Est. 3min 31-05-2005 (updated: 29-01-2010 ) Euractiv is part of the Trust Project >>> Languages: DeutschPrint Email Facebook X LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram UEFA’s ‘home grown’ player rule may well end up in litigation, says law professor Dr Richard Parrish . Even though the quota is neutral in terms of nationality it is clear the intention of the rule is to indirectly discriminate on the grounds of nationality, he argues. UEFA’s ‘home grown’ player rule may well end up in litigation. Even though the quota is neutral in terms of nationality it is clear the intention of the rule is to indirectly discriminate on the grounds of nationality. We should remember that in Bosman the ECJ established that non-discriminatory restrictions can breach Article 39 (free movement of workers) if they limit market access for workers (players) wishing to ply their trade in another member state. The suggestion that this rule is of sporting interest only is also not supported by case law (Bosman). Nevertheless, each case should be judged on its merits and we cannot automatically assume that all attempts to promote the development of home grown players in sport are doomed. Take cricket for instance. Attempts by the English and Wales Cricket Board to encourage the fielding of English qualified players through the use of financial inducements to field English players may appear to be similarly discriminatory. However, a critical issue is the impact of the free market on the national team. In football all European countries play the sport. English players denied opportunities due to the number of overseas players can seek employment elsewhere in the EU. The English football manager can, and does, pick players who play throughout Europe. This is not the case in cricket where reciprocal arrangements do not exist as England is the only major player of the sport. English qualified cricket players squeezed to the margins by overseas players (particularly ‘Kolpak’ players) thus have no other European market within which to ply their trade. The consequences of this on the performance of the national team may be significant, although one should not forget the tendency in English cricket to naturalise talented overseas players. Nevertheless, cricket also differs from football in the sense that the financial health of club sport is dependant on the success of the national team. Consequently, the very foundations of cricket could conceivably be affected by a free labour market in a way not experienced in football. Cricket could thus claim that their objective of protecting the game at all levels is legitimate and the measures adopted to achieve this are proportionate. Richard Parrish Reader in Law Edge Hill, UK Dr Parrish is the author of ‘Sports Law and Policy in the European Union’, Manchester University Press (2003).
