them. Most off the big teams are owned by foreign billionairs who don't care about the clubs. they just see them as financial assets. The Premier League is there to make money.

  48. The win percentage statistics are nonsense. So many more lesser countries play in tournaments now.

  49. English football demands too much sustained violent competition over the longest competitive season at its top level. Its stars burn out of fuel around 25 or 26 and they decline a lot earlier without experiencing different tactics and playstyles except for rare anomalies like Owen Hargreaves. Plus no room for youth development due to short term commodification.

  50. This was a really interesting video. Thanks for taking the time to make it!

  51. look at Champions league and europe league now, 4 English teams in the final

  52. Can you just take up politics already, One of the few commentaries on brexit without all the smoke and mirrors

  53. No English clubs should just give more English kids a chance instead of paying silly money for players who are over rated like 90m for pogba we have kids in England that would do a better job utd are the perfect example of stupidity we need a rule to have a certain amount of British players in our leagues everywhere else does

  54. I've been saying this for years.. so many people put the blame on England winning nothing on foreigners in the PL. Yet I remember very well the old first division and the early days of the PL. Squads were full to the brim with average to mediocre English players who never got anywhere near the national team. We did have an abundance of strikers at the time (it still made no difference) but we were no better off quality wise in any other department. The England team was about as good then as it now, sometimes good sometimes crap, usually somewhere in between. The only thing that's changed since foreigners have come is the quality of the PL which has risen hugely.

  55. English players are just too expensive. For the same quality, players from africa or eastern europe are half if not a third of the price of english players.

  56. Maybe other teams are better 🤷🏻‍♂️

  57. Man your map of the EU was old.

  58. We had the referendum in 2016 and England got to the Semi Finals of the world cup during the Brexit which equalled our best performance in more than 50 years. Plus English teams totally dominated European competitions this year. Maybe we should just have constant Brexit. This video is total garbage probably being paid for by Tony Blair or George Soros. The people who made it should be ashamed.

  59. Look at what happened in Russia, unmotivated players with huge salaries

  60. But football is a completely different sport from 1968 to what it is in 1998.its like comparing 100 meter runners in 1968 to runners we have now, it's a different sport with different rules. And to ignore the 1966 win is done so just to prove a point

  61. Foreign players are causing a problem buts it not a problem bthat protectionism will solve. Teams are reliant on the foreign players coming in on the transfer market that the youth talent is neglected. Managers only stay t a club 2 to 4 years max so no long term strategy nis ever implemented for the health of team in perpetuity. Youth academy's are little more than additional income for clubs through loans m

  62. English player aren’t good enough. Just look at Young 😂😂

  63. The golden generation underperformed because the fa consistently chose bad managers playing dinosaur tactics, fa trying to cover up their stupidity as per usual

  64. I don't care. The protection of our children is more important than football

  65. well…england reached the semi in world cup 2018, three english clubs have been in the champions league final from 2018–2019,(liverpool being there twice) and tottenham, which have english players ,like trent alexander arnold, milner, kane, dier, danny rose, raheem sterling, kyle walker. So I dont really see a difference between this england side and the so called golden generation. If anything they are the same. The golden generation couldnt even qualify for the euro 2008, and got embarrassed at the 2010 world cup. We got a lucky group and fixtures for the 2018 world cup to get to the semi. Brexit or not I dont see it affecting the quality of the england national team.

  66. Brexit is good for the country as a whole

  67. Shut the fuck up, fucking leftist.

  68. With the massive stride in sports sciences these days i can see England probably do just as well or better in europe there has always been great English players. Brexit would massively help england, scotland,wales.

  69. Incredibly one-sided pro-EU account here. Total nonsense, to be honest.

  70. This video is wrong and it is very simple to see why: it's not only the premier league with too much foreigners, it's also the championship and leagues one and two. Only rubbish or financially broken teams that rely on english players.

  71. If Kane wins the Nation's League, he'll be Prime Minister…

  72. Good enough for the black and tan bastards………………………….to the English CUNTS that don't know what the black and tans were………Google it.pricks

  73. More players in the premier league from other European countries isn't the reason why the national team has suffered.The national team has suffered for over 50 years.When we won the world cup in 1966 there was no sudden surge in foreign players playing for English clubs,barely any and in 1974 we did even qualify for the tournament.The real problem is misspent use of money in the national team since 1966,the pig-headedness of the FA,the introduction of the premier league in 1992 and the under development of coaching staff not just players.All these have been factors.

  74. It will be better for the British game.

  75. The reason that Germany has a longer February break is simply because they play 34 not 38 games. Along with that, England has the Carabao Cup and FA Cup where as the other big countries only have 1 other bigger cup. (excluding things like the community shield etc.)

  76. Problem is money. English youngsters need a wage cap and need to go abroad instead of bench warming to steal a living. Look at Nelson, Sancho, not amazing but great future prospects simply because they got the chance in a foreign place.

  77. Sorry, Neymar would cost an extra 30 million quid because of some extra paperwork?

  78. So… they say in the "english period" they were weaker, while conveniently creating arbitrary reasons to discount a semifinal and a fucking world cup victory? Im not sure how that makes sense. That being said though overall its obviously better to allow competition from foreign players. Ligue 1 is a fucking dumpsterfire for every team that isnt PSG (or Monaco for a time, but that clearly didnt last) but France has one of the strongest national teams with the most depth because its players are allowed to excel and develope around the world. Same with Brazil, which also has a shit domestic league.

  79. All footballers are the same a bunch of greedy bastards in recent years I've yet to see a player play for the love of the game more like the love of the paycheck

  80. You'll be fine ding dongs

  81. Oh good!
    England will always need an excuse for their onfield performances.

  82. Well, unfortunately this was (unusually) one sided and uncritical (a pitty because I love this channel). It just adopts the flaws of economic theory (I am a former student of economics and statistics): It implicitely makes unreasonable assumptions without communicating them. Thus, it appears logical, but if you take a closer look on the assumptions themselves – It is not. The problems are the following:

    The video and the authors of soccernomics put all responsibility on the individual player by assuming the only "factor of production" of players is what the authors call "motivation". This "motivation" is linked to training effort and it is assumed that it can only be increased by raising psychological pressure due to higher competition via foreign players. This economic model of player production seems questionable. Furthermore, the presented empirical arguments suffer from logical fallacies. In more detail:
    First, one could argue that the production of a player is influenced by more than just one factor. It seems more reasonable to assume that it also depends on the quality of coaches, quality of training infrastructure and the socio-psychological environment that players face.
    Quotas are likely to raise the motivation of clubs to invest in their academies for young players and make them buy better coaches, better training grounds etc.. With the assumption of the authors this does not play any role in the production of players because only training effort itself counts. Additionally, the claim "Quotas harm motivation" is rather strong. Is it really the case that a young player thinks about quotas and therefore reduces training effort? Is psychological pressure the only way to make young player train? Is lending a very young boy to club far abroad not a much a higher risk to cause a lack of motivation due to psychological factors?
    Second, the presented statistics are rather superficial. The authors implicitely claim that the correlation between "world cup success" and "number of foreign players" is logically a causality. Is this true? To me, it seems more reasonable that the driving factor behind world cup success is "Overall national investment in education of players". As these investments happened to exhibit a parallel developement compared to "number of foreign players", a statistic can be constructed that shows the correlation that the authors present. However, by this logic you could also claim that the reason for englands world cup success is the "number of personal computers within england", as both seems to show parallel developement. So, correlation does not mean causality.

    My personal guess is, that the authors of soccernomics are "classic anglo-american economists" that cheer free markets relentlessly. Thus, they constructed an explanotary model "from the end", such that by defintion of the assumption, it MUST reaffirm the notion that any intervention is always bad, no matter what you aim at. This may seem conspiratorial from the outside but if you get in touch with some professors of economic theory, the dogmatic and overarching attempt to make everything fit their ideology is not unusual.


  84. One thing that is never mentioned in this argument is the reluctance of English players to play abroad

  85. You need to get your facts right it’s not just English players it will include Scottish Northren Irish & Walsh players as well will all be added in Premier League teams

    So you are wrong just saying England it’s UK players get your facts right

  86. Excellent video, very informative and I wholly agree with its conclusions. But you got the labels for the Soccernomics guys the wrong way round!

  87. The reason with English national team is that their squad is filled with all premier league based players,now what does this mean?It means that these group of players are all exposed to the same football environment,intensity and mentality,they would be better if more English players played across diff European leagues


  89. Project fucking fear at its most

  90. The fundamental problem with English people and Brexit is the inability to differentiate between "England" and the "UK" … Normally, Im a fan of your videos Tifo Football, but why no mention of Scottish football and Welsh and Northern Ireland … all those three (2 of which that voted against Brexit) are getting dragged out against their will, but are not worthy of a mention in this whole entire video. Shameful at least, arrogant at best.

  91. Last four WC Champions were from EU nations (Italy, Spain, Germany, France) – No one has any reason to believe Brexit could in any way, shape or form improve the status of England's national team on the world's stage.

  92. Oh my lord this is the most funist video i have every seen only needs Jimmy carr to pop up and it would win a Bafta. Lets look at English teams in Europe. 1962-63 to 1970-71 English teams won the Cup winners cup 4 times 2 more than any other country with mainly British players. Or how about Englands Domination of the European cup from 1977-82 6 succeessive times a record with only the 1982-83 won by a European club with Liverpool retain the European cup the following season . Heysel stadium disaster bring ir all to a holt for five years again all done with mainly British players . Leaves one thinking how long the Domination of the European cup would of lasted if Heysel didnt happen.

  93. Also lets not forget that European clubs chased our best players starting with greats such as John Charles followed by Gerry Hitchens,Dennis law and Jimmy Greavis . From 1977 flood gates opened wirh British players going to European clubs starting with Kevin Keegan who was soon followed by the likea of Laurie Cunningham, Trevor Francis,Ray Wilkins,Greame Sounes,John Barnes,Mark Hately,Glen Hoddle and Waddle not forgetting IanRush,Mark Hughes,Liam Brady,Duncan Mckenzie,Steve Archibald,Tony woodcock these players werent replaced by overseas players but Brirish players.

  94. Brexit means Brexit

  95. Yea I had the English football team in mind when I voted for brexit lol cmonn

  96. Brexit means brexit

  97. don’t even worry about it, the political elite view you as a nuisance and won’t honor your decisions, it doesn’t help reach their goal of european genocide by 2100 so you might as well not have even voted

Comment here